dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SERVATIUS: It has been alleged here that you used the Nacht and Rebel Order to get workers to Germany.
SAUCKEL: I did not know the Nacht and Nebel Order. I only found out about it here. It had nothing to do with the allocation of labor and my duties.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the employment of Jewish workers?
SAUCKEL: I had nothing to do with the employment of Jews. That was exclusively the task of the Reichsfuehrer of the SS.
DR. SERVATIUS: I submit the Document R-91. That is Exhibit USA-241, and Exhibit RF-347. It is not included in the document books. It is a letter from the Chief of Security Police and SD Muller to the Reichsfuehrer SS, field headquarters, dated 16 December 1942. It says there, and I quote: "In connection with the increased assignment of manpower to the KL"-that should probably read KZ-"which is ordered to take place before 30 January 1943, the following procedure may be applied in the Jewish sector: total number, 45,000 Jews." Then there is a more detailed specification, and among other things, it says at the end, "3,000 Jews from the occupied territories of the Netherlands," and further, "The number 45,000 includes those unfit for work...." What had you to do with that letter?
SAUCKEL: I have just learned of that letter for the first time. I did not know of it before, and I can only emphasize that these transports and this procedure had nothing to do with my work, and that I had nothing to do with them at any time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then we have here Document L-61, which has been submitted. That is Exhibit USA-177; in the English document book on slave labor, it is Document Number 6. The document is in the first list of documents which was made available to the Defense, and it was listed as an original letter from Sauckel which admitted the deportation of Jews. Will you please read this letter to yourself and state your position as to how far you had anything to do with the deportation of Jews. I shall briefly state what the contents are. It says there in that letter of 26 November 1942: "By agreement with the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, Jews who are still in employment are from now on also to be evacuated from the territory of the Reich and are to be replaced by Poles who are being deported from the Government General." This letter ends by saying: "I transmit the foregoing copy for your information. Insofar as this affects the removal of Jews employed in your area, I request that you take the necessary measures in agreement with the competent offices of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD." Then it says, "Signed, Fritz Sauckel." Will you state your position with respect to that letter, please?
SAUCKEL: May I say with respect to this document that it was shown to me already in the preliminary interrogations. I had it only for a short time then, and when it was presented to me again in the course of the proceedings I found that it was not an original document which I had signed. My name is typewritten at the bottom. Secondly, it appears very peculiar to me that this letter, which I am supposed to have signed, was not dated by my office. My office, as can be seen from numerous documents, was in Berlin, in Mohrenstrasse. This letter was dated by the Saarlandstrasse office. As far as the contents are concerned, I have to state that I at no time had a personal arrangement or agreement with the SD and Security Police in the sense of that letter; neither had I any knowledge of that letter, and I cannot remember it now either. The only thing in that letter which is correct is that I was obliged to replace the loss of manpower in German industry-whether Jews, soldiers, or others-within 2 weeks. It is possible that this letter came from the Saarlandstrasse office, from a subordinate office. I cannot say anything else about it.
DR. SERVATIUS: How is it, then, that the ending, "Signed, Fritz Sauckel" is on the letter?
SAUCKEL: I cannot understand that. If it were an authentic copy, it would have had to be signed.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the original?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, I have not got the original. It has been submitted by the Prosecution and is therefore in the files of the Tribunal as an exhibit.
SAUCKEL: The appendix deals with events which also occurred before my time in office-that is, before I came into office these happenings had practically all taken place.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any knowledge as to what would happen to the Jews?
SAUCKEL: Do you mean...?
DR. SERVATIUS: The final solution.
SAUCKEL: No, I had no knowledge of that. It would have made my task much easier and I would have had much less difficulty if all these people, as far as they were capable of working, had been brought into the labor plan in a more reasonable manner. I knew absolutely nothing about this final solution, and it was entirely contrary to my interest.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the question of wages, who was responsible for the regulation of wages?
SAUCKEL: I was responsible for the regulation of wages during my term of office.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of wages were paid? Leave out the Eastern people for the moment.
SAUCKEL: In principle, all foreign workers were paid the wages which had been agreed upon by contract with the liaison offices and the governments, and which were in accordance with the wage scales recognized as legal in the different regions in Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the so-called Eastern Workers?
SAUCKEL: As far as the Eastern Workers were concerned, when I took office I found that under the existing regulations most of their wages were deducted as taxes in favor of the Reich. This was in accordance with a decree of the Ministerial Council for National Defense.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you satisfied with that, or did you take steps to improve conditions?
SAUCKEL: It can be seen from the documents-that is to say, from the decrees which I issued during my term of office-that these regulations, which I considered intolerable, were improved step by step, as far as I was able to overcome opposition, until in 1944 the Eastern Worker stood on the same level as the German worker. The first improvement was made in June 1942 when wages were doubled, the second in 1943, and the last in March 1944, by Decree 11.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to the following documents, which I shall not read: Document Sauckel-50, in Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 134; Document Sauckel-17, in Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 137; Document Sauckel-52, Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 143; Document Sauckel-58, Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 156; and finally, Document Sauckel-58(a), Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 161. I submit the original in a collection, "Regulations Governing Allocation of the Eastern Workers."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I understood the defendant to say just now that that Document-61 was drawn up before he took charge of the labor commitment.
DR. SERVATIUS: It refers to things which existed before his term of office and were almost completed at the time when that letter was drafted-that is, that state of things already existed.
THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing in the document to show that, is there?
DR. SERVATIUS: It can be seen from the date.
THE PRESIDENT: The date is 26 November 1942.
DR. SERVATIUS: The appendix refers to a decree of 27 March 1942. The second appendix, if we go back further, is an appendix of 21 January 1942 which also deals with that question. What we have quoted here was only the last letter, the final letter.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. We have not got the full document before us then.
DR. SERVATIUS: I will submit it. [Turning to the defendant.] Regarding the wages of the Eastern Workers, did the Eastern Workers receive any remuneration besides these wages?
SAUCKEL: The Eastern Workers, as a result of my efforts, received remuneration in the form of premiums for good work, and Christmas bonuses, in the same way as the German workers; and in addition there was an agreement with the Eastern Ministry according to which the families of Eastern Workers were to receive the amount of 130 rubles per month upon request.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to some documents. They are Document Sauckel-22, in the English book, Volume I, Page 9; a decree, Document Sauckel-54, concerning premiums, which is in Volume II, Page 151; and Document Sauckel-57, concerning Christmas bonuses, Volume II, Page 155. [Turning to the defendant.] What remained for the Eastern Workers in cash wages?
SAUCKEL: When I started in office-that is before the regulations introduced by me-the Eastern Worker, after his expenses for food and lodging had been deducted, had about 4 marks 60 pfennigs per week left over, if one takes as an average example the rate of 60 pfennigs an hour for an average worker in German industry. The same worker's net pay, or "Freibetrag" as it was called, was increased in June 1942, after I had had an opportunity of looking into these things, by about 100 percent to 9.10 marks. May I state that it would have been quite impossible for a German worker at the same wage level to have had more left over for saving when one considers his taxes and social contributions, his expenses for rent, heating, and food. That was the principle laid down for me by the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense for the payment of this labor. It was not my wish. However, as early as March or April 1943 the wage of the Russian worker, again due to my intervention, was increased to about 12 marks, and in the spring of 1944 it was increased to about 18 marks.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think we need to have all this in detail There is no particular charge against the defendant that he did not pay any of the workers, is there? I mean, he says, he paid them and we do not want the details of the number of marks.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the accusation of slave labor has been made, and this as a rule is unpaid labor. The French report, Document RF-22, has estimated a loss of 77 milliards which is supposed to have been suffered by France through the use of her workers. It is interesting to hear at least...
THE PRESIDENT: You do not want exact details of it, do you?
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the defendant.] What have you to say about the facilities for transferring these wages?
SAUCKEL: I first had to create facilities for transferring wages, because the only real attraction for a foreign worker to work in Germany was that he could support his family at home by sending part of his earnings to his native country. That was done on the basis of agreements reached with the President of the German Reichsbank. He himself has testified to that.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the question of wages, I refer to Document 021-PS, which has been submitted as F-44. It is not in either of the document books. It is dated 2 April 1943. It shows how rates of pay were calculated and deals with the improvement of the wages of Eastern Workers. I do not want to quote it in detail; but a study will reveal that serious attempts were made here to bring about an improvement and an equalization. [Turning to the defendant.] What was the duration of labor contracts?
SAUCKEL: The duration of labor contracts depended on agreements which had been concluded with the governments in question. For the western and southern countries the contract was for 6 months, 9 months, or 1 year. As for the eastern countries and the Soviet workers, when I came to office, the existing regulations provided for an indefinite period. As I considered a definite period to be necessary in spite of the greater distances, here too I finally succeeded in obtaining a time limit of 2 years.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it intended to continue to use this manpower after the war, and were these foreign workers to remain in Germany? I ask that question because the French Prosecution quoted the following passage from the book, Work for Europe, Exhibit RF-5, Page 23: "A large percentage of foreign workers will remain in our country even after the victory, and then, having been trained for construction work, they will continue and complete the projects interrupted by the war." From that was it concluded that forced labor was to continue even after the war?
SAUCKEL: That was partly or entirely the opinion of the author of that article, but I believe that it was also mentioned that the workers would return home and there use, for the benefit of their own homeland, the knowledge and skill which they had gained from new work in Germany. I had absolutely no intention of keeping foreign workers in Germany after the war, and in any case I could not have done so. On the contrary, I even ordered that a card index of foreign workers, a central register, should be carefully kept on the basis of which, in case of a favorable conclusion of the war, it would be possible for me faithfully to return these workers to their native countries and have a record of them.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I understood you correctly, it was not a question of forcibly retaining the workers, but of keeping them here by recruitment?
SAUCKEL: Yes; it was not reported to me that a large number of foreign workers wanted to stay in Germany of their own accord. That is an assumption.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the compulsory labor? What was the duration of the contracts?
SAUCKEL: There was no difference in pay or length of contract between voluntary work and compulsory work, or what we called in the language of the decree, "Dienstverpflichtungen." This held true for all countries. If a Frenchman doing compulsory labor had a contract for 6 or 9 months, he had the same right as the voluntary worker to return after 9 months. It was possible to extend the period.
DR. SERVATIUS: In which cases was the contract extended?
SAUCKEL: The contract was extended when the worker wanted of his own free will to continue his services, or when there was an emergency or shortage of manpower in a particular factory which justified an extension. Then that had to be arranged with the liaison officers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Besides civilian workers, were prisoners of war also used in Germany? What did you have to do with that use of manpower?
SAUCKEL: The employment of prisoners of war was quite complicated, because it had to take place in agreement with the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization. The so-called technique of transposition caused me difficulties. Allow me to explain this. There existed the Geneva Convention, or the Hague Convention, according to which prisoners of war could not be used in armament or ammunition industries. When, however, we spoke of prisoners of war being engaged in the armament industry that meant that so-and-so many German women or workers were transferred to industries in which the Geneva Convention prohibited the use of prisoners of war, and that prisoners of war took their place. That was done in agreement with the offices of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who saw to it that the Geneva Convention was observed?
SAUCKEL: The general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization and we ourselves, or the "Arbeitseinsatz" administration, adhered to the rules of the Geneva Convention and several times compiled a catalog of the types of work for which prisoners of war could be used. Also during my time, in 1943 and 1944, a special edition of this catalog was published, and it can be found in the so-called Blue Book.
DR. SERVATIUS: Have you known cases where prisoners of war were used contrary to the Geneva Convention?
SAUCKEL: Certain agreements were made with the French Government, as far as volunteers were concerned, and this applied to a certain extent to Eastern Workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was responsible for the housing, feeding, and care of prisoners of war?
SAUCKEL: The offices of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization were solely responsible.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is it known to you that millions of prisoners of war had perished by the time you had assumed office?
SAUCKEL: It had become known to me before I assumed office that a great number of prisoners of war perished in the so-called battles of encirclement in the East. These battles lasted a long time, and owing to our enormous transport difficulties we could not move the prisoners, and they were left on the battlefield in a state of utmost exhaustion. That is all I know about that.
DR. SERVATIUS: At the beginning of your activities you had to deal with prisoners of war, had you not? What did you find out at that time, or what did you do?
SAUCKEL: I found out that some of the Russian prisoners of war were terribly undernourished.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did you do?
SAUCKEL: Together with the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization I arranged for all these prisoners of war- as far as I know and remember there were about 70,000 in the Reich at that time-to be billeted with German farmers, in order to build up their strength. The farmers were obliged to feed these prisoners of war for at least 3 months, without putting them to work. As compensation the farmers were given the assurance that these prisoners of war would stay with them and work for them until the end of the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: During the course of the war did prisoners of war obtain the status of free laborers?
SAUCKEL: Yes. As far as French workers were concerned, I was instrumental in seeing that they were employed only by agreement with the French Government. These agreements were concluded under the sponsorship of the German Ambassador in Paris. The quotas were negotiated in accordance with instructions given me by the Fuehrer and by the Reich Marshal. The first quota was 250,000 French laborers and 150,000 skilled workers. As a compensation for the use of these voluntary workers- and I emphasize voluntary-50,000 French prisoners of war who were farmers were to be, and actually were, returned to the French Government in order to improve the cultivation of French farm land. That was the first agreement.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the Releve? SAUCKEL. The Releve was an agreement between the French Government and my office according to which for every three French workers who came to Germany one French prisoner of war was released and sent home by the Fuehrer.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who brought about this agreement?
SAUCKEL: This agreement was concluded on the basis of a discussion between the French Premier and myself. I was much in favor of this agreement, because I myself spent 5 years behind barbed wire during the first World War.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did it make it easier for the prisoners? Did they return home?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they returned home.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how did the civilian population react to that? Above all, how did the workers feel who had to go to Germany?
SAUCKEL: This was an act of comradeship, and according to the reports I received the feeling was favorable.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then in reality instead of one prisoner of war there were three imprisoned workers?
SAUCKEL: No. These workers could move about freely in Germany in the same way as the other French workers and the German population.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they have to come to Germany for an indefinite period of time?
SAUCKEL: No, they stayed according to the length of their contracts, just like the other workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the average duration of a contract?
SAUCKEL: 9 months.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then the result was that after 9 months the prisoners of war, as well as the other workers, could return home?
SAUCKEL: Yes. This continual exchange necessitated new quotas and new agreements with the French Government, for there always had to be replacements.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these negotiations carried on under a certain pressure?
SAUCKEL: No. I beg you to hear witnesses on this. They were conducted on a free diplomatic basis.
DR. SERVATIUS: To what extent was this Releve carried through? Was it on a very large or only on a small scale?
SAUCKEL: It was carried out on the basis of 250,000 workers who were to go to Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: The French Prosecution in their government report said that only weak and sick people were sent back who could not work anyway. What have you to say to that?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know, French soldiers who were prisoners of war were sent back. The sending back and the selection of the soldiers was not my task but that of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization. I consider it possible that sick soldiers were also sent back to their homes in this way if they wished it. But certainly it was not the intention to send back only sick or older soldiers, but soldiers in general. That was the basis of the agreement.
DR. SERVATIUS: There was a second course which was chosen- the improved status which the French called "transformation." What kind of arrangement was that?
SAUCKEL: The improved status was a third agreement which included the provision that French prisoners of war in Germany were given the same contracts and the same status as all other French civilian workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: When a new French worker came to Germany? The ratio therefore was 1 to 1?
SAUCKEL: 1 to 1.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did these French workers have to bind themselves indefinitely, or was there a time limit here too?
SAUCKEL: Exactly the same as applied to the Releve.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was this improvement in status welcomed by the French soldiers, or did they disapprove of it?
SAUCKEL: They did not disapprove of it but welcomed it, according to the attitude of the individual soldier. A large number rejected it; others accepted it gladly, for by this measure the workers received high wages and all the liberties that were accorded outside the barbed wire, and the like. I myself saw how an entire camp accepted this new status. They had been told that the gates and barbed wire would be done away with, the prisoner regulations discontinued, and the surveillance abolished.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could these prisoners who had been turned into workers also go home?
SAUCKEL: My documents show that they were allowed to go home.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they receive any furlough?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they did. Many of them came back, and an equally large number did not.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to refer to Document RF-22, German text, Page 70 of the French Government report. This document shows and admits that the prisoners received leave to go home at the beginning of this transformation, and I quote, "The unfortunate men did not return, however, and therefore this procedure was discontinued." [Turning to the defendant.] Have you heard of the idea, "indirect forced labor"?
SAUCKEL: No. Please explain it to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the Tribunal.] The French report contains the argument that those worker" who worked in France in armament industries did so for the benefit of Germany. Sauckel was not connected with this in any way. This French report, which deals at length with the economic side of the Arbeitseinsatz, says that it worked according to a well-conceived and flexible system, and at first negotiations were friendly. The measures then became harsher in accordance with the circumstances. [Turning to the defendant.] Was there a definite plan? Did you have to carry out certain instructions, or what system was adopted?
SAUCKEL: I should like to be allowed to explain this. A plan of the sort you have just outlined never existed. The only thing towards which I worked was the program which I drew up and which is in the possession of the Tribunal; a program which I admit, and for which I take all the consequences and the responsibility, even for my subordinates. This program was carried out through my decrees, which are also available in full. The development of the war did not permit me to give full consideration to the circumstances which now, post faction, appear obvious. We ourselves stood in the midst of the flow of events as the war developed and did not have time to ponder over such matters.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the "Sperrbetriebe" and the "Ausnahmebetriebe" in France?