dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M. HERZOG: That is not what I was asking you. I was asking you whether you confirmed that the existence of these liaison officers to Minister Speer and the Minister of Labor, on the one hand, and the existence of this new organization that you created, on the other hand, implied a common responsibility in the decisions regarding manpower taken by Minister Speer, the Minister of Labor, and by you?
SAUCKEL: I cannot answer this question with a definite "no," as orders were given to me which, as a German official, I had to carry out in this case; and in order to carry them out I had to hold conferences. It was not possible to do otherwise, for it was not I personally, but German economy, that demanded and used these workers. This matter had to be settled in some way, regardless of whether German or ether workers were concerned; and the same situation applied in normal times.
M. HERZOG: Is it a fact that, after you were appointed, you were authorized to be represented by special representatives in the military and civil departments of the occupied areas?
SAUCKEL: After 30 October-I cannot state the exact date-at the instigation of the Fuehrer, I appointed representatives to the governments in the occupied countries. I mentioned this yesterday through my counsel.
M. HERZOG: The 30th of October? I think you mean the decree of 30 September 1942. It is a mistake on your part for the decree is dated 30 September.
SAUCKEL: I am sorry, I do not know the exact date.
M. HERZOG: Is it right that these representatives, appointed by that decree, were directly subordinate to you?
SAUCKEL: Insofar as they were my delegates, that is, for the passing on of orders, they were subordinate to me.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that they were authorized to give directives to the civilian and military authorities in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: That is correct as far as orders were concerned, but it is not true in general. It was a technical matter.
M. HERZOG: Who was your delegate with the occupation authorities in France?
SAUCKEL: The delegate with the occupation authorities in France was, first of all, President Ritter; he was murdered in Paris. And after him, President Glatzel.
M. HERZOG: Did you have a representative in Belgium?
SAUCKEL: In Belgium I had a delegate by the name of Schulze; he was with the military commander.
M. HERZOG: And in Holland?
SAUCKEL: In Holland there were various men. First of all, Herr Schmidt, and there was another man; I believe his name was Ritterbusch, or something like that, but I do not recall the exact name.
M. HERZOG: This system of representatives with the occupation authorities, was that approved of by Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: This was at the instigation of the Fuehrer, and I assume that Speer agreed. He recommended it, as far as I know.
M. HERZOG: To your knowledge, did he take any initiative in the decree issued by the Fuehrer concerning this matter?
SAUCKEL: Yes. He was present and he recommended it.
M. HERZOG: In your interrogatory you said, when speaking about these representatives, that Speer instituted these agencies for manpower in 1941 or 1942. The Tribunal will find this statement on Page 9 of the excerpts from the interrogatory. What do you understand by that sentence?
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand you.
M. HERZOG: I shall read an extract of your interrogation of 8 October 1945. "Question: 'What was the mission entrusted to your representatives in the labor offices of the military commander and of the civil governor? Did they merely give technical advice to the military authorities, which could be rejected at any time by the latter, or did they have authority to give directives to the military commanders on technical questions?' "
THE PRESIDENT: On what page is that?
M. HERZOG: Page 9, Mr. President. "Answer: 'In 1941 or 1942 Speer instituted this delegation for manpower.'" I would merely ask you what you understand by that phrase. What did you mean when you said that Speer instituted this delegation for manpower in 1941 or 1942?
SAUCKEL: I have to say, in this connection, that I never saw the minutes again after I had been interrogated. I cannot confirm that sentence about 1941-42, and I cannot imagine that I expressed myself in that way during the interrogation.
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will judge your answer. Is it correct that, besides your representatives with the civil and military commanders, you installed administrative offices for labor in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: That is not correct. They were already there.
M. HERZOG: You confirm then that besides the delegates who represented you, there were recruiting agencies for manpower in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: Yes. In the occupied territories, in all regional governments, either civilian or military, there were departments dealing with manpower which were a part of the administration; and they were subordinate to the administration authorities.
M. HERZOG: Can you give an indication of the size of the personnel of those various services in the occupied areas?
SAUCKEL: Do you mean the total number? I cannot tell you from memory the separate figures for the personnel of these administrative offices. I never have known these figures exactly. '
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the conference which took place, with you as chairman, on 15 and 16 July 1944 at the Wartburg with the heads of the regional labor offices and the labor delegations from the European occupied territories? On 15 July 1944, in the afternoon, State Counsellor Boerger gave an account of the personnel employed. It is Document Number F-810, which I submit under the Exhibit Number RF-1507. I will read on Page 20: "State Counsellor Boerger stated that outside the frontiers of the Reich there are about 4,000 people engaged in the administration of labor; Eastern area, 1,300; France, 1,016; Belgium and Northern France, 429; Netherlands, 194 . . . " Do you confirm this statement of State Counsellor Boerger?
SAUCKEL: Yes, speaking generally it may be true.
M. HERZOG: Apart from your representatives, apart from those services that we were talking about, did you not create in France commissions composed of specialists who were entrusted with organizing the employment of labor on the German pattern? Please answer.
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand the question. Please repeat it.
M. HERZOG: I shall repeat it. Apart from your representatives- apart from the services that we have been talking about-did you not create, in France particularly, commissions composed of specialists who were entrusted with organizing the employment of manpower on the German pattern?
SAUCKEL: I told my defense counsel yesterday about my collaboration with French units for...
M. HERZOG: That is not what I mean. I am talking about commissions composed of specialists. Do you not remember that in order to insure the recruiting of manpower in France you thought of the system of attaching two French departements to a German Gau?
SAUCKEL: I remember now what you mean. This was the system of adoption arranged in agreement with the French Government, according to which a German Gau adopted a French departement. The main object was to inform the workers, who were to come to Germany, about conditions in Germany and to have mutual talks with the economic offices of the French departements about statistics.
M. HERZOG: I hand to the Tribunal Document Number 1293-PS' which becomes French Exhibit Number RF-1508. [Turning to the defendant.] This is a letter bearing your signature, dated Berlin 14 August 1943, from which I shall read extracts. The Tribunal will find it in the document book which I handed to them at the beginning of this session. I shall first read the last paragraph on Page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I have not got it-1293?
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, the documents which figure in my document book were handed to the Tribunal this morning-unless I am making a mistake, for which I apologize in advance-in the order in which I intend to use them.
THE PRESIDENT: I have one. 1293. Is that right?
M. HERZOG: I have attached a slip only to those documents which I think I shall use several times, so that the Tribunal may find them more easily. May I now begin to read?
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry but the documents had not been handed up to me, that is all. None of them had been handed up.
M. HERZOG: I am reading at the bottom of Page 1: "The solving of these two great manpower problems demands the immediate setting up in France of a stronger and better German labor organization possessing the necessary powers and means. This will be done by a system of sponsorship by Gau. France has got about 80 departements. Greater Germany is divided into 42 political Gau, and for the purposes of manpower recruitment it is divided into 42 Gau labor office districts. Each German Gau labor office district Will take over and sponsor, say, two French departements. Each German Gau labor office will furnish for the departements it sponsors a commission of specialists, made up of the ablest and most reliable experts. These commissions will organize the allocations of labor in these sponsored departements according to the German pattern." I skip one page and continue reading at the bottom of Page 2 of the French text. That is Page 3 of the German translation: "There is no doubt that this projected system of sponsorship by Gau for the employment of French manpower in Germany, and especially the transformation necessary in the interest of Germany of French civilian workers for the German armament industries, will bring about enormous advantages in France herself compared with the present system." I am passing to the bottom of Page 3 of the French text, and I read under "d": "The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his of flee . . ." You told me a short while ago that the German offices for the recruitment of labor in the occupied territories were not under you as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, but under the local authorities. How do you explain this sentence?
SAUCKEL: It can be explained very simply. These men were subordinate to the military commanders in the labor department. They were sent from Germany, and they were taken from the labor offices and put into the administration.
M. HERZOG: You say, "The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his office. . ." The Central German Labor Office in Paris was therefore your representative?
SAUCKEL: The Central German Labor Office in Paris was a part of the civilian administration of the military commander in France. This is not expressed in this sentence, for it was taken for granted in this letter that the Gauleiter knew this. The position as I explained it is entirely correct.
M. HERZOG: I shall continue reading: "The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his office, will therefore have in the whole of France a reliable apparatus which will make it a great deal easier for him to solve his problems in France, in spite of any possible or even real passive resistance on the part of the higher or lower French bureaucracy." I skip two lines. "I have, therefore, charged the presidents or the provisional chiefs of the newly formed Gau labor of flees to set up a corresponding organization in the departements which they are sponsoring; and I request you, in your capacity as my Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor, in agreement with Reichsleiter Bormann, to promote and give your fullest support to the new task allotted to your Gau labor of lice. The president or the provisional chief of your Gau labor office is instructed to keep you informed of all details concerning the carrying out of these measures." Are not these measures an attempt to subordinate French territory to German territory as far as the organization of labor is concerned?
SAUCKEL: Yes. But I should like to ask you and the High Tribunal to allow me to say the following in explanation: On the first page, Paragraph 1-I quote from the third line-it says, ". . . with the full consent of the Fuehrer I am to take far-reaching and urgent measures in France in negotiation with the head of the French Government and the competent"-now comes the important part-"German authorities;"-that is, the military commander's department, in which these labor authorities and this delegate were incorporated and to whom they were subordinate. And on Page 4, I should like to read about the special purpose of this system of sponsorship which should have nothing unfriendly about it. I read from Page 4 in the German text, under the letter "a": "Prejudice, suspicion, lack of care, failure to redress and look into complaints"-that is, complaints by the workers-"which are prejudicial to the employment of manpower in Germany, all these things can be very largely eliminated by the relations between the Gau and its sponsored departement." Now I read under letter "b": "Every French worker in such a departement knows exactly where and under what conditions he will have to work in Germany. German propaganda and explanatory material will tell him about the locality in which he will have to work and about all matters which are of interest to him." And that was the purpose of that arrangement. It was something I wanted to do for the French workers, besides looking after German interests.
M. HERZOG: Please answer me "yes" or "no." Was this arrangement an attempt to bring about a joint administration between the French departements and the German Gau as far as the employment of labor was concerned? Answer me "yes" or "no."
SAUCKEL: No. I should like to give an explanation to this negative answer. The purpose of this arrangement was to clear up unsolved problems between the French Government, between the French departements, between French industrialists and factories, on the one hand, and the administrative offices in Germany where the French workers were to be employed. That was the real purpose-to settle complaints and clear away mistrust.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now. [A recess was taken.]
M. HERZOG: Defendant, is it true that your Codefendant Goering placed under your control all the organizations of the Four Year Plan which were concerned with the recruiting of labor?
SAUCKEL: The various organizations of the Four Year Plan which had to do with manpower were dissolved. Departments 3 and 5 of the Reich Ministry of Labor continued to deal exclusively with these matters.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that the powers of the Reich Minister of Labor concerning the employment of labor were transferred to you and that as a result of this transfer you had powers to issue regulations and laws?
SAUCKEL: Only insofar as the work of Departments 3 and 5 were connected with my own task. Otherwise the functions of the Reich Ministry of Labor remained independent under the Reich Minister of Labor.
M. HERZOG: But within these departments you exercised the powers of the Reich Minister of Labor after your appointment as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: Within my office as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. But I must emphasize that these departments were not under me; they were merely at my disposal. Great importance was attached to this difference at the time. The departments continued to work independently within the whole framework of the Ministry of Labor.
M. HERZOG: But as a result of this situation you exerted administrative autonomy in matters concerning labor?
SAUCKEL: Not an autonomy; it was done by vote. I could not issue decrees, but could only give instructions. In every case I had to get the agreement of the other administrative authorities and Reich ministries, and the agreement of the Fuehrer or of my superior of lice.
M. HERZOG: Did you not have carte blanche from the Fuehrer for the recruiting and the utilization of labor?
SAUCKEL: Not for recruiting and utilization, but for guiding and directing. If I may express it in this way, it was never a case of the workers' agent-that is, of course, what allocation of labor really means-employing these workers himself. The firms employed the workers, not the agent.
M. HERZOG: For the recruiting of labor you had carte blanche from the Fuehrer. Is that not true?
SAUCKEL: Not absolutely, and only after there had been a vote and after the agreement of the regional authorities concerned had been obtained, especially in the case of foreign countries. I never recruited workers in France without the express agreement of the French Government and with their collaboration. The French administration was used here.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, you have on several occasions mentioned the agreements and arrangements made in France with those whom you yourself call "the leaders of collaboration.'' You know better than any other that these leaders of collaboration, imposed upon France by the enemy, bound themselves only and that their acts were never ratified by the French people as a whole. Besides, these leaders of collaboration, whose testimony cannot be suspect to you, have themselves revealed that pressure was exerted upon them, and we will discuss that now. Is it true that on 16 April 1942, that is to say, less than a month after your appointment, you stated in a letter to the Defendant Rosenberg-which states your program and which was presented to you yesterday-that you included the recruiting of foreign workers in your program for the utilization* of labor?
SAUCKEL: I resent the term "exploitation."* By strictest orders from the Fuehrer, it is true that recruitment of foreign workers had to be included in my program.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you included the recruitment of foreign workers in your program of 16 April 1942? You admitted this yesterday, and I ask you to confirm it.
SAUCKEL: Yes, it is true. I only emphasize that I did it on the strictest orders from the Fuehrer.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that this program of 16 April 1942, that is to say, 3 weeks after your appointment, already contained the principle of forced recruiting?
SAUCKEL: It was done by express order of the Fuehrer, in case voluntary recruitment proved to be inadequate. I said that yesterday to my counsel.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the decree that you issued on 29 August 1942? This decree dealt first and foremost with the employment of labor in occupied territories-Decree' Number 10 of 22 August by the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. It was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-17 (Document Number RF-17). Do you remember it?
SAUCKEL: I do remember Decree Number 10.
M. HERZOG: Was this decree applicable to the occupied territories which were under German administration?
SAUCKEL: As far as I can remember-I have not the exact wording and the separate paragraphs before me-it dealt with the regulation of working contracts drawn up by German firms. The purpose was to prevent a muddle.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in August 1942?
SAUCKEL: That is possible; but I, of course, cannot remember the individual dates.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in January 1943?
SAUCKEL: That is also possible, even probable. * The word utilization used by the French prosecutor was wrongly interpreted into German as "Ausbeutuag" meaning "exploitation."
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in January 1944?
SAUCKEL: Also probable, yes; but I do not know the individual dates.
M. HERZOG: You therefore went on missions to Paris before the French authorities, the French de facto authorities, had published the legislative decrees of 4 September 1942, 16 February 1943, and 1 February 1944. Is that not true?
SAUCKEL: I did not understand your question exactly.
M. HERZOG: I asked you whether it is true, that before the French de facto authorities published the three fundamental laws on forced labor of 4 September 1942, 16 February 1943, and 1 February 1944, you went on missions to France, to Paris?
SAUCKEL: I only went on journeys to Paris for the purpose of negotiating with the French Government, and I want to add that for me and in accordance with my convictions...
M. HERZOG: Do you admit that in the course of these missions you imposed on the French authorities the laws on forced labor?
SAUCKEL: It is not correct to put it in that way, rather. . .
M. HERZOG: You therefore contest the fact that the laws on forced labor were issued under pressure by you?
SAUCKEL: I dispute the word "pressure." I negotiated most correctly with the French Government before such laws were published. I expressly resent the word "pressure," and there were plenty of witnesses during these negotiations.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the telephone conversation that the Defendant Speer had with you from the Fuehrer's headquarters on 4 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I probably had several conversations with Speer. I do not know which particular conversation you are referring to.
M. HERZOG: Do you not remember a note that you sent to your various offices as a result of this telephone conversation of 4 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Yes. Quite probably I did make several notes. I had to make notes when I received a telephone conversation containing an instruction.
M. HERZOG: I now submit Document Number 556-PS, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Numbers USA-194 and RF-67. I will read that document, or at least its first paragraph: "On 4 January 1943, at 2000 hours, Minister Speertelephoned from the Fuehrer's headquarters to inform me that according to the decision of the Fuehrer it is no longer necessary, when engaging skilled and unskilled labor in France, to show any special consideration for the French. Emphasis or more severe measures may be used in order to recruit labor." I ask you, Defendant, what you mean when you say that it is not necessary to show any special consideration for the French?
SAUCKEL: This note or rather this decision did not come from me. This was a communication which came from the Fuehrer's headquarters, based on a decision made by the Fuehrer. In spite of that-and I want to emphasize that particularly-my attitude towards the French Government did not change, and it does not say so in this record either. I continued to adopt the same polite attitude in my negotiations with the Government, and I ask the Tribunal to be allowed to make a short statement on how these negotiations with the French Government were conducted.
M. HERZOG: You will give it later in your examination. Do you remember the discussion that you had on 12 January 1943, at the German Embassy in Paris, with the French authorities?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know, I only talked to French ministers in the German Embassy in Paris.
M. HERZOG: That is exactly what I am asking you. Do you remember this conversation that you had with the French authorities on 12 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Not in detail, no; but that I did negotiate is possible.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the persons who took part in this conversation?
SAUCKEL: Yes. Usually the French Premier, the French Minister for Labor, Minister Bichelonne, took part in such discussions. On the German side, the Ambassador; on behalf of the military commander, Dr. Fischer; and, as my representative, probably Dr. Hildebrandt or some other gentleman.
M. HERZOG: And you do not remember what Laval said to you at this meeting of 12 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Very many matters were discussed in great detail during these conferences, and I do not know what you mean.
M. HERZOG: Well, I will submit to you the minutes of this meeting. It is Document Number F-809, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1509. In the course of this discussion Laval made a long statement to you; more exactly, several statements.
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall we find this?
M. HEREON: It is in my document book, Mr. President. It must be marked with a slip 809.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, I have got it.