dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SAUCKEL: The Sperrbetriebe were industries which were the result of an agreement between Reich Minister Speer and, I believe, the French Minister of Economics, Bichelonne. They were industries which worked partly for German armaments and partly for German civilian requirements, and did not come under my offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the number of workers who were brought to Germany from foreign countries?
SAUCKEL: The number of workers brought from foreign countries to Germany, according to careful estimates and the records of the statistical department of the Reich Ministry of Labor, might be said to be about 5 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you determine how far these laborers were to be used, and how many were to be brought in?
SAUCKEL: No, I could not determine that, for I did not represent the German economy, and I myself could not decide the extent of the German armament and agricultural programs.
DR. SERVATIUS: Apart from the current quotas which you had to supply, there were certain so-called program orders made by the Fuehrer. Is that true?
SAUCKEL: Yes, because the Fuehrer drew up the armament program, as far as I know.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have told me of your programs. I shall read the figures, and perhaps you can confirm them. The first program in April 1942: the demand was for 1.6 million workers; 1.6 million were supplied, the entire figure being made up of foreigners. The second program in September 1942: 2 million, and 2 million were supplied, of which 1 million, that is only half, were foreigners. In 1943: the demand was for 1 million, and 1 million were supplied, the entire figure being made up of foreign workers. Then the last program on 4 January 1944: the Fuehrer demanded 4 million, and the demand met with 0.9 million.
SAUCKEL: Allow me to correct you. The figure should read, demand met with 3 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: Demand 4 million; demand met with 3 million. And how many were foreigners?
SAUCKEL: 0.9 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: 0.9 million foreigners. How many workers came from the East, how many from the West, and how many from other regions?
SAUCKEL: I naturally cannot give you the exact figure here without data or statistics, but on an average I would say that the figure for each group might be about 30 percent; the percentage of workers from the East was certainly somewhat higher.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how were the requirements ascertained?
SAUCKEL: Through the demands of the employers of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what were the employers of labor?
SAUCKEL: They were the Economic Ministry, the Armament Ministry, the Agricultural Ministry, the various trades, the State Railways, the mines, et cetera, all big undertakings.
DR. SERVATIUS: And to whom did they present their demands?
SAUCKEL: Usually the demand was made simultaneously to the Fuehrer and to me, or to the collecting agencies provided for by the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they the reduced requirements, if their demands had to be checked, or were they the original demands?
SAUCKEL: I have just said that it varied. The demands were sent in to me, and at the same time they were almost always sent to the Fuehrer, because the Fuehrer had to approve these demands.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was the position of the Central Planning Board?
SAUCKEL: The Central Planning Board was an office where above all, as far as I know, the quotas for raw materials were fixed, but where questions of work and manpower were also discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you receive orders from the Central Planning Board?
SAUCKEL: Yes, the demands which were put to me I had to consider as orders, for the Fuehrer had laid on me the duty of meeting the demands of the war economy.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you belong to the Central Planning Board yourself?
SAUCKEL: No, I was only called in when there were to be debates on the use of manpower.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the relationship between your office and Speer's?
SAUCKEL: My office had to meet the demands made by Speer.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Speer have his own machinery for directing labor?
SAUCKEL: Yes, he had to have that in his ministry, and he did have it. That was essential.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you meet all the demands made of you?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were your labor reserves exhausted?
SAUCKEL: According to my conviction, yes; for already in 1943 -and it was one of the purposes of my manifesto-I pointed out that the economic problems of the occupied countries were very serious and had to be regulated and settled so as to avoid confusion.
DR. SERVATIUS: What labor reserves were still left in Germany?
SAUCKEL: In Germany after 1943 there were no more really usable reserves of manpower left. Many discussions took place on this problem, but the labor most in demand was skilled labor, miners, and workers for the heavy industries.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what manpower reserves were there to be gotten out of France?
SAUCKEL: I must say that from our point of view, and according to our judgment concerning economic and labor questions, there was a great deal of manpower and very extensive reserves in the occupied territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you mean that in comparison the economic forces of Germany were far more exhausted than those of the occupied countries?
SAUCKEL: Perhaps I can show it by a comparison with the first World War. In the first World War, 10 to 12 million Germans were mobilized for labor. In this war about 25 million German men and women were used, and more than half were women. I must add that all the women who did Red Cross or other welfare work Germany were not included in my statistics. They were included in other countries.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have a concluding question: If you view your activity as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor from today's standpoint, what would you say about the use of foreign labor in general?
SAUCKEL: It is very hard for me to answer this question. I myself and the entire German people were of the opinion, and had to be, that this war was neither willed nor brought about by the German people-and, to be truthful, I must include the Party. Our standpoint was that we had to do our duty to our people.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is not intended that you should give an explanation in the wider sense, but that you should limit yourself to the general aspects of the question of labor allocation, and tell us whether today you consider your activity justified or not.
SAUCKEL: From the point of view of the war situation and of German economy, and as I saw and tried to carry out my allocation of labor, I considered it justified, and, above all, inevitable; for Germany and the countries we occupied were an economic whole that could not be split up. Without such an exchange of eastern and western manpower Germany could not have existed for even 1 day. The German people themselves were working to the extreme limit of their capacity.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have concluded my questioning of the defendant.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Witness, did the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories often try to cut down the labor quotas demanded by you?
SAUCKEL: Not only the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories tried to do that, but I myself tried very hard to do so by intervening with the Fuehrer and all the employers of labor.
DR. THOMA: I should like to put several questions to you with regard to Document Number 054-PS, which describes the abuses in the recruiting and transporting of Eastern Workers. Did you personally take steps to put an end to the abuses which are specified here?
SAUCKEL: Yes, of course. Please interrogate the witnesses on this.
DR. THOMA: Did you notice that this report deals with the city and the region of Kharkov in the Ukraine, and do you know that this entire district was never under the civilian administration of the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I know that, and I testified that this report was not sent to me but to an Army office. This Army office had its own labor department which was directly subordinate to it.
DR. THOMA: In this report did you especially notice the following paragraph on the first page: "a) With few exceptions, the Ukrainians who are being employed in the Reich as individual workers for example, in small trade enterprises, on farms..."
SAUCKEL: Will you please tell me where it says that?
DR. THOMA: On Page 1, the last paragraph: "Judging from the discussions with the gentlemen and the reading of the reports, it can be said in general..."
SAUCKEL: Which documents? There are several documents.
DR. THOMA: I mean 054-PS, of course.
SAUCKEL: Which?
DR. THOMA: I think it is the first, second, third paragraph, "d"-the second paragraph
SAUCKEL: Yes, I have found it.
DR. THOMA: It says there that the Ukrainians who were being employed as individual workers in the Reich, were "very satisfied with the conditions." But: "b. On the other hand the Ukrainians living in community camps complain a great deal..." Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: Yes. In my testimony I quoted the passage in which the author of the letter said that this was the case during the first few months only, for I immediately had the camps inspected and improved. I even went so far as to get the Reich Labor Minister to issue new camp regulations, all as a result of this complaint.
DR. THOMA: Did you personally visit the Occupied Eastern Territories on several occasions and speak to the administrative authorities there; for example, in Riga, Kovno, Zhitomir?
SAUCKEL: Not only did I speak to the administrative authorities there, but I compiled this manifesto in Russia and had it published there, and everything that is contained in the manifesto was communicated to these offices in the same way.
DR. THOMA: Yes. But is it correct that you emphasized the special urgency of the Fuehrer decree?
SAUCKEL: That was my duty; that was what I was there for.
DR. THOMA: That is not right from the legal point of view; for your actual authority came from Goering, as the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct. The official channel was: Fuehrer, Goering, Four Year Plan-that was the order.
DR. THOMA: Then, if you said it was the Fuehrer's order, you did so to give a special emphasis?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not my intention. The Fuehrer commissioned me to replace the loss of German soldiers, Doctor. These were instructions which I had received directly from the Fuehrer or Goering on the basis of the requirements of the employers of labor.
DR. THOMA: Was a written order sent to you?
SAUCKEL: Yes, written orders were also sent.
DR. THOMA: From Hitler personally?
SAUCKEL: Yes, from Hitler and from Goering; from both of them.
DR. THOMA: Do you recall that you made an agreement with Rosenberg to the effect that Eastern Workers in Germany, after their return to their own country, were to receive land so that they would not be at a disadvantage as compared with the people who had remained?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that was agreed between Rosenberg and myself; that is correct.
DR. THOMA: Was this actually carried out?
SAUCKEL: Just how far this was carried out, I am unable to state. That was a task for the Ministry of the Occupied Eastern Territories. I assume that it was carried out as far as possible.
DR. THOMA: Do you recall that Rosenberg constantly advocated the doing away with the so-called Eastern Worker's badge?
SAUCKEL: Rosenberg, as well as I myself, advocated the abolition of the Eastern Worker's badge. There is a letter from the Reichsfuehrer SS refusing this; but I know for certain that at the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944 we succeeded in abolishing this Eastern Worker's badge, and it was replaced by a national emblem as worn by the other foreigners.
DR. THOMA: Why was this Eastern Worker's badge to be abolished?
SAUCKEL: This Eastern Worker's badge was to be abolished for various reasons, but above all to eliminate the demoralizing effect produced on the Eastern Workers by the wearing of a discriminating badge.
DR. THOMA: I have one last question. You said that you did not recall having received any complaints except those that you discussed with Rosenberg. Now, numerous complaints were constantly being investigated by the Central Agency for Eastern People together with the DAF. Did the DAF report to you on this?
SAUCKEL: The DAF reported that, in accordance with my directives, it had to put a stop to abuses and bad conditions wherever they were found. That was its duty. In order to remedy these abuses the DAF had not to apply to me but to the trade inspection department of the Reich Ministry of Labor, whose task it was.
DR. THOMA: Did you make sure whether this inspection department stopped these abuses?
SAUCKEL: I installed my own inspection agencies there, as mentioned by Dr. Servatius. However, the trade inspection department was the only authorized agency which had the legal authority to use compulsory measures and it was supervised by the Reich Labor Minister who had full authority.
DR. THOMA: I have no further questions. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the emblem that you have been speaking about?
SAUCKEL: The Eastern Worker's emblem or badge consisted of a bluebordered square, which bore a blue inscription "Ost." The Reichsfuehrer SS first ordered it to be worn on the right side of the breast; later, on the sleeve. Still later I was instrumental in getting this changed to a national emblem-blue, I think, or something similar-like the Russian colors, as the people themselves wished.
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Herr Sauckel, the Defendant Keitel and the OKW are accused by the Prosecution of the deportation of civilian people for the purposes of the mobilization of labor. You were also interrogated before the start of this Trial as to whether the OKW, and Keitel as Chief of the OKW, participated in the procurement, recruitment, and conscription of people in the occupied territories. A number of things which were not clear and which are contained in the record have been cleared up by your testimony. Especially in answering the last question of my colleague, Dr. Thoma, you made it clear that the organizational official channel was as follows: The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, the Four Year Plan-Goering, and the Fuehrer. Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: Generally speaking, yes.
DR. NELTE: I am interested in determining whether in this official channel the OKW was included, or the Fuehrer in some other function than Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht.
SAUCKEL: I myself was not a soldier, and I am not familiar with the detailed organization of the OKW and the OKH. It was often difficult for a layman to make the distinction between these things. It is true that the OKH was competent for the recruitment of workers in occupied countries controlled by army groups. Therefore, labor regulations for the occupied countries which were under the authority of the Army had to be issued through laws or directives by the General Staff.
DR. NELTE: You probably mean the Quartermaster General of the Army?
SAUCKEL: The Quartermaster General was, as far as I know, next to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army.
DR. NELTE: And by this you mean to say that the OKW and the Defendant Keitel had no competence concerning the procuring, recruiting, and conscripting of manpower in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: He had no competence in this respect. I came into contact with Field Marshal Keitel, because the Fuehrer repeatedly instructed me to ask Field Marshal Keitel to transmit his orders to the army groups by telephone or through directives.
DR. NELTE: And what about the question of the allocation of workers? Did the OKW, and specifically the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW, have any competence concerning the allocation of workers at home?
SAUCKEL: No, for the workers were used in those economic branches for which they had been demanded, and they had nothing at all to do with the OKW.
DR. NELTE: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
M. JACQUES B. HERZOG (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Defendant Sauckel, you joined the National Socialist Party in 1925, didn't you? Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: I joined the National Socialist Party for the first time, as an ordinary member, as early as 1923. When the Party was reorganized in 1925 I again became a member.
M. HERZOG: But you had supported the policy of National Socialism since 1921, had you not?
SAUCKEL: From 1921 onwards, I supported a German policy. In 1921 I did not as yet belong to the Party. I knew about the Party, and I was in sympathy with its ideas; that is probably the right way to put it.
M. HERZOG: Did you not make speeches in favor of National Socialism from that time on?
SAUCKEL: From about the middle of 1921 I made speeches in favor of Germany, not expressly for the Party and only in a very small way, at small gatherings, and as my conscience guided me.
M. HERZOG: You were Gauleiter, member of the Landrat, Minister of the Interior, and Governor of Thuringia. Is it correct that in this capacity you brought about the Nazification of your Gau?
SAUCKEL: I was Prime Minister of Thuringia from August 1932, and I was Minister of the Interior as well.
M. HERZOG: I am asking you the question again: Is it correct that, in your capacity as Gauleiter and Governor of Thuringia, you brought about the Nazification of your Gau?
SAUCKEL: Nazification is a term with which I was neither familiar nor do I consider it correct. I recruited for the National Socialist Party and I supported it.
M. HERZOG: You were Obergruppenfuehrer of the organization of the SS, were you not?
SAUCKEL: I do not quite understand. Of the SS?
M. HERZOG: You were an Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS?
SAUCKEL: I already stated in my preliminary interrogation that I was an honorary Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS. I myself never served in the SS, nor did I exercise any functions in the SS. M. HERZOG; When did you become Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS?
SAUCKEL: As far as I remember I became an Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS in 1934.
M. HERZOG: And you were that until when?
SAUCKEL: Until the end.
M. HERZOG: Among the documents which you have presented in your document book, there is Document Sauckel-95. I will read the following passage on Page 252 of the French translation: "My dear fellow countrymen, our magnificent SA and SS, persecuted and insulted during a whole decade as the scum of the German people, have carried through, supported, and sustained this revolution with an unshakable discipline...." Is it correct... rim PRESIDENT: From what are you reading?
M. HERZOG: From Document Sauckel-95 of the defendant's document book; Document Sauckel-95, which was submitted yesterday by the learned counsel for the defense, Page 252 of the French translation. It is in the third document book of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
M. HERZOG: I put the question again and read: "My dear fellow countrymen, our magnificent SA and SS, persecuted and insulted during a whole decade as the scum of the German people, have carried through, supported, and sustained this revolution with an unshakable discipline...." Do you confirm this declaration?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I request that I be shown the document in cross-examination so that I can define my attitude in detail.
M. HERZOG: This document is taken from your own document book, which you yourself submitted.
SAUCKEL: Yes, I remember it well.
M. HERZOG: Were the Nuremberg Laws concerning Jews in accordance with your convictions?
SAUCKEL: I had no influence on legislation such as culminated in the Nuremberg Laws. My conviction is that every nation and every race has the right to exist and to demand respect and protection through itself. What I demand and have demanded for my own people is exactly the same.
M. HERZOG: Did you see to it that the Nuremberg Laws were strictly applied in the Gau of Thuringia?
SAUCKEL: The Nuremberg Laws could apply to Thuringia only insofar as any authority to appoint or dismiss employees was involved; and, of course, according to German law, it was my duty to carry out the law. The carrying out of this law by me entailed neither ill-usage nor any other inhuman treatment.
M. HERZOG: Did you approve of Hitler's theory of living space?
SAUCKEL: The Fuehrer wrote about living space in his book. How far I agreed or disagreed with him cannot, in my opinion, be dealt with in this Trial, for I had no influence as to how the Fuehrer himself should interpret the word Lebensraum.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think that you must answer the question, whether or not you approve of the doctrine of Lebensraum.
SAUCKEL: I am not fully acquainted with the statements made by the Fuehrer about the doctrine of Lebensraum. I should like to emphasize that I never thought of Lebensraum in connection with the carrying out of wars, or wars of aggression; neither did I promote the idea; but the idea of Lebensraum is perhaps best brought home to us by the fact that the population of Europe in the last 100 years has increased threefold, from 150 million to 450 million.
M. HERZOG: Did you, or did you not approve of the theory of Lebensraum? Answer "yes" or "no."
SAUCKEL: I did not agree with the theory of Lebensraum if it had to do with wars of aggression.
M. HERZOG: Did you approve of Hitler's theory of the master race?
SAUCKEL: I could give abundant proof that I personally always refused to emphasize the idea of a master race, and said so in my speeches. I am personally much more interested in proficiency than in ideas about a master race.
M. HERZOG: Then you did not think that the foreign policy of Germany should have been conducted according to these two theories; the theory of Lebensraum on the one hand, and the theory of the master race on the other hand?
SAUCKEL: I have already stated to my counsel that I did not concern myself with foreign policy and was not informed about it, as I am not versed in matters of foreign policy.
M. HERZOG: On the contrary, did you not approve of all the measures of foreign policy, and did you not participate in them?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better break off now, and you can repeat the question tomorrow. [The Tribunal adjourned until 30 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]
PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): Mr. President, I should like to put a request to you. My client comes next in order and he would like to be excused, if possible, this afternoon and all day tomorrow, so that he can prepare his case,
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that the Defendant Von Papen is absent.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, I was asking you yesterday whether you considered that Germany's foreign policy was based on the Hitlerian theories concerning living space and the master race.
SAUCKEL: May I ask you to repeat the question? I did not quite understand it in German.
M. HERZOG: I was asking you yesterday if you considered that the foreign policy of Germany was based on the two Hitlerian theories, Lebensraum and the master race.
SAUCKEL: I have understood-whether German foreign policy was based on the principles of Lebensraum and the master race.
M. HERZOG: Yes, I am asking you to answer whether, in your opinion, it was so.
SAUCKEL: Not on the principle of a master race. I should like to be permitted to give an explanation of this. I personally have never approved of the statements made by some of the National Socialist speakers about a superior race and a master race. I have never advocated that. As a young man I traveled about the world. I traveled in Australia and in America, and I met families who belong to the happiest memories of my life. But I loved my own people and sought, I admit, equality of rights for them; and I have always stood for that. I have never believed in the superiority of one particular race, but I always held that equality of rights was necessary.
M. HERZOG: That being so, you did not approve of the whole of the foreign policy of Hitler; and you did not collaborate with him?
SAUCKEL: In answer to the question by my counsel I stated that I never considered myself to be a politician as regards foreign policy. I entered the Party by quite a different way and for quite different motives.