dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
TIMM: I know nothing of any close personal relations between the GBA and Himmler. On Sauckel's labor staff there was a liaison man from the Reichsfuehrer SS, especially for any general police questions that might arise concerning the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of questions were there?
TIMM: All kinds of questions; especially the question of badges in connection with the employment of foreigners.
DR. SERVATIUS: And probably also questions concerning barbed wire?
TIMM: Yes; questions concerning barbed wire, and all the questions which arose in police spheres.
DR. SERVATIUS: And also the question of labor training camps?
TRIM: As I was not an expert on those questions I cannot remember very well, and-I do not know whether there were any detailed conferences about them.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I should like to pass on to the connection of the authorities with the occupied territories. With whom were negotiations carried on and to whom did one apply when making demands on the occupied territories?
TIMM: One had to apply to the respective district governments at the time-military commanders, Reich commissioners or something similar.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of position did Sauckel's deputies have?
TIMM: The deputies were organized and intended to be men who were to exert a direct and vigorous influence on the execution of Sauckel's plans, instructions and orders. This goal, however, was not reached as they were not able to succeed. I remember that the Plenipotentiary General therefore intended to ask Hitler for more comprehensive instructions and more comprehensive powers. I seem to recall that the Plenipotentiary General once announced that he had learned from Hitler himself, or from his entourage, that Hitler was not inclined to extend these powers as he could not release the local governments, especially the military commanders, from their comprehensive responsibility and powers; so the Plenipotentiary General had only one recourse, that of putting forward his wishes through the channel of direct negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why were the deputies not able to succeed?
TIMM: The deputies could only try to consult with the existing regional governments, but the opposition was so strong that they could not carry any weight.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did these deputies not hold another position at the same time?
TIMM: As they could not attain an independent position, the deputies were generally incorporated into the existing local administration by way of negotiations. With few exceptions they were entrusted with the management of the labor section, or were incorporated into the section for economy and labor. Generally they were placed within the staffs of the military commanders as administrative officials and that was the position which they held ostensibly.
DR. SERVATIUS: So it was a combination of two or more positions held by one person?
TIMM: It was, to a certain extent, a combination of different positions held by one person, of which, without doubt, the most important was the position of section chief in the existing regional government.
DR. SERVATIUS: With whom did this arrangement of a dual position originate? Was it Sauckel who insisted on it, or the responsible regional authorities?
TIMM: As far as I know, it resulted from talks with the regional governments on the question of the position of the deputies. The regional governments wanted on no account to have any men in their districts who were independent of their administration and had special powers.
DR. SERVATIUS: So that curbed the initiative of the deputies?
TIMM: Their initiative as originally planned was no doubt checked.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did Sauckel exercise his authority to issue instructions?
TIMM: The authority to issue instructions to the offices abroad was generally exercised by means of sending instructions, directives, and decrees through normal administrative channels via the central of fines.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could he issue instructions to cover everything that happened there, or were there other offices which dealt with the recruitment of labor?
TIMM: At that time, unfortunately, the situation was such that even after the appointment of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor other agencies there repeatedly interfered in labor Gaffers or carried on recruiting too-that is, agencies which had neither the power nor the authority to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: What time is he talking about; he says "at that time"?
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite understand.
THE PRESIDENT: I say what time. He said "at that time." At what time? What time is he speaking about?
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the witness.] What time are you speaking about?
TIMM: It was at the time when the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor was appointed.
DR. SERVATIUS: When was he appointed?
TIMM: He was appointed in March 1942.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was the recruiting carried out? Was it voluntary? How would you differentiate between the types?
TIMM: In principle, recruiting was carried oust on a voluntary basis because from the technical point of view-that is, from the point of view of the utilization of the labor recruited-only voluntary recruiting could lead to success. That is to say only voluntary recruiting could bring people who were happy and willing to work, and who could achieve the output necessary for production.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the point of view which Sauckel emphasized?
TIMM: During the whole time that I worked with Sauckel in the Ministry of Labor I never heard of any events which indicated any other point of view. He repeatedly emphasized that the basis of recruiting must be voluntary.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. He issued many directives and held many speeches. But did he not within the select circle. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, and Witness, will you try and pause between the sentences, and between the questions and the answers? The witness' sentences seem to me to be running on, whereas if he would pause it would give the interpreter same chance.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. [Turning to the witness.] Sauckel issued a number of directives and made speeches to that effect. Did he not give you more precise instructions for the guidance of the department?
TIMM: The instructions which we received always agreed in principle with the instructions which he issued to larger circles at presidential or similar conferences.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the result of voluntary recruiting? Did the workers come solely on the basis of that recruiting, that is on the basis of the conditions as described to them?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: About how many were there?
TIMM: It is, of course, not possible for me to give exact figures. Thinking it over I believe I can say that about 2 to 3 million workers might be considered voluntary "workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Other workers came by virtue of the compulsory service laws which were introduced in those countries?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What do you estimate the number of those people to be?
TIMM: I can hardly give an estimate. As about 2 to 3 million may be considered volunteers, the rest must reach this figure too.
DR. SERVATIUS: People were deported too. Do you understand what is meant by deportation?
TIMM: If I may ask, does that mean the people who were transported for military or similar reasons? I am not quite clear as to what you mean by that.
DR. SERVATIUS: You do not know what deportations are?
TIMM: You mean forcible deportations, do you not? I cannot remember and do not know anything about such measures in connection with the activity of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: In connection with the obtaining, recruiting, and conscription of labor, there are quite a number of serious charges concerning abuses which occurred. To what extent did you learn of them?
TIMM: I understand your question to mean abuses in the recruiting itself?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
TIMM: I have no practical knowledge of the recruiting itself. As far as I had a general view of the situation, serious abuses, such as you mention in your question, were not reported to the GBA. Yesterday in an answer I pointed out that I knew of the case of the surrounded cinema, and that I could recall no events surpassing that case in gravity.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I come to conditions in Germany. Did you hear anything about conditions of the worst kind there? You probably read the papers and know what these charges mean. You were one of the people most closely involved there, so what did you learn?
TIMM: Complaints about the treatment of foreigners came through various channels to the GBA too. They referred in general to questions of clothing and food, and that of barbed wire which came up repeatedly, and the question of badges, the marking of foreign workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the Prosecution is speaking here of Crimes against Humanity.
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are those only things which happened daily in a normal administration, or are they, so to say, things which were reported?
TIMM: Such things as you call catastrophic, Doctor, did not come to my knowledge, because if they had, I should still remember them now.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who supervised the execution of the orders, and how did that come to your knowledge, or how should that have come to your knowledge?
TIMM: Various authorities were concerned with supervising the work of foreign workers. These were five or six different offices. There was in particular the German Labor Front, which, on the basis of a so-called Fuehrer decision, claimed for itself the question of the treatment and care of foreign workers. And I may mention in this connection that it repeatedly said this assignment went beyond the order given by the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor to the German Labor Front, and that to a certain extent it was bound by a higher authority to carry out this task of welfare and control of treatment, et cetera. On this fundamental question there were repeated conferences between the office of the GBA and the German Labor Front, and these later led to an agreement according to which the GBA also transferred this question to the German Labor Front. To settle these matters, the German Labor Front established a central inspectorate whose mission it was to look after foreign workers throughout the whole Reich. In addition to this central inspectorate, the Office for the Allocation of Labor within the German Labor Front was still functioning.
DR. SERVATIUS: We will come to that in a minute.
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What connection was there between Sauckel's office and this inspectorate of the Labor Front? How were contacts maintained?
TIMM: In the first place, a man from the German Labor Front worked as liaison man on Sauckel's technical staff. . .
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was that?
TIMM: That was Herr Hoffmann. And secondly, the central inspectorate of the German Labor Front constantly had conferences on their inspection activities to which an official of the GBA was invited.
DR SERVATIUS: This liaison man, Hoffmann, presumably reported on what he heard from the Labor Front?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did he report?
TIMM: The things which he reported covered the same ground as I have already told you about.
DR. SERVATIUS: The German Labor Front already had this task before Sauckel's office was set up?
TIMM: The German Labor Front was of the opinion, as I, for several...
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you must answer me. The German Labor Front had this task before Sauckel came?
TIMM: Yes.
DR.-SERVATIUS: Did it consider that its authority was restricted by the fact that Sauckel was appointed?
TIMM: I was just about to explain that it considered its task a general, comprehensive one; and when the newly appointed Plenipotentiary General for the Avocation of Labor occupied himself so intensively with these matters, it did see in this a certain encroachment on its task.
DR. SERVATIUS: And was this agreed upon between Ley and Sauckel?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: At whose instigation was this agreement reached?
TIMM: As far as I can recall the suggestion was the outcome of a wish of the German Labor Front.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was the aim?
TIMM: Of course, I can give only my personal opinion. I believe that the aim was in any case to express the fact that the German Labor Front was generally competent for these questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who presented the agreement, Sauckel. . . ?
THE PRESIDENT: Have we not got the agreement between Sauckel and Ley?
DR. SERVATIUS: It was submitted by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: If we have it, we do not want to have his personal recollection of it, do we?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness goes back too far. I would like to know who suggested it and drew it up, and when it was signed. There are two dates at the foot of this document as far as I remember today.
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, the document which is being mentioned now was submitted to the Tribunal. It is Document Number 1913-PS.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is in my document book, in the first document book, Page 79. In the English book it is Page 74. Here in the first text may be found...
THE PRESIDENT: What are you after? There is no use in getting the evidence of a witness, who said he does not remember in detail about it, about a document which we have got before us. It does not seem to me to be in the least bit useful to know who suggested that the agreement should be entered into.
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the witness.] There were still other inspectorates. For example, the Gauleiter was an authorized agent for the Allocation of Labor Department. To what extent did the Gauleiter report things which occurred in their Gau during the allocation of labor?
TIMM: The Gauleiter were appointed by the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor by virtue of his Decree Number 1, to be his authorized agents, with the task of applying themselves precisely to this question.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did they report?
TIMM: I do not know of any written reports from the Gauleiter on this question; at least, not to any extent worth mentioning. Hardly any written reports from the Gauleiter came in on this question; at least, not to our office.
DR. SERVATIUS: At this opportunity I should like to clear up the question of the position held by the Gauleiter as authorized agents for the Allocation of Labor in relation to the Au labor offices. Was the Gauleiter president of the Au labor offices, or in what relation did they stand to each other?
TIMM: In administration and matters of personnel, the president of the Au labor offices was undoubtedly subordinate to the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, or to the Reich Minister for Labor. But the Plenipotentiary General had made it the duty of these presidents to keep in closest contact with the Gauleiter and to make constant reports on the things which occurred in their sphere of work. In particular, if there were any tension or difficulties in the Au, they were to apply to the Gauleiter for aid.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I understand you correctly, the Party as such had nothing to do with the actual utilization of labor itself?
TIMM: I believe that is so. If the question is to be considered in that way, I would say that the institution of a Plenipotentiary General emphasized the political aspect of the Allocation of Labor, and that the Gauleiter, according to their varying personal opinions, concerned themselves to a greater or lesser extent with the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: As an organ for care and control?
TIMM: Yes; for all questions concerning labor allocation.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you will understand that your testimony concerning your knowledge of the events submitted by the Prosecution is received with great skepticism. Did you not unofficially hear and see things which, if they did not come to your attention officially, certainly should have given you cause to investigate them more thoroughly?
TRIM: Of course, one heard here and there of cases where foreign workers were allegedly ill-treated in some way. As far as such things came to my attention I always considered them official matters, and made out a report accordingly or had them attended to. In such cases, the necessary investigations were made immediately and everything necessary was done to clear up the matter.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these individual cases not symptoms of conditions as a whole?
TRIM: I do not believe so. At any rate, events which one might call catastrophic never came to my attention. As I have already said, they were nearly always only things which were connected with the question of treatment-that is to say, questions of accommodations in camps, clothing, and so forth.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the output and the morale of the workers?
TIMM: The output achieved by foreign workers varied. The output of the Eastern Workers was especially good. In general, because of this output, the demand for Eastern Workers was great. The output was also very good in particular of the skilled French workers . . .
DR. SERVATIUS: That is enough. Now, I must come back again to your connections with the occupied territories. Did you take part in negotiations with authorities in the occupied territories?
TIMM: Not in the East. A few times I went on journeys in the West with the Plenipotentiary General and took part in negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you with him once when he visited General Falkenhausen?
TIMM: Yes, I was present at the negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Of what nature were these negotiations, as far as the atmosphere was concerned? Were they tense, were they friendly, or what were they dike?
TIMM: The conferences with General Falkenhausen at which I was present were generally comparatively short. I had the feeling that the two gentlemen did not care for each other...
THE PRESIDENT: What does it matter whether they were tense or friendly or short?
DR. SERVATIUS: General Falkenhausen made an affidavit, which was submitted here, in which he said that Sauckel gave him orders and negotiated with him in a manner which caused him to offer the strongest opposition. -THE PRESIDENT: If you want to contradict Falkenhausen's affidavit you can put it to the witness, if that's what you are trying to do.
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not have it here at the moment. I will forego that question. [Turning to the witness.] You were in France?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you present at negotiations with the French authorities?
TIMM: I was present at negotiations with Laval, who was Premier at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Of what nature were these negotiations?
TIMM: One can certainly say that the negotiations were carried on in a very friendly manner.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the French not bring any complaints?
TIMM: Individual complaints were made. I remember that the complaints were especially about the question of the transfer of wages.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to ask you whether complaints about treatment, the methods of recruitment, coercive measures, and so on-whether complaints were made about those things?
TIMM: No, I do not remember any complaints of that sort. I should certainly remember them if there had been any.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have a few more questions concerning Sauckel's relations with the Central Planning Board and with Speer. You yourself repeatedly represented Sauckel at the Central Planning Board. Is that correct?
TIMM: Yes, a few times.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the Central Planning Board as far as Sauckel was concerned?
TIMM: The Central Planning Board was a branch of the Four Year Plan. Its task, as far as the GBA was concerned, was to collect the demands for workers made by the big employers, and to adjust these demands at regular sessions. As the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor could not judge himself the importance of the use made of workers by the various industries, this question was decided in the Central Planning Board. An attempt was made, for certain periods of time, for as long a time as possible, to work out a balance of workers, I might say, and in connection...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Sauckel told us all about this already, didn't he?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is no need to go into it with another witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President. [Turning to the witness.] Do you know Speer's position?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was Speer's position in relation to Sauckel and vice versa? Could Speer give orders to Sauckel in particular?
TIMM: Speer was Plenipotentiary General for Armament while Sauckel was Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, and Speer held the point of view that he, as Armament Minister, should have decisive authority in all matters pertaining to the production of armaments, that is raw materials, coal and consequently also the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could Speer give Sauckel orders and instructions, or did he actually give them?
TIMM: Yes, as a matter of form. As I have just said, the question was not quite clear, and the two conceptions were opposed. In reality there was always a certain tension between the two men because the Armament Ministry wanted more or less to claim the power to issue instructions. This tension was generally cleared up through talks, or the exchange of letters between the two men. Sometimes it led to what one might call "agreement conferences," headed by Reichsminister Lammers, as he was at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the result of these conferences, these agreement conferences?
TIMM: These conferences led to agreements which, as far as I remember, were several times taken down in writing, and in my opinion they led to an increasingly strong influence by the Armament Ministry on questions concerning the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other counsel want to ask any more questions?
DR. HANS FLACHSNER (Counsel for Defendant Speer): Witness, in connection with your last statement, I should like to ask one question. You have testified to tension between the Defendants Sauckel and Speer because Speer claimed the right to give instructions. Do I understand you correctly if I assume that the tension arose from the fact that Sauckel energetically disputed this right to issue instructions?
TIMM: As I wanted to express in my fast answer, the difficulties consisted in the fact that Speer, as Plenipotentiary General for Armaments said: "I must have control of all the things which belong to actual manufacture. So it is essential for me as regards the direction of labor allocation..."
DR. FLAECHSNER: I understood that, Witness; my question is only, did this tension arise from the fact that Sauckel emphatically refused to recognize this right to issue instructions which you say was assumed by Speer?
TIMM: As Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor Sauckel felt himself competent and responsible for all questions concerning it.
DR. FLAECHSNER: With regard to the demands of the Armament Ministry which he did not feel he could consider justified, did Sauckel not hold the point of view that he was responsible only to the Fuehrer?
TRIM: I do not remember anything so definite. He was Plenipotentiary General for...
THE PRESIDENT: Surely this is very far removed from anything we have got to deal with. He says that the tension was cleared up by conferences. What more is there to discuss?
DR. FLACHSNER: That was the last question I wanted to ask the witness. Witness, you spoke of conferences which are supposed to have taken place with Minister Lammers. In the minutes of the session of 11 July 1944 and of 4 January 1944, which have been previously submitted here, there is no mention at all of such differences. I would be grateful to you, if you could tell me what session with Lammers you have in mind?