dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
TEE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Quite. Now, you used one expression in those notes which I did not understand; and I am going to ask you what you meant by it. You spoke of your special labor supply executives. Was that the committee for social peace that you spoke about yesterday-about a thousand people in it? Do you remember?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is the same thing? That was the committee that you said had to be specially trained by the SS, I think, and by the police in France, or wherever they were used?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
TEE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By the way, you spoke of them being armed. Why were they armed? Why did they carry arms?
SAUCKEL: For their own protection and for the protection of those whom they requited; they had to have some means of defense against attacks.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not usually have anything to do with the Police, did you? Why did you organize this police corps? Why did you help organize this police corps, an armed police corps? Why did you do it?
SAUCKEL: That was not an armed police corps in the usual sense, rather it was...
THE TRIBUNAL (bar. Biddle): Never mind describing it. We know what It was. Why did you organize its I thought you kept away from police measures.
SAUCKEL: In order to have protection for these people and for these places which frequently were raided, demolished, or harassed by the resistance movement.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see what you mean. This was an organization to protect the recruiting that was going on; is that right'
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. Now, I just want to ask one question about another manuscript, 016-PS, dated 20 April 1944, which was the labor mobilization program. That is the program which you issued and signed, is it not, You look at it. That is the program you signed.
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): It is not? I do not know what you mean.
SAUCKEL: I have not understood you correctly, I believe. I understood 1944. It was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, no, on 20 April 1942. You issued the labor mobilization program. Is that the program signed by you, shown in the Document D16-PS? That is the program, is it not?
SAUCKEL: The program-may I say the following in this connection: It was a program which did not become effective immediately . . .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, please answer the question. All I want to know is, first, you did issue a mobilization program, did you not?
SAUCKEL: That I did, but...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. And that is the one shown in that exhibit, is it not? I am simply identifying it.
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. I wanted to ask you a little bit about bringing the youths of the occupied territories into the Reich. Certain of the youths were brought in, were they not?
SAUCKEL: Youths were brought in, but against my. . .
TB TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Against your desire, you said. How many were brought in?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot possibly say from my own knowledge. do not know. There were youths...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, what were the ages? How young were they?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot say either-what age the youths, were-because they were with their families who came into the Reich as a result of refugee measures or the evacuation of other localities. Then another time, in connection with the so-called "Hay Action" in 1944, youths came to the Reich, but without my having anything to do with it.
TB TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You know there were young adolescents, of course, young adolescent children, do you not? You know that, do you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
TB TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What was the purpose of bringing them in? Were they recruited for labor, or were they to be trained in the Reich and educated?
SAUCKEL: There are various explanations for the fact that youths were brought into the Reich. Some of these youths were not recruited or brought in by agents; rather they came with their families, at the latter's wish, when refugee and evacuation measures were carried out. Others came...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. We will leave out the ones that came with the families. Some were recruited for labor, were they not? Some for work, were they not?
SAUCKEL: Youths under the legal age of 14 years could not be brought in for work. By agreements, such as can be found in the documents, other offices brought youths in to train and care for them.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You just do not answer the questions. I asked you whether some were brought in for work. Children over 14, who were still under 2O, were brought in for work, were they not-recruited for work?
SAUCKEL: But only volunteers were brought in.
TB TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Only volunteers were brought in?
SAUCKEL: Youths were supposed to be brought in only as volunteers. '1; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not recruit any youth involuntarily; you mean that?
SAUCKEL: I did not.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I do not mean you personally; I mean the administration.
SAUCKEL: NO, the labor administration was not supposed to bring in any youths, especially girls, by compulsion; only voluntarily. Domestic servants were only volunteers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Some were brought in to be educated in Germany and to become German citizens, were they not?
SAUCKEL: That I found out from the documents; but I was not responsible for that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not know about that before? Did anyone advise you that it was in accordance with international law to force people in occupied countries to come to Germany to work?
SAUCKEL: I was expressly urged by the E Fuehr to take that measure, and it was described to me as admissible. No office raised any objections to or had any misgivings about this measure; rather it met with the requirements of all offices.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you that. I asked you whether anybody advised you that it was in accordance with international law.
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You knew, did you not, that the Foreign Office had to consider such matters?
SAUCKEL: I spoke with the Foreign Office on various occasions and this was found to be in order, because we were convinced that in these territories, on the basis of the terms of surrender, the introduction of German regulations was permissible and possible under the conditions prevailing and in view of existing agreements. That was my belief.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you say that you were advised by the Foreign Office that you were entitled under international law to force people to come from Russia to work in Germany?
SAUCKEL: The Foreign Office never told me anything to the contrary; but the Foreign Office, I believe, was not competent for questions concerning the East. I do not know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Whom did you ask for advice on the subject?
SAUCKEL: I found these regulations in existence before I took office. These regulations had already been issued. The E Fuehr expressly charged me to carry them out.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then, the answer is that you asked nobody? Is that right?
SAUCKEL: I did not ask anybody. I could not ask anybody, because all offices wanted these measures and accepted them. There was never any discussion to the contrary.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And did you say that it was not the task of the Police to enforce recruiting for labor?
SAUCE: It was not the task of the Police to carry out recruitment.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, why did you say at the conference on 4 January 1944, which is reported in the Document 1292-PS, that you would do everything in your power to furnish the requested manpower in 1944; but whether it would succeed depended primarily on what German enforcement agents would be made available, and that your project · could not be carried out with domestic enforcement agents? Does that not mean that the Police would have to enforce your recruitment programs?
SAUCKEL: No, it means-the reproduction of these minutes is not very exact-I explained to the E Fuehr that I probably would not be able to carry out his program because there were very large partisan areas; and as long as these partisan areas were not cleared up, so that a regular administration could be established there, no recruitment could take place there either. First of all, therefore, normal administrative conditions would have to be established again. That could be done only by those organs whose task it was.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you mean by German enforcement agents?
SAUCKEL: By German enforcement agencies I meant the normal administration as such, but in some territories that was too weak.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then, why was it that the Reichsfuehrer SS explained that the enforcement agents put at his disposal were extremely few, if those enforcement agents were not police agents?
SAUCKEL: I did not understand the question correctly in the first place. The Reichsfuehrer, I believe, said-according to my recollection-that for the pacification of these areas he did not have troops enough because they were all at the front. That did not refer to the recruitment and management of compulsory labor, but to the re-establishment of normal conditions in these areas.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well then, are you saying that it was not the task of the Police to help you in recruitment, but that it was the task of the military?
SAUCKEL: That differed greatly depending on the various regulations in the territories. There were areas in which the military commanders had the sole executive power, and there were areas in which civilian authorities had the executive power on the German side. There was a third kind of area, military operational zones with rear areas, in which the commanders of the armies had the executive power.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then, either it was the Police, or it was the military, or it was some other force which was going to carry out your forcible recruiting; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but in these areas as well, the machinery of the civilian administration was available, which was not identical with the military or with the Police, but represented within these Wehrmacht organizations separate branches of the administration under a special administrative chief. The; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I don't understand then what you meant by saying that your project could not be carried out with domestic enforcement agents. That is all I have to ask. Then the defendant can return to the dock.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I am asking the Tribunal to look at Document Sauckel-3, which is a list of Sauckel's offices, to see the position of the witness whom I am about to call. Under Sauckel in the Reich Ministry of Labor there were various departments, one of which, the department of the witness Timm, was the so-called Europe Office, which had three subdepartments- one for the West, one for the East, and the third for the South and Southwest. With the permission of the Court, I call the witness Timm. [The witness Timm took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
MAX TIMM (Witness): Max Timm. It; PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The, witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you worked in the Reich Labor Ministry in the Allocation of Labor department?
TIMM: Yes, that is correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you already there when Sauckel took of lice? . . .
TIMM: Yes, and I had been in the labor administration for some years before that.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the impression you had of your new superior when Sauckel took over the office?
TIMM: When Sauckel assumed office, I had the impression of a very energetic, hard-working man, who was inclined to get excited at times, even angry no doubt, and who demanded much of his co-workers, but also made great demands on himself.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was he in carrying out his measures?
TIMM: When he assumed office there was a good deal of confusion in the field of labor allocation. Everybody had something to do with labor allocation.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the reason why that of lice was created?
TIMM: The previous chiefs had not had enough force to push their program through against the opposition of various offices; and Sauckel was the strong man, and particularly the strong political figure, who was to put things in order.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did Sauckel approach this new task? Did he adhere to the administrative regulations, or did he do it in his own way, in-as one says-an unrestrained new manner?
TIMM: He considered his task very much a political task, but he always did his best to handle administrative matters in an orderly way. He was known generally as a Gauleiter who was friendly to the civil servants. Also, in order to instruct all the offices under his administration, he held so-called staff meetings at regular intervals in which the most important things were discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was your position in that of lice?
TIMM: In the Allocation of Labor department I had first a subdepartment and later a department.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did that department deal with?
TIMID: That department had to deal with all questions concerning the assignment of labor, particularly the classification of skilled workers, training of workers, vocational advice, and employment agencies for apprentices.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was your office called the Europe Office?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have an over-all view of what went on in the office?
TIMM: Not completely, owing to the fact that Clauleiter Sauckel at the same time remained Gauleiter in Thuringia and he worked in Berlin in Thuringia House, whereas the special departments put at his disposal remained in the Ministry of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: NO, YOU did not understand my question. The question was whether you, from your office, had an over-all view of what went on in the field of labor allocation without regard to Sauckel's activity.
TIMM: Yes, but not entirely, because we were not informed about all events, due to the separation of the offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the staff meetings? Who took part in them and of what kind of people were they composed?
TIMM: For the most part the liaison men of the various branches were called to staff conferences.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of people were they?
TIMM: There were various kinds of people, civil servants but also economists, and the like.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you should tell us from what offices these people came, or were they people who were in Sauckel's office?
TIMM: They were mostly people from other branches, as, for instance, a representative of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the representatives of the Ministry for Armament and War Production, of the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, and of other departments.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the so-called specialist labor staff?
TIMM: That was the specialist labor staff.
DR. SERVATIUS: About how many people were in it?
TIMM: In my estimation there were probably about 15 to 20 people.
DR. SERVATIUS: Besides that, Sauckel had a personal labor staff. What kind-of people were in that?
TIMM: The personal labor staff consisted mostly of men whom Sauckel had brought with him from Weimar, men of his own immediate circle.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did he also have consultants? Who were these?
TIMM: He had two personal consultants, Landrat Berch and Ministerialrat Dr. Stothfang.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what position did Dr. Didier hold?
TIMM: Dr. Didier, as far as I remember, was the press expert.
DR. SERVATIUS: How were these staff meetings carried on? What was discussed?
TIMM: At those staff meetings all matters of labor allocation, that is the entire German labor allocation program, were discussed; and the sessions were generally opened with a complete report by Herr Sauckel, in which he explained his plans for the future.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were questions of recruitment in occupied territories also discussed; and what is of importance here, the difficulties which existed then, and the methods of which we have heard? What was said about that?
TIMM: Questions of recruitment were generally not discussed there so much but rather questions concerning the Reich.
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked you first about the occupied territories. Was, for instance, that case discussed which has been brought up here, the surrounding of a motion picture house and the seizing of people there, and similar cases?
TIMM: Yes, the case of the motion picture house is known to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: That was discussed?
TIMM: Yes, that was discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was done about it?
TIMM: Sauckel at once instructed several gentlemen-I don't remember whom-to make all possible investigations in order to clarify the case.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were other cases reported?
TIMM: There were no other cases which could be compared in seriousness with that case which has just been described.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there also discussion about the question of labor conditions in Germany for foreign workers?
TIMM: There were discussions at the staff conferences about labor conditions.
DR. SERVATIUS: And was it not reported there that conditions existed in individual camps or industries which were objectionable?
TIMM: Cases of that kind were discussed. In general they concerned clothing, nutrition, and similar things.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did these reports come to the staff conferences? Who reported them? From what source did one find out about them?
TIMM: Herr Sauckel always attached importance to having these things examined on the spot, and he maintained an extensive system of inspection in order to get an accurate picture of these questions; and these inspection reports were then discussed in detail at the staff conferences.
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. Upon consideration of the motion of the Prosecution, dated the 21st of May, and the memorandum of the Defense Counsel in reply thereto, dated the 29th of May, the Tribunal makes the following order: The motion of the Prosecution that arguments as to the guilt or innocence of the individual defendants be heard at the conclusion of the evidence relating to the individual defendants and before the introduction of evidence relating to the accused organizations is granted. The Tribunal, however, will not decide the question of the guilt or innocence of any defendant until after all the evidence has been heard; and, if any of the evidence relating to the accused organizations is thought by counsel for any defendant to support his defense, he may ask to be heard further with regard thereto. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the evidence relating to the individual defendants, will accordingly hear first the argument in their behalf, and then the summing up of the Prosecution. The statements of each of the defendants in his own behalf will be heard at the conclusion of the Trial before judgment. The Tribunal is of opinion that the argument relating to the guilt or innocence of the individual defendants will be more helpful if heard immediately at the conclusion of the evidence bearing "hereon, and before the Tribunal has departed from this and goes into the branch of the case relating to the organizations. This arrangement, furthermore, will give the commissioners, who are taking the evidence as to the organizations, further time in which to complete their work. The defendants will not be prejudiced in any way by this arrangement; for, apart from the fact that their cases are essentially different from the cases of the organizations, they will be allowed to call to the attention of the Tribunal any circumstance developed on the hearing of the organizations which is thought to be helpful to their defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal finds nothing in the Charter which forbids this procedure, and Article 9 leaves to the discretion of the Tribunal the manner of hearing evidence on behalf of the accused organizations. Counsel for the individual defendants will not be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses called by counsel on behalf of the organizations, or to take part in such proceedings save when specially authorized to do so by the Tribunal. That is all. The Tribunal will sit tomorrow at 10 o'clock in open session until 1 o'clock. [The Tribunal adjourned until 1 June 1946 at 1000 hours.]
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I ask permission for the Defendant Von Papen to be absent on Monday and Tuesday to prepare his case. He will be represented by my colleague Dr. Nelte. [The witness Timm resumed the stand.]
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, yesterday we were speaking, at the end, of the staff conferences. I should like to leave this question now, but we will come back to it later when we talk about controls. First, I should like you to explain the relationship of Sauckel's office to the higher authorities. Whom did Sauckel come under?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor was under the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what did he have to do with Hitler?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General kept in the closest touch with Hitler, and as far as possible he presented his plans to Hitler at personal discussions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there a constant connection with the Four Year Plan through a liaison man, or how was that done?
TIMM: There were various ways of keeping the contact active. There were liaison men on both sides. The Plenipotentiary General sent men from his select staff to the of lice of the Four Year Plan for a preliminary co-ordination of his plans, and on the other hand, as far as I can recall, there were almost constantly delegates from the office of the Four Year Plan who took part in the staff conferences. In addition, the Plenipotentiary General frequently had personal talks with the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was the co-operation with the other ministries conducted? With Goebbels, to begin with?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General felt in principle that it was important to keep as close a contact as possible with the other departments and to have his plans and intentions co-ordinated beforehand. Co-operation with the Ministry of Propaganda was no longer so good, especially at the time when the Minister, Dr. Goebbels, was Delegate for Total War Effort.
DR. SERVATIUS: After the proclamation of total war was Sauckel subordinate to Goebbels?
TIMM: The relationship was never quite clear. In my opinion it had to be looked at this way: The Delegate for Total War Effort received comprehensive powers for all tasks, and was therefore in fact superior to the GBA (Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor).
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the relation with the other authorities, for instance with the Reich Ministry for Food?
TIMM: The co-operation with the Reich Ministry for Food was very good. The relations with State Secretary Backe especially were always very good as far as I could judge. There were also continual conferences between the experts of both offices on questions of feeding in general
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, what was the date of the proclamation of total war?
DR. SERVATIUS: Does the witness know when total war was declared?
TIMM: I do not remember the date.
DR. SERVATIUS: It was after the fall of Stalingrad. I cannot give you the exact date.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, please.
DR. SERVATIUS: As to relations with Himmler, what cooperation was there with that office?