dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HILDEBRANDT: A special department was created in the of lice 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?
HILDERANDT: 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 Fuehrer 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 releve 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 irregular ities. 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 Falken hausen 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, spool 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 of lice 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 of flees 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 of lice; 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 of lice 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 11/z 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 workshops 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 Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the Secret State Police.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know of specific instances in the case of the Reichsfuehrer SS?
STOTHFANG: The general treatment of foreign workers- particularly of those coming from the East-as far as it was determined by the Reichsfuehrer SS or the principles laid down by the Reichsfuehrer SS, was contrary to the ideas of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. The Reichsfuehrer 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 Fuehrer.
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. Bruneton. But generally the foreign workers were represented by the German Labor Front. So-called Reich liaison of flees were set up everywhere, from the central office via the Au to the small districts, and each employed several people who visited the camps, listened to complaints and negotiated with the of flees 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 dike 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 of lice. 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.