dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SAUCKEL: I already explained that yesterday, during the examination by my defense counsel, and I gave as an example the fact that an Eastern Worker, when I came into office, drew wages of about 60 pfennigs per hour, which, after deductions for food and lodging, would leave him about 4t/o marks in cash I altered that after I came into office and doubled the cash payments. The purpose of the instructions which existed before my service was probably to prevent too great a circulation of money for reasons concerning currency. I do not know the details.
MR. DODD: This exhibit, Mr. President, becomes USA-881. I have no further questions.
DR. WALTER BALLAS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): I am replacing Dr. Horn for Defendant Von Ribbentrop. I have a few questions to put to the witness. Yesterday in cross-examination you spoke about a French diplomatic organization, formed under the French Ambassador Scapini, for Frenchmen in Germany. Is it true that it was at Defendant Ribbentrop's wish that this organization was formed?
SAUCKEL: At our mutual wish and agreement. We both had the same interests. That is correct.
DR. BALLAS: Can you tell me the reasons which caused Von Ribbentrop to create this organization?
SAUCKEL: The reason for this was, in my opinion, to bring about an understanding between the French and German populations by giving assurance that particular care would be taken of Frenchmen working in Germany.
DR. BALLAS: This diplomatic organization was also responsible for the treatment of French prisoners of war? Can you tell me for what reasons the German Foreign Office decided on so unusual an arrangement at a time when a state of war still existed between France and Germany?
SAUCKEL: There were conferences between the French Government of Marshal Petain and the German Government, and both nations tried conscientiously to bring about an understanding.
DR. BALLAS: And because of that came these unusual measures concerning prisoners of war?
SAUCKEL: Not only because of that; I considered it a particular necessity, and I might mention in this connection that this organization was later divided or supplemented. In addition to M. Scapini, who took care of French prisoners of war in particular, a M. Broehne took special charge of French civilian workers.
DR. BALLAS: Is it true that Defendant Von Ribbentrop in the Foreign Office created an organization to bring into Germany from occupied countries artists, lecturers, newspapers, books, et cetera, for foreign workers so that these workers would return home well inclined toward an understanding with Germany?
SAUCKEL: It was the purpose of an agreement established by the Reich Foreign Minister in collaboration with the Reich Ministry of Propaganda, the German Labor Front, and my office, to improve the leisure time of the foreign workers by means of foreign artists and lecturers. Many Russian artists were in Germany for this purpose. It also had the purpose of bringing libraries and periodicals to these people from their home countries.
DR. BALLAS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, in order to rectify an error in a chart in Document Sauckel-l, I just want to have the witness' confirmation. [The document was handed to the defendant.] Witness, among the employers of labor you mentioned the departments of Minister Funk, did you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: And going down you find written in the third square "armament inspectorate," and under that, "Reichsautobahn." These two squares have been incorrectly put in. They do not belong there. Is it true that these two squares should be crossed out?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: I therefore ask that the chart be rectified by having these two squares crossed out. They belong to Speer's Ministry, but I have not given any close attention to that side, and I do not wish to discuss it here. Then, from the Buchenwald photograph album there were a number of pictures submitted which show the defendant together with Himmler. Witness, can you tell from the picture the approximate time of that meeting? There are certain indications which you discussed with me yesterday. Will you briefly describe these?
SAUCKEL: Yes. The left-hand top picture shows that construction is still going on; I can see unfinished roadbeds and the like. This may therefore be during the construction period.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what can you say about the time from the dress of the various people?
SAUCKEL: The dress shows quite clearly that this is at a time before the war, for Himmler is wearing a black uniform which he never wore during the war. Apart from that he is wearing a sword, which was forbidden during the war. It is quite clear that this meeting took place before the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are these people wearing decorations?
SAUCKEL: I cannot see whether they are wearing decorations; no.
DR. SERVATIUS: And so I can conclude that this picture was taken sometime before the war?
SAUCKEL: Quite definitely sometime before the war, because I myself did not wear an SS uniform during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: Document Number F-810 was submitted yesterday. That is a report about the meeting at the Wartburg. Beginning on Page 25 of the German text there is a report by Dr. Sturm, which was shown you and in which it is said among other things that there was collaboration between the Gestapo and the concentration camps and that that was the right road to take. You were asked whether that was your view too, and whether such collaboration was correct. What did you understand by that? Do you mean that you agreed to the methods used in concentration camps, as practiced by Himmler?
SAUCKEL: Under no circumstances, I wanted to indicate that it was correct, as the document shows, that workers' discipline should be enforced step by step, as provided for in cases of disobedience: First a reprimand, then small fines imposed by the factory, as laid down, in fact, in my Decree Number 13, which I want to submit as documentary evidence. Only then, after reprimands and small disciplinary penalties at the factory had proved inadequate, should there be further treatment of these cases, as is mentioned in the document, by having them brought to court by the public prosecutor. I called a proper penal procedure correct. By no means did I want thereby to characterize methods in concentration camps as correct. I was not at all familiar with these methods at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have a document, Number 1764-PS, before me. I have not been able to ascertain when and if it has already been submitted. I have just received it in the form of a photostaticcopy. It is the so-called Hemmen report, a report which Envoy Hemmen made about a sector of the labor allocation in France. I want to read a short passage to the defendant which deals with the number of Frenchmen employed in Germany, and I want him to confirm it. [Turning to the defendant.] Witness, I shall read you a passage and ask you to...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, it is not usual to allow documents to be put in re-examination. Why was this not used in examination-in- chief ?
DR. SERVATIUS: The figures were questioned during the crossexamination, not before. I attach no great importance to finding out in detail how many hundred thousands came or went. I can omit this question and come back to it in the final pleadings.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was not saying you could not use it now. As it arose out of the cross-examination, I think you may be able to use it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I should like briefly to read to you the relevant passage; and I want you to tell me whether the views presented there are correct. Envoy Hemmen reports here, in a letter received at the Foreign Office on 6 February 1944, under Paragraph III as follows: "Allocation of Labor in Germany: "It started with the voluntary recruitment of workers which, up to the end of 1942, produced 400,000 men. During the first half of 1943 two further voluntary recruitments of 250,000 men each were effected. The first, by granting the privileges of the releve-which allowed leave for prisoners of war at a ratio of 1 prisoner to 3 recruits-or the granting of worker status, produced some 200,000; whereas the second could be carried out only by using the new compulsory service law, that is to say, coercion, and produced only 122,000 men." I skip the end of the page and read from Page 8: "As the total result of the Sauckel Action 818,000 persons all told, mostly men, went to Germany; 168,000 of them owing to the compulsory service law. Of all these there were only 420,000 still there at the end of January 1944." As far as you can recollect, are these statements generally correct?
SAUCKEL: May I remark in this connection that the Envoy Hemmen at the Embassy in Paris dealt with these questions there and they are given correctly. Finally, you meant to say 420,000 and not 420, did you not?
DR. SERVATIUS: Thousand.
SAUCKEL: The decisive point is that because of the short term of the contracts, the French workers were changed every 6 months, thus only one half could be here at a time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, you have already said that.
SAUCKEL: As an explanation I should like permission to tell the Tribunal that while there was a ratio of 1 to 3-meaning that Germany gave back 1 prisoner of war in return for 3 workers-both the prisoner of war and the French civilian workers who had replaced him for the most part had returned to their own country after 11/ years, as each stayed for only 6 months. It was very hard to win the E Fuehr over to this regulation.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear some supplementary applications for witnesses and documents at 2 o'clock on Monday.
M. HERZOG: Mr. President,' I should like to come back briefly to Document D-565, that is to say, to the photographs showing the Defendant Sauckel at the Concentration Camp of Buchenwald. The Prosecution has never claimed, and does not claim now, that these photographs date from a period during the war. Quite the contrary, the original, which has been shown to you, has the date of these photographs and the year is 1938. The defendant, when he was examined by his counsel, told us that he visited Buchenwald in the company of Italian officers. I do not see a single Italian officer in these photographs; I simply see the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler. However, I do not dispute, and I never claimed that these photographs dated from a year other than 1938.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have one last question in connection with Exhibit Sauckel-82 from Document Book Sauckel 3, Page 206 and following. On Page 207 we find a statement under Number Ss which I should like to put to the defendant again, because the prosecutor for the Soviet Union has stated that Sauckel declared here that he gave no protection against crime. I should like to read the sentence to the defendant again and ask him for an explanation. I myself have already quoted it once before; apparently there is a misunderstanding. It is a very short sentence; it reads: "You can demand of me every protection in your labor area, but no protection for crimes." Does that mean, Witness, that you did not grant protection against crimes?
SAUCKEL: On the contrary, it can be seen very clearly from that document that I did not tolerate any crime. I would not protect these people, who were not subordinate to me, if they committed crimes there. They were not to do that; that was what I prohibited . . .
DR. SERVATIUS: I believe that the German shows very clearly that this explanation, as the defendant has just given it, is correct. I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant Sauckel, I want to ask you a number of questions. And will you try to speak a little more quietly, and will you listen carefully to the questions and try to make your answers responsive to the questions?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, first, I am going to ask you a little bit about your personnel. You had one large central office, I take it, did you not-one large central office?
SAUCKEL: I had a small central of lice, Your Honor.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): A small central office. And how many people...
SAUCKEL: An office of my own.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many employees were in that office?
SAUCKEL: In this personnel office, Your Honor, there were two personnel experts; a Ministerialrat, Dr. Stothfang; a Landrat Dr....
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Just a moment; how many, just how many?
SAUCKEL: Two higher officials and about eight middle and lower officials as assistants and registrars.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did your inspectors work out of that office?
SAUCKEL: The inspectors belonged to Department 9 of the Reich Ministry of Labor which had been installed there. That was a special department which was established in the Reich Ministry of Labor at my request, with higher officials who...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now the inspectors worked, I suppose, under your instructions and reported to you, did they?
SAUCKEL: The inspectors reported first to Department 5 in the Reich Ministry of Labor. I was informed in important cases. The inspectors had the right and the duty to correct bad conditions on the spot when they were confirmed in the labor administration.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many inspectors were there?
SAUCKEL: There were in Department 9, I believe...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, no-in all, how many in all?
SAUCKEL: There were various inspection offices, Your Honor. This inspection...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): One moment, Defendant. Just listen to the question. I said how many inspectors in all the inspection offices were there?
SAUCKEL: From my own knowledge I cannot say how many here were in the Labor Front. The extent of inspection offices in the Labor Front would have been a matter for Dr. Ley to explain. That I do not know in detail.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, do you know about how many inspectors were working to inspect the labor work. You must know about how many were there, don't you?
SAUCKEL: I cannot give you accurate figures, but it may have been approximately 60 or 70, if you take all of them together including those of the German Labor Front.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, did they go outside of Germany, or did they work only in Germany?
SAUCKEL: These inspectors worked for the most part only in Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And they would inspect such matters as food and travel and conditions of the camps, and so on, would they not?
SAUCKEL: That was their task.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes. And the important reports would come to you?
SAUCKEL: No. According to an agreement the reports had to be sent to the highest competent Reich authorities for bad conditions to be corrected. For bad conditions in industry and in camps the competent authority was the Industrial Inspectorate under Retch Minister of Labor Seldte. That was the highest...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, did not any of them come to you?
SAUCKEL: Complaints were also brought to me, but I could do nothing but send them back to the competent offices and ask that everything be done to remedy the conditions; and that is what I did.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did the inspectors' reports come to you, any of the inspectors' reports?
SAUCKEL: The reports did not come to me directly; they went through channels to those offices which were concerned with correcting such abuses.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, I am asking you not whether they came directly, but did they come to you eventually? Did you get them? Did you see them?
SAUCKEL: Such reports came very seldom to me.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you do not know what the conditions were then, since you did not get the inspectors' reports, is that right?
SAUCKEL: Four times or twice a year I also sent my assistants and these inspectors in person to the Gauleiter in the German Gaue, and I received reports on what they discussed during these private conferences with the regional offices and on what they inspected and observed. There was nothing of a catastrophic nature, merely shortcomings in the execution of the directives which I had issued. I was informed about things of that sort...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you are telling us that you never got any reports or complaints of a catastrophic nature; is that right?
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand that question.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You never got any reports or complaints of what you call a catastrophic nature; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Within Germany-I received reports and complaints such as I described to my counsel from Field Marshal Kluge, or else they were made known to me in discussions with Rosenberg. Immediately I took the necessary measures. But that was not frequently the case... infix; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, if you would listen to the question and try to answer it, I think we would get along much faster. You used the expression "catastrophic nature;" those were your words. Did you get any reports of a catastrophic nature?
SAUCKEL: I learned through Field Marshal Kluge, and through reports, which have been mentioned here, from Rosenberg, about a few cases which I considered catastrophic and tried to correct.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): These were what you call catastrophic cases?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What were they?
SAUCKEL: There was the case in the East which Field Marshal Kluge reported to me, where motion picture houses were surrounded by recruiting agents. I considered that catastrophic. The second case was the case of the returning transport, where according to the report-it is called the later report, but I do not remember the number of the document-children are said to have died on the way and been placed outside the train. I considered that catastrophic. But there could...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have answered.
SAUCKEL: But...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have answered that now. Did you get any complaints about Koch?
SAUCKEL: I received complaints about Koch at times from the Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, Rosenberg, and also from another source. Koch, of course, always defended himself very vehemently.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then you had complaints from several people about Koch?
SAUCKEL: Yes. I could...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And the complaints said what Koch was doing, did they?
SAUCKEL: I did not receive complaints from many sides about Koch, but rather from one side... red; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait...
SAUCKEL: But from several people...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait. Won't you answer the question? I did not ask you if you have received many complaints. I said, "The complaints said what Koch was doing." Is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, in some cases.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what did you do with those complaints?
SAUCKEL: As far as my field of work was concerned, when I received complaints such as have been discussed here, I called a conference in my office. That was the case immediately after the complaints from Rosenberg, and on that occasion I adopted the attitude which my defense counsel cited and pointed out with respect to the conference of 6 January 1943.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And the Koch matter ended after the conference, I take it? That was all you did? there was no response.] That was the end of it as far as you were concerned?
SAUCKEL: As far as I was concerned, I personally pointed out to the E Fuehr on several occasions that I considered it quite out of the question to treat the Eastern Workers and the people in the East badly; and by means of the decrees which I issued continually, and which are contained in my documents, I did whatever I could to protect them. I ask...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I have asked you about your central office. Did you have any branch offices?
SAUCKEL: No, I had no branch offices. Two departments of the Ministry of Labor, 5 and 6, were put at my disposal for the carrying out of my tasks of an administrative and technical nature.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Alright. That is enough.
SAUCKEL: There business matters of an administrative nature were carried on. I ask...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. Now, were the recruitment offices in the Ministry of Labor?
SAUCKEL: No. In the Ministry of Labor there were...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Never mind. That is all you have to say. Where were they, where were the recruitment offices?
SAUCKEL: The recruitment offices were in the occupied territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I understand that. But under what office? What administration? What department?
SAUCKEL: The departments for labor were themselves incorporated in the administration of these territories. That can be seen very clearly from my Decree 4, for that had been done in the same manner before I came into office. They were integral parts of the local administration.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Of the local administration? When you mentioned the 1,500 district offices, were those the recruitment of fires?
SAUCKEL: Those were the offices in all the various territories which represented these various administrations on the lowest level, as I have just mentioned.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You do not answer the question. I asked you whether they were recruiting offices. Were they recruiting offices?
SAUCKEL: They were not only recruiting offices, they were the offices of the territorial labor administration on the lowest level.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So they did administration and recruiting? [There was no response.] They did recruiting, did they not?
SAUCKEL: I understand that that was one and the same thing. The recruitment was carried on according to German principles as part of the administration. Outside the administration recruitment could not be carried on.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): They were recruiting offices, then? The answer is "yes," is it not? They were recruiting offices?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. You should have said that in the beginning. That is what I wanted to know. Now, I want to know the relation of your offices to the Party offices. The Gaue and the Gauleiter worked in co-operation with you as plenipotentiaries, working with you, did they not?
SAUCE: No, Your Honor, that is a mistake. The Gauleiter had nothing to do with recruiting, that was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait. I said nothing about recruiting. I asked you the relation of your offices to the Gauleiter. The Gauleiter co-operated with you in the general program, did they not?
SAUCKEL: Not in the general program, Your Honor; only in the program of caring for German and foreign workers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. The Gauleiter, then, had nothing to do with recruiting; is that right?
SAUCKEL: No; that is right.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right? They looked after the care and comfort of the men who were recruited, is that right?
SAUCKEL: If they were working in the Reich, yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In the Reich?
SAUCKEL: In the Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did the Gaue outside the Reich in the occupied territories also work for you, or do you consider that they were part of the Reich? [There was no response.] Let me ask the question again. I do not think it is very clear. Certain of the occupied territories had been incorporated into the Reich, had they not?
SAUCKEL: In the East only the territories Wartheland and West Prussia were incorporated into the Reich...