dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
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. Imp; 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 Orts gruppenleiter 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? ere 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 cafe, 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 E Fuehr, 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 E Fuehr and issued by the chiefs in the territories. I94
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): Wed, 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. Try; 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 Gruppenfuehrer Muller. Arm; 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 (or. 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 Reichsfuehrer 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 Reichsfuehrer 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 men 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 about tell 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.
TEE 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.
TEE 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.