DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the document which was last submitted to you,
L-61, from Saarlandstrasse, is not in the original, but it contains the
words: “Signed, Sauckel.” The Defendant Sauckel has informed me that it
is possible he did not sign it himself, but that he may have been
informed, in a general way only, that there were letters about one thing
and another—routine office correspondence—and he might have given
authority for them to be signed. Is that possible?
TIMM: It was like this; the departments in Saarlandstrasse...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, did Sauckel state that in evidence, or are
you telling us simply what he said to you? Do you remember?
DR. SERVATIUS: I cannot say exactly whether he stated that here.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on then.
DR. SERVATIUS: [_Turning to the witness._] Answer the question.
TIMM: Yes. As Sauckel continued to exercise his functions as Gauleiter
in Weimar, it sometimes happened that things did not reach him. The
sections in Saarlandstrasse submitted their drafts to the personal
adviser in Thuringia House, and it is quite possible—as I know from my
own knowledge of conditions—that the contents of the drafts were
transmitted by telephone, and that the personal advisers were authorized
to sign the name of the Plenipotentiary General.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the mail so extensive that he did not take exact
cognizance of individual letters?
TIMM: That is hard for me to judge.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is enough. One more question:
Führer—Sauckel—Speer. Is it true that the Defendant Sauckel told you
that the Führer had ordered him to fulfill all Speer’s demands?
TIMM: I do not know whether exactly such a statement was made.
DR. SERVATIUS: We have shown you the document in which Laval complains
about the conduct of the German authorities. Did this complaint refer to
Sauckel’s activities, or was it not that he had told Sauckel of these
complaints and was thanking him personally for his attitude?
TIMM: I recall from the talks with Laval, that Laval repeatedly
expressed his gratitude to Sauckel for having put into effect measures
and means for facilitating matters which he had suggested. Laval
attached special importance—to use his own expression—to putting the
climate and the atmosphere in order, and to having talks with Hitler
himself as soon as possible; and he asked Sauckel to pave the way for
him. As far as I know, Sauckel did actually arrange for talks of this
kind and Laval thanked him for doing so.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions for this witness.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The job of the GBA was to get workmen to
replace the men who had been taken into the Army out of industry. That
was largely your work, was it not?
TIMM: The task of the GBA was much more comprehensive, as previously all
the tasks...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I understand, but that was part of your
work, was it not?
TIMM: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right. Now, you were therefore told
beforehand the number of people that the Army was taking out of
industry, weren’t you, so you could make up your estimates?
TIMM: The numbers were adjusted in the Central Planning Board. It was
precisely the task of the Central Planning Board, that the plans made in
the OKW...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. I don’t care who examined the
figures, but your organization certainly had knowledge of the needs of
the Army, of the number of people the Army was taking out of industry.
You had to have that information, had you not?
TIMM: The number of men to be drafted was reported to the Central
Planning Board.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right, reported to the Central Planning
Board. Now then, they were taking people out of industry also who were
not needed for the Army, weren’t they? I mean Jews. They were taking
Jewish people out of industry, were they not? Sauckel said yesterday
that Jewish people were being taken out of industry. You admit that,
don’t you?
TIMM: Yes. Jews were eliminated from industry.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right; and I suppose the Central Planning
Board was given the number of Jewish people that were taken out of
industry, were they not?
TIMM: I do not know that. In the conferences at which I was present...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you not assume that that must have been
the case, if they had to find the number of replacements. It must have
been so, mustn’t it?
TIMM: I cannot judge as to that because I learned only the total number
of men to be drafted, independently of the Jewish question. I will not
venture an opinion; I do not know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you not know that Himmler and the SS told
the Central Planning Board the number of Jews that were being taken out
of industry for whom replacements were needed? You know that as a fact,
don’t you?
TIMM: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You do not?
TIMM: No. I know only that we received certain statements from the
Reichsführer SS that people were being taken out of industry, and owing
to the objections of the Plenipotentiary General, who had to supply the
replacements—I remember that this measure was partly withdrawn.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And you do know that one of the duties of the
Reichsführer SS was to withdraw Jews from industry? You know that?
TIMM: I know from statements in reports that Jews were to be withdrawn
from industry.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire and the Tribunal will adjourn.
[_A recess was taken._]
[_The witness Hildebrandt took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
HUBERT HILDEBRANDT (Witness): Hubert Hildebrandt.
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 were working in the office of Sauckel, is
that correct?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: You were subordinate to Timm. What was your special
field?
HILDEBRANDT: In the Reich Ministry of Labor from 1930 I dealt with
questions concerning labor for the iron and metal industry, the chemical
industry, and the textile industry. After 1940 I also dealt with
questions concerning workers in the West.
DR. SERVATIUS: Regional questions in the West?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes; in France, Belgium, and Holland; some of those
questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: You must remember to pause before you answer. Did you
have any general idea about what happened in Sauckel’s office?
HILDEBRANDT: No; I did not.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you participated in the staff conferences?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes; I was present at most of those.
DR. SERVATIUS: And in that way you found out, to a certain extent, about
what happened in other offices?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: I want to ask you especially about conditions in France.
What was the position of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation
of Labor in France?
HILDEBRANDT: The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor in
France, just as in other occupied countries, had appointed special
deputies who transmitted his wishes, and helped to carry out these
wishes and these tasks. The organization of the entire labor strength
from the occupied western territories remained in the hands of the
German military or civil administrative offices there.
DR. SERVATIUS? So he did not have an organization of his own?
HILDEBRANDT: The first deputy in France tried to establish an
organization of his own, but after a short time he met with the
opposition of the German administrative offices, and the offices which
he had established in the meantime were taken over by the military
commander.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the military commander?
HILDEBRANDT: The military commander was and remained responsible for the
entire allocation of the labor in his district, and also for the labor
sent from his district to Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the German Embassy?
HILDEBRANDT: The German Embassy took the leading part in all
negotiations which were to be carried out by the Plenipotentiary General
or his deputies, with French Government offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the French Government as regards
the allocation of labor?
HILDEBRANDT: The French Government made agreements with the
Plenipotentiary General concerning the carrying out of his programs, and
ordered its own offices to carry out certain tasks, especially when
compulsory labor was introduced in France. It published the necessary
decrees and gave the necessary directives to the subordinate offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who had the executive power to recruit labor? Was
that done by the French or the Germans?
HILDEBRANDT: One must distinguish between two periods. When it was still
a question of recruiting volunteers, until the fall of 1942 these
volunteers could report to German offices as well as to French offices;
and also to recruiting offices which had been established by German
firms, and some by branches of the Wehrmacht. After the introduction of
compulsory labor, the administrative executive for the carrying out of
the decrees rested solely with the French authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what happened when somebody did not report?
HILDEBRANDT: Then a first summons to appear was received from the French
authorities, and then repeated summonses, and if these proved to be
unsuccessful the French authorities called in the French police.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were those who did not come brought before the courts?
HILDEBRANDT: I assume that that may have happened sometimes. I do not
know for certain.
DR. SERVATIUS: German or French courts?
HILDEBRANDT: French courts, according to French regulations.
DR. SERVATIUS: What would be your estimate of the number of voluntary
workers who came from France to Germany?
HILDEBRANDT: The number of voluntary workers from France, until the
middle of 1942—but I can only give approximate figures from memory...
DR. SERVATIUS: Please, just the approximate figure.
HILDEBRANDT: Something over 200,000. After the compulsory labor decree
had been introduced in the course of 1942, there were still voluntary
recruitments as well on a fairly large scale. The number of volunteers
was, at times, considerably larger than the number of conscripts, so
that altogether more than half of all the labor recruited in France
consisted of volunteers. It is noticeable that women were only recruited
if they volunteered. There was no compulsory service for them. With
regard to the compulsory labor assignments moreover, it must be pointed
out that a number of them were only formal. In reality these people had
come voluntarily, but for economic reasons, or out of consideration for
their relatives and friends in their home towns, they attached
importance to being conscripted. We had compulsory labor assignments
which were only put on an official basis afterwards. Such requests
reached the German labor offices especially during the last months
before the end of the war; and the Foreign Office requested the
Plenipotentiary General to approve such demands, and that was done.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you hear anything in your department about recruiting
measures such as the surrounding of churches, cinemas, and similar
places in France?
HILDEBRANDT: No; I do not know of any such recruiting measure. I know
that in France, as well as in Belgium, identity papers were controlled
among members of the age groups which had been called up to register.
DR. SERVATIUS: You were also probably in Paris, and you spoke to the
German authorities there; is that right?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes. Every time I was in Paris I took the opportunity to
talk to members of the offices about current events.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they not tell you about things which must have
surprised you?
HILDEBRANDT: With each major task we carried out we had some
difficulties, of course, and certain excesses. Once it was reported to
me, among other things, that there were impossible conditions in the
“Pépinière”—a camp, a kind of transit camp for people who had to leave.
These conditions were reported immediately to the Town Major of Paris
who remedied matters. Then there were irregularities in the recruiting
in Marseille, where recruiting agents used blackmail. This was also
stopped immediately.
Beyond that, a fairly large number of individual cases were brought to
me. These were minor difficulties about vacations, salaries, and so
forth, which I transmitted each time to the competent offices for
further action.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it part of your official duties to follow these
things up?
HILDEBRANDT: As far as they came within my sphere, I took the necessary
steps immediately. As far as it was the business of other departments I
immediately transferred them to those departments for further attention.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I did not ask what you did, but whether it was
your official duty to look after these things.
HILDEBRANDT: The general problems of recruiting and statistical checking
of programs came within my field of duty. Questions of housing, pay, and
transport were dealt with by other departments. Of course, when I found
out about bad conditions it was my duty to investigate them at once, if
only in the interests of further recruiting.
We considered it of the greatest importance that every abuse should be
stopped immediately, because it was only in this way that further
recruiting of volunteers could be guaranteed. Labor conscription was
therefore looked on as a last resort.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I would like to know whether it was your
official duty, or your moral duty to look after these things?
HILDEBRANDT: In this case it was my moral duty as well as my official
duty.
DR. SERVATIUS: As regards the way transports were effected, I have one
question. Mention has been made of irregularities on transports. That is
why I would like you to tell us what steps you took to have the
transports that came from France supervised and directed. Can you
describe that briefly?
HILDEBRANDT: A special department was created in the office of the
military commander in France for the carrying out of transports. For
each man who went to Germany, it was already settled to what firm he was
to be sent. The recruiting was effected on the basis of planned
contracts and definite working conditions, so that it was known what
route could be chosen for the journey. Transports were assembled to
include as many as possible, so that a definite number of workers would
go in the same direction and to the same firm.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, these details are of less interest to me than
the question of how you conducted these transports and kept a check on
them when something irregular happened on the way.
HILDEBRANDT: In giving a few details, I only wanted to indicate that
there was a detailed check made of every person intended for Germany.
For each transport there was an exact list of the persons and of the
firms to which they were sent. The transports were given guides who
brought them to their destination, and there they were turned over to
the presidents of the regional labor offices whose duty it was to take
further care of them.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to put a concrete case to you. A case has
been reported here of a transport train which was left in the Saar
district, and when it was opened, after a few days, most of the people
had been frozen to death. Did you have control of such trains? Should
that have been reported to you? Could that train have been sent upon
your orders? How do you explain that?
HILDEBRANDT: Such an incident would have become known to us immediately.
As the coming of transports was reported beforehand to the presidents of
the regional labor offices, we were informed immediately when they did
not arrive. That happened frequently, namely, when difficulties arose
because of some emergency on the way, and a transport was held up—for
instance, in the last days of the war, when traffic obstructions caused
by bomb damage had to be cleared away, and so on. We could then
immediately have inquiries made concerning the transports, which was
always done. I know nothing of the case which you have just mentioned.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you must speak more slowly. The interpreters
cannot possibly follow.
Will you state your opinion as to the incident, which I have described,
of the train with the people who froze to death in the Saar district.
HILDEBRANDT: The incident could not possibly have occurred on transports
of labor recruits. The transports were well prepared.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have said that before.
HILDEBRANDT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: How do you explain then, the case of that transport?
HILDEBRANDT: I learned for the first time through the press during the
last few months that the SS also conducted transports to Germany, and
that conditions such as you have just described are said to have been
present.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, were you present during the negotiations between
Sauckel and Laval?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes, I was frequently present.
DR. SERVATIUS: In what kind of atmosphere were these negotiations
conducted?
HILDEBRANDT: These negotiations were conducted in a friendly manner; but
occasionally, especially when promises on the part of the French
Government had not been kept, quite violent disputes occurred. Any real
difficulties, however, did not as a rule arise during these
negotiations. Arrangements were made concerning the number of people who
were to be sent to Germany. As a matter of principle, Laval was always
willing to put manpower at the disposal of Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what, in particular, were the relations between Laval
and Sauckel? Did Laval speak well of Sauckel or not?
HILDEBRANDT: M. Laval expressed his gratitude from time to time for the
way in which things had been made easier for France, too. For instance,
as regards the status of French prisoners of war, the permission given
to the wives of French workmen to visit their husbands, and the taking
over of welfare work for the relatives of the French workmen in Germany.
All these things, as I have said, took the form of agreements whereby
one party put labor at the disposal of the other party, and that party
in return gave back manpower or granted other advantages. Laval
certainly expressed repeatedly his urgent wish to do more for Germany if
he could only be given political advantages for it. Therefore, he asked
the Plenipotentiary General repeatedly to make it possible for him to
have discussions with the Führer in order to create a favorable
atmosphere in France for further efforts.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did these friendly relations prevail until the end?
HILDEBRANDT: Until the last negotiation, which I think took place at the
end of 1944.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I believe the question of relève and
“transformation” has been clarified sufficiently, so that I need not
question the witness about it again.
[_Turning to the witness._] Witness, in what manner did the negotiations
with the German military commander take place? Did Sauckel give orders
there? Was he the highest authority, or was it the military commander?
HILDEBRANDT: The negotiations were never carried out in the form of a
transmission of orders. The Plenipotentiary General described the
situation in Germany and what needs...
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you can be very brief.
HILDEBRANDT: I only want to say the following: Of course, the military
commander, as was the case with the civil administration in Holland, was
more interested in receiving orders to be filled than in sending
manpower to Germany, and that led to conflict. The authorities, however,
had to be convinced in each instance that manpower must be sent to
Germany—for agricultural work, for example, which could not be done in
Holland, and also for a number of branches of the German armaments
industry.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, a few questions now concerning Belgium and
Northern France: Was the position of Sauckel as regards the chief
authorities there the same as in France on the whole; and was everything
conducted similarly, or were there any differences?
HILDEBRANDT: No, the conditions were the same as in France, only that
the deputies of the Plenipotentiary General were, from the very
beginning, incorporated into the military administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive any reports or discover anything yourself
about irregularities in that territory?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes. There were isolated cases of irregularities. For
instance, I was informed one day that reprisals were to be taken against
relatives of members of age groups who had not appeared when they were
called up. We stopped that immediately by discussing the matter with the
representatives of the military commander.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how did Sauckel negotiate with the military commander
there?
HILDEBRANDT: He also told him what he wanted. Von Falkenhausen was, of
course, also interested in the first place in having orders for the
German armaments industry carried out in Belgium; but it was also agreed
that manpower should be sent to Germany. He certainly made frequent
efforts to protect students, school children, and members of younger age
groups.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I will show you the minutes of an interrogation
of General Von Falkenhausen on 27 November 1945. I want you to look at a
few sentences. If you take Page 2, you will find there in the middle of
the page, in answer to the question: “Is the witness in a position...”
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the document?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is Document Number RF-15.
[_Turning to the witness._] It is the following question:
“Is the witness in a position to define to us the limitations of
his powers and the competence of the administration for the
Allocation of Labor?”
Answer by General Von Falkenhausen:
“Up to a certain time there was a labor office in my territory
which was concerned with the recruiting of voluntary workers. I
cannot remember the exact date any longer—it may have been in
the fall of 1942—when the labor office was put under Sauckel;
and from then on I had only to carry out the orders I received
from him.”
Is this position of the military commander in relation to Sauckel
correct?
HILDEBRANDT: It is not quite correct in several points. In Belgium there
was not just one labor office, but a number of labor offices which dealt
with the recruiting of volunteers, and also a number of recruiting
offices which worked with them. But from the very beginning these labor
organizations worked under the supervision of the Feldkommandanturen in
Belgium. These Feldkommandanturen were offices of the military
commander. There was no question of the Plenipotentiary General taking
over the work. Before he appointed his deputies he could only send his
requests directly to the military administration, to General Von
Falkenhausen, but not directly to a labor office.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the conditions in Holland? Who was the
competent district head there?
HILDEBRANDT: It was the Reich Commissioner.
DR. SERVATIUS: And was there a deputy of Sauckel’s with him?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes, a deputy was appointed there too, who was a member of
the administration of the Reich Commissioner.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who issued the labor service decrees there?
HILDEBRANDT: The Reich Commissioner.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who carried out the recruiting? German or Dutch
offices?
HILDEBRANDT: As far as I remember there were Dutch labor offices. The
heads of these labor offices were Germans; the rest of the personnel was
mainly Dutch. These offices took the necessary steps for the allocation
of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I have one more question concerning Germany. The
metal industries came into your field, did they not?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Krupp, for instance.
HILDEBRANDT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of reports did you receive about conditions in
the Krupp works as far as the welfare of the workmen was concerned?
HILDEBRANDT: I had no unfavorable reports about Krupp. The personal
adviser of the Plenipotentiary General, Landrat Berk, visited the Krupp
works frequently and informed me of the requests made by the firm and of
the impressions he had received, but he never said that proper care was
not taken of foreign workmen. I myself never visited the Krupp firm
during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions for the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the German counsel want to ask questions?
Prosecution?
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, we have the same problems here. The Tribunal
has already heard explanations on these points. The Tribunal is in
possession of the documents which I have submitted, and I have,
therefore, no questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
DR. SERVATIUS: Then with the permission of the Tribunal, I will call the
witness Stothfang.
[_The witness Stothfang took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Would you state your full name?
WALTER STOTHFANG (Witness): Walter Stothfang.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat these words 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, what was your position with Sauckel?
STOTHFANG: I was personal adviser to the Plenipotentiary General for the
Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: When did you assume that position?
STOTHFANG: One year after the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation
of Labor had assumed office; that was on 19 April 1943.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the witness Timm there when you came?
STOTHFANG: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: And the witness Hildebrandt?
STOTHFANG: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What orders did you receive when you came?
STOTHFANG: The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor did
not give any special personal directives because his general principles
could be clearly seen in his decrees and in his program, and I only
started work 1 year later.
DR. SERVATIUS: Before that, had you already been in the Ministry of
Labor?
STOTHFANG: Yes, I had been connected with that type of work since 1926;
and for the last 8 years I was the personal assistant of State Secretary
Dr. Syrup in the Ministry of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it a considerable change when you came to Sauckel?
STOTHFANG: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did your colleagues in the office tell you about the
whole work, and Sauckel’s attitude to the work?
STOTHFANG: The work, as such, was carried out according to principles
and decrees which were not essentially different to previous ones. In
practice of course, they were much more far reaching than anything
hitherto.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you work very closely with Sauckel in your sphere?
You were his personal assistant.
STOTHFANG: As far as that was necessary for carrying out the task of the
Plenipotentiary General for the war effort. Sauckel was not only
Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, but at the same
time he had remained Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter in Thuringia.
Besides that, during the last 1½ years of his activities, he was very
much occupied with the construction of an underground factory in Kahle,
in Thuringia; so that he...
DR. SERVATIUS: We will come back to that later.
STOTHFANG: ...could only be in Berlin from time to time; at the most 1
day a week, and often only half a day.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was your task as his personal adviser?
STOTHFANG: We had to receive incoming mail, sort out what had to be
reported, and pass on the rest to the competent departments. We also had
to submit newly arrived drafts to the Plenipotentiary General.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who called staff conferences? Do you know that?
STOTHFANG: That was generally done by the office.
DR. SERVATIUS: You always attended these conferences?
STOTHFANG: Yes, from the time I first came into the office.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you participate in conferences to which individual
members returned from so-called inspection trips and made their reports?
STOTHFANG: Later that no longer happened or only very seldom. It was
only in the beginning.
DR. SERVATIUS: That you were present, or that inspection trips took
place?
STOTHFANG: No; that reports were made.
DR. SERVATIUS: There were fewer reports later?
STOTHFANG: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the reason for that?
STOTHFANG: I do not know the reason.
DR. SERVATIUS: During the period when you were present, did you learn of
anything particularly shocking as regards irregularities in Germany? We
will include transports to Germany, transit camps, the work shops
themselves, the camps, and the factories.
STOTHFANG: I myself found out about some irregularities on the occasion
of inspection trips which I made on orders, but these were at once
discussed with the competent offices and steps were taken to put a stop
to them.
DR. SERVATIUS: Sauckel had to work with a number of offices. Was there
any special opposition to overcome here?
STOTHFANG: With the exception of two cases, no.
DR. SERVATIUS: What cases were these?
STOTHFANG: One was the Party Chancellery; and the other was the
Reichsführer SS and Chief of the Secret State Police.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know of specific instances in the case of the
Reichsführer SS?
STOTHFANG: The general treatment of foreign workers—particularly of
those coming from the East—as far as it was determined by the
Reichsführer SS or the principles laid down by the Reichsführer SS, was
contrary to the ideas of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation
of Labor. The Reichsführer SS was not inclined to meet the far-reaching,
definite demands of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of
Labor. The same thing happened, in other directions, in the case of the
head of the Party Chancellery.
DR. SERVATIUS: In what directions?
STOTHFANG: For example, where social insurance was concerned. In this
case the Party Chancellery was of the opinion that equality with German
workers was not justified on either practical or political grounds; nor
was as high a rate of pay.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what did Sauckel say to that?
STOTHFANG: He tried, again and again, to regulate all these matters
according to his principles. In some things he was definitely
unsuccessful, and in others he was successful only after great efforts.
I would remind you of the equal status given to the Eastern Workers
which was actually only put into effect in March 1945 through a decree.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive any special reports from the Gauleiter
who were appointed deputies for the Allocation of Labor, or did you
speak to the Gauleiter?
STOTHFANG: There were instructions that on inspection trips the
competent Gauleiter of the district visited had to be seen, so that any
relevant questions could be discussed with him.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you take part in meetings of the Central Planning
Board?
STOTHFANG: I went to one single meeting of the Central Planning Board
with the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have just mentioned March 1945 as the date
when the Eastern Workers were given equality with the rest of the
workers. Are you not mistaken in the year—1944? I will show you the
decree.
STOTHFANG: As far as I remember, it was March 1945.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I will have it shown to the witness in a
moment; we are looking for it.
[_Turning to the witness._] What was the relationship between Speer and
Sauckel?
STOTHFANG: Apparently the appointment of the Plenipotentiary General for
the Allocation of Labor was due to a suggestion which Minister Speer had
made to the Führer.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer to Document 58, in Document Book Number 2, Page
167 of the German text, and Page 156 of the English text. That is the
decree concerning the conditions of employment of Eastern Workers, of 25
March 1944, and I read Paragraph 2:
“Wages.
“For Eastern Workers the same conditions apply for wages and
salary as for other foreign workers. Eastern Workers are paid
wages only for work they actually do.”
THE PRESIDENT: How did the wages compare with the wages of the German
workers?
STOTHFANG: It was a fundamental rule that they must be based on the
German wages for the same type of work, in order to avoid additional
profits for the industries which employed Eastern Workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you remember a conference at which Goebbels stated his
opinion to Sauckel as regards the latter’s policy concerning social
questions and questions of wages?
STOTHFANG: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Can you describe it to us?
STOTHFANG: I myself did not take part in that conference. I only knew
about it from the description given by my colleague Dr. Hildebrandt, who
was present at the meeting with Gauleiter Sauckel.
It was the first discussion between the two gentlemen after Reich
Minister Goebbels had become Reich Plenipotentiary for Total War Effort.
At this conference Minister Speer was also present, and in the course of
the conference Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels reproached the
Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor with the fact his
previous measures...
THE PRESIDENT: He is now telling us, is he not, what Hildebrandt told
him?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Hildebrandt has been in the witness box and he has
not been asked about it.
DR. SERVATIUS: There has been confusion of the two witnesses. They
arrived only a short time ago. I ask permission for this witness to say
what Hildebrandt told him. It can be explained by the fact that the
witness was here for only a very short time.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal does not think that you ought
to be allowed to ask him that question.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there any difficulties with Speer?
STOTHFANG: Not at the beginning. In the course of years difficulties
arose because of the fundamentally different ideas of the two men.
THE PRESIDENT: We have had the relationships between Sauckel and Speer
gone into elaborately.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. I will withdraw that question.
[_Turning to the witness._] What did the offices have to do with the
employment of concentration camp prisoners? Did they deal with that?
STOTHFANG: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not receive reports that manpower was
disappearing from other industries, and in this way became concentration
camp workers?
STOTHFANG: No reports were received about that.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are you aware that concentration camp workers were
employed in large numbers for work?
STOTHFANG: It was the general practice of the Police to put prisoners to
work.
DR. SERVATIUS: You did not receive any reports about that, did you?
STOTHFANG: No. An effort was made to gain influence to the extent of
having reports sent to the offices of the labor administration
concerning the employment of concentration camp prisoners, so that they
could be considered in the general planning of labor allocation. But
these reports were not received by the labor offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I have only a few more questions concerning the
control offices, and other control agencies, which had been established
in order to investigate conditions among the workers in Germany. Do you
know how far foreign workers themselves were included in that control
system? I am thinking first of all of the office of Ambassador Scapini.
How did this office work? Did you hear anything about it?
STOTHFANG: I do not know many details about the office of Scapini. I
know of its existence, but to the best of my knowledge Scapini’s office
was chiefly occupied with the welfare of French prisoners of war rather
than with the welfare of French civilian workers, because for the latter
a special office existed under M. Brunedon. But generally the foreign
workers were represented by the German Labor Front. So-called Reich
liaison offices were set up everywhere, from the central office via the
Gaue to the small districts, and each employed several people who
visited the camps, listened to complaints and negotiated with the
offices of the German Labor Front, or with other offices of the labor
administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: Those were German employees that you mentioned?
STOTHFANG: No; they were foreign employees from countries abroad, in
fact from almost every country.
DR. SERVATIUS: In the factories themselves, did the workmen have any
representatives who had contact, as liaison men, with the supervisory
offices of the German Labor Front?
STOTHFANG: Not to my knowledge.
DR. SERVATIUS: For the Eastern Workers there was also a control office.
Do you know that office?
STOTHFANG: In Rosenberg’s department there was a special one for that
purpose.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did that office work? Did you hear anything about it?
STOTHFANG: Yes. It had regular contact with the technically competent
offices of the labor administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: And whom had this office to contact if it received
complaints? The Labor Front, Sauckel’s office, or the Minister of Labor?
To whom did they have to go?
STOTHFANG: That depended on the nature of the irregularities, or the
complaints which were made.
DR. SERVATIUS: I will give you an example—complaints about labor
conditions.
STOTHFANG: In that case one had to go first to the competent local labor
office in order to have detailed inquiries made into the case, and to
see about the general conditions, or the actual conditions.
DR. SERVATIUS: And if it was a matter of housing and nutrition, to whom
did one go?
STOTHFANG: First to the offices of the German Labor Front, which, by a
decree of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor—I
believe it was Decree Number 4—was given the general task of looking
after the foreign workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: And did the Labor Front report to you further?
STOTHFANG: Within the scope of their capacity they tried to put matters
right.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then the Labor Front itself, in fact, was the highest
authority for questions of complaints about the welfare of workers?
STOTHFANG: If you put it like that, yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who supervised the treatment of prisoners of war? Did the
complaints come to Sauckel?
STOTHFANG: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who had charge of that?
STOTHFANG: The High Command of the Armed Forces.
DR. SERVATIUS: The Reich Inspection Board was also a control office.
What did Sauckel have to do with the Reich Inspection Board?
STOTHFANG: That must be an incorrect designation. I do not know what you
mean by the Reich Inspection Board.
DR. SERVATIUS: I mean the Trade Inspection Board, the Reich Trade
Inspection Board.
STOTHFANG: In Germany the trade inspection boards in principle were
competent for labor protection in factories. As far as labor protection
in factories was concerned, they had to see that the decrees which had
been issued, and were in force, were carried out and obeyed. Therefore
in case of complaints they were the competent authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was Sauckel accused by other offices of looking after the
workmen too well? And was there not, in some cases, even envy of the
situation of certain foreign workers?
STOTHFANG: Yes. Such accusations came from three places. First, from the
two offices I mentioned before, which offered general objections and
resistance to the far-reaching demands of the Plenipotentiary General
for the Allocation of Labor. Then Bormann’s office, and Himmler’s
office. It went so far that the Plenipotentiary General for the
Allocation of Labor was even suspected of being pro-Bolshevik.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defense counsel wish to ask any questions?
[_There was no response._]
Does the Prosecution wish to?
[_There was no response._]
The witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I do not know whether the witness Jäger
has arrived yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told not.
DR. SERVATIUS: I assume that he will be here by Monday, and I would
suggest that I be permitted to submit some documents now, or perhaps an
interrogation of the witness Goetz, which is in the document book.
Perhaps I may refer to several passages. It is a very long affidavit,
and it throws some light on the matter in this connection and will make
it easier to understand.
THE PRESIDENT: You probably have some remarks to make about your
documents, have you not, which will take you up until 1 o’clock?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the document books contain primarily the
decrees which Sauckel issued, and they cover what has been said here by
the witnesses and by the defendant himself as a witness. As far as
possible, the book is divided up into sections dealing with special
subjects, but as the decrees which were issued frequently applied to
several subjects at the same time, the separate divisions overlap in
this book.
I refer principally to Volume I, to all the decrees included there,
which I do not want to read individually. I should like only to call
special attention to the decrees about police matters. That is Document
6, which is on Page 16; Document 10, on Page 20; and Document 15, on
Page 25. These documents...
THE PRESIDENT: You understand that you must offer in evidence each
document or number of documents that you want to put in evidence? It is
not sufficient to put it in your document book. So please state the
document which you wish to put in evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: These documents are included in a collection of laws
which has already been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The whole thing you mean? The whole thing has been
submitted?
DR. SERVATIUS: It has, as far as I know. That is Document Number
3044-PS: “Enactments, Decrees, Announcements.”
THE PRESIDENT: Well, probably only a small part of 3044-PS has been read
and, therefore, unless it is translated into the four languages, it does
not form part of the record. Dr. Servatius, if you will go into the
matter and offer what you want to offer in evidence on Monday morning,
that will be quite satisfactory.
DR. SERVATIUS: But may I refer to them now, and then submit the
documents on Monday?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: These three decrees and enactments of the Reichsführer SS
I have submitted in order to show how efforts were made at improvement
even in this difficult field. Decree Number 6 was issued shortly before
Sauckel came into office, and one must assume that this was done in
order to produce a _fait accompli_.
The next decree, Document Number 10, already shows an improvement. It
deals with the barbed wire and the workers’ outings, and this is even
more relaxed in the next document. Document Number 15, that is Decree
Number 4, which has already been submitted, is probably the most
important first decree, which describes the fundamental authority and
directives, as well as recruiting methods, transportation, and treatment
in Germany.
Decree Number 16 deals with the employment of Eastern Workers and gives
the first basic regulations, because until then there was no definite
legal regulation of a uniform type.
Then I come to Document Number 19, which is on Page 54 in the English
text. This is a decree and a letter from Sauckel to the Gau labor
offices and the Gauleiter, of 14 October 1942, concerning good treatment
for foreign workers. This letter is an intervention on the part of
Sauckel to remove poor conditions and to correct certain abuses of which
he had been informed. I quote here in the German text on Page 59 the
following...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that document has been quoted already I think,
hasn’t it?
DR. SERVATIUS: A part of the document has already been mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Which part has not been quoted?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is Page 59 in my book; in the English text, Page 54.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 54 is only the heading.
DR. SERVATIUS: Heading: “Decree and letter of Sauckel dated 14 October
1942,” and on the next page the text begins. The first page contains
only the title of the decree.
THE PRESIDENT: But Page 55 in the English text, the beginning of the
document has already been read.
DR. SERVATIUS: The beginning has already been read.
THE PRESIDENT: Then what did you want to read?
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to read the whole thing in order to show
how far Sauckel...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you see, beginning with the words, “If in a Gau
district the statement was recently still made,” that has been read
already, down to the bottom of that paragraph.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have here only a short note. If it has already been
read, then I need not read it again. I will dispense with the reading.
Document Number 20 on Page 56 in the English document book deals with
compulsory labor service for foreign female domestic help and shows the
regulations in force at that time...
THE PRESIDENT: Which document?
DR. SERVATIUS: Document Number 20.
THE PRESIDENT: Continue.
DR. SERVATIUS: ...whereby it is pointed out particularly that a forced
transfer of foreign women for domestic help would not be carried out;
and the statement made by Sauckel emphasizes that only voluntary workers
should be taken for domestic employment.
Decree Number 21 introduces the labor book. That is in the English text
on Page 57. The purpose of the labor book was, as Sauckel has stated
here, to facilitate a registration of manpower, so that one could review
it and not lose control. Above all, in connection with this, there was
to be an allocation of land to the Eastern Workers, as the Defendant
Sauckel has explained. A central file was to be compiled, and with the
help of this the regular transportation of the workers home again was to
be arranged at a later date. That was the preparatory measure of the
labor book.
Then we come to Document Number 22, of 23 July 1943, which deals with
the limitation of the duration of employment of Eastern Workers. It is
said in this connection that the duration of employment should be for 2
years, with certain modifications, and that there should be facilities
for leave, and premiums should be given for the work done. There was to
be leave in Germany, and, under certain conditions, home leave. For
vacations in Germany, as can be seen here, special leave camps were set
up for Eastern Workers. The reason was that, on account of transport
conditions and other circumstances, these workers could not go home,
especially if they came from territories which in the meantime were no
longer occupied by Germans.
Then there follows Decree Number 13. That is Document Number 23, Page 62
in the English document book. This decree deals with the keeping of
order in factories and works. It is the decree on the basis of which
measures could be taken for the maintenance of discipline. I have
submitted it in order to show that it was valid both for German and for
foreign workers, and is not a decree which discriminates against Eastern
Workers.
Now I will refer to Document Number 26. That is Page 66 in the English
document book. This is a decree of 25 July 1944 according to which the
position of female domestic workers from the East was in principle to be
equal to that of the German domestic help. Working hours are regulated
and also time off. It reads: “Every week the female Eastern Worker is to
have an adequate amount of free time.”
The question of vacations is regulated in Paragraph 7, to the effect
that they will be granted leave after 12 months’ work in Reich
territory.
THE PRESIDENT: Are those figures right in Document 26, Page 67 in the
English document book? Working hours to fall between 6 o’clock in the
morning and 9 o’clock at night?
DR. SERVATIUS: It says there: “The regular working hours, including rest
periods and preparation for work, are to fall between 0600 and 2100
hours, unless special conditions call for other arrangements.” That does
not mean that the work is to be done from 6 o’clock in the morning until
9 o’clock at night. It means that between these two time limits these
people have to work. They cannot work before 6 o’clock in the morning,
and these girls cannot work after 9 o’clock at night. It cannot...
THE PRESIDENT: I am only asking if the figures are correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: The figures are correct.
Document 27 deals with the position of foreign workers in factories. It
is a decree of the German Labor Front and there are one or two basic
statements made in it. Here for example:
“The pleasure they take in their work and the willingness of
German workers must in no circumstances be endangered by
preferential treatment for foreign workers.
“As regards the treatment of foreign workers, it must be taken
into consideration that they came to Germany voluntarily and are
giving us their services for the carrying out of tasks of
military importance. In order to maintain their pleasure in
their work, the conditions of their contracts must be respected,
and absolutely fair treatment and comprehensive care and
attention must be given them.”
Document 28 is the agreement between Ley and Sauckel instituting the
supervision by the Central Inspectorate. It has already been submitted
by the Prosecution.
Document 30 deals with the tasks in detail and it states:
“The Reich Inspectorate, with regard to allocation of labor,
affairs of the Reich Trustee, and administration, is entrusted
with the following tasks:
“The supervision of the execution of my regulations and decrees.
On the basis of the practical knowledge gained, the Reich
Inspectorate is to make suggestions, propose improvements and
foster mutual exchange of experiences.”
The last document in this book deals with the establishment of French
offices. It is in the English document book on Page 79, and is entitled,
“French agencies for the care of the French workers employed in the
Reich.”
I believe I have already read the document here. With that, I have
finished Document Book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we will adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 3 June 1946 at 1000 hours._]
ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIFTH DAY
Monday, 3 June 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the witness Jäger is to appear in about
half an hour. I shall read some other documents from my document book,
if it please the Tribunal.
In the last session I had read all the documents from the first document
book with the exception of Document Sauckel-16, which I left out by
mistake. It is a leaflet for Eastern Workers. I need not read it, but I
shall refer to it.
I have submitted as Exhibit Sauckel-1 the _Handbuch für die
Dienststellen_ ... (_Manual for Labor Employment_), and in this exhibit
we find the following documents which I have read in part, and shall
read some now: Documents Sauckel-12, 13, 15, 22, 28, 58(a), 67(a), 82,
83, 85, 86, and 88.
Then, I have submitted Exhibit Sauckel-2, _Sonderveröffentlichung des
Reichsarbeitsblattes_ (_Special Publication of the
Reichsarbeitsblatt_)—namely, _Einsatzbedingungen der Ostarbeiter, sowie
der sowjetrussischen Kriegsgefangenen_ (_Conditions for the Employment
of Eastern Workers and Soviet Russian Prisoners of War_), which contains
the following documents: Documents Sauckel-6, 32, 36, 39, 47, and 52.
Then, as Exhibit Sauckel-3, I have submitted the _Manifest des
Generalbevollmächtigten für den Arbeitseinsatz_ (_Manifesto of the
Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor_), Document
Sauckel-84.
Then, as Exhibit Sauckel-4, _Arbeitsgesetze: Textsammlung des Deutschen
Arbeitsrechtes_ (_Labor Laws: Collection of German Laws_), which
contains Documents Sauckel-16, 31, and 49.
As Exhibit Sauckel-5, I have submitted a book, _Fritz Sauckels
Kampfreden_ (_Fritz Sauckel’s Battle Speeches_). That is Document
Sauckel-95.
As Exhibit Sauckel-6, _Nationalsozialistische Regierungstätigkeit in
Thüringen, 1932-33_ (_National Socialist Governmental Activity in
Thuringia, 1932-33_), has been submitted. It is contained in Document
Sauckel-96.
Exhibit Sauckel-7, _Nationalsozialistische Regierungstätigkeit in
Thüringen, 1933-34_ (_National Socialist Governmental Activity in
Thuringia, 1933-34_), is contained in Document Sauckel-97.
I have once more submitted as Exhibit Sauckel-8 the publication entitled
_Europa arbeitet in Deutschland_ (_Europe Works in Germany_), which has
already been submitted as Document RF-5.
Then I shall submit an affidavit of Sauckel’s son, Dieter Sauckel, which
is very short. It refers to the evacuation of the Buchenwald Camp which
Sauckel is said to have ordered. I shall read the eight lines of the
affidavit:
“Between 4 and 7 April 1945, approximately, I was present when
my father, Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, had a conference in his
study. On this occasion the question of the Buchenwald Camp was
discussed, and the following was decided: A certain number of
guards should remain in the camp until the arrival of the enemy
in order to hand the camp prisoners over to them.”—This is
Sauckel Document Book 3, Document Sauckel-94, Page 247.
“I swear to the truth of the preceding statement for the purpose
of having it submitted to the International Military Tribunal in
Nuremberg.
“I am ready to swear upon oath to the truth of my statement.
Schönau, 22 March 1946. Dieter Sauckel.”