Q. So he did not have authority to give instructions dealing with the type of work of the Central Planning Board?
A. No, he could not. For, if the Central Planning Beard had been properly formed 1829 A organically speaking, then a Hitler decree would have been necessary.
I might remind you that we have such a decree for the Four Year Plan, for the Plenipotentiary for Labor, and for similar institutions. As far as the Central Flaming Board was concerned, something like that was never planned. It was merely a matter that was passed on by hearsay.
Speer sometimes interpreted such things the way it happened to suit him in other words, in his capacity as Armament Minister. As is understandable that Speer often struggled to extend his powers. I said yesterday that maybe it is easier to work if you make all the decisions then if you have to ask too many other people, and possibly Speer, as I have now seen--certainly he had not tell me so earlier--had once again in connection with the Central Planning Board put out feelers looking for the possibility to expand.
Q. From what points of view were raw materials distributed?
A. I can answer briefly by stating that Hitler had laid down the order of priority and at the some time had given orders dealing with individual points. For instance, it was very often said in that in this month the Navy would get 20,000 tons of steel of a certain type in addition to their allocation. Those were the rules which applied to us in the Central planning Board.
Apart from that, we were in touch with all the large priority holders, that is why there are these passages on material in the minutes of the meetings. We had them give us the justification for their requirements. It was our very difficult task to deny everybody a little of everything, because total demands were always much higher than the amounts we had. We could not just simply say, "We are going to deprive everybody of 20 per cent." We had to introduce the finer touch. We could not take as much array from the army industry as we could take away from others, but, on the other hand, we could not leave the agriculturalists without steel. We also had to set assignments of certain number of nails or screws for the civilian population. To subdivide this was a matter which was impossible to carry out without knowing the interests of the parties, and when we had their views we would then carry through our tasks and distribute.
Q. Witness -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, we will take a recess at this time
THE MARSHALL: This Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
1830 A
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
Q. (By Dr. Bergold) Witness, after having discussed, rather, in connection with the decree concerning the Central Planning Board, while we have discussed the labor situation, I want you to answer my question now, this and what powers the Central Planning Board had with reference to the plenipotentiary general for labor, Sauckel?
A. The Central Planning Board had no power of issuing orders to Sauckel.
Q. Who was it that gave Sauckel's orders?
A. Sauckel's office had been formed by Hitler's decree. However, after that it was taken into the four-year plan so that formally speaking Sauckel was under Goering immediately. However, he received his orders from Hitler himself.
Q. As you said, the Central Planning, had no powers toward Sauckel?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. However, don't you know that Speer tried to win influence over Sauckel. Did that occur in his capacity as a member of the Central Planning Board, or did that occur in his capacity as Armament Minister?
A. It only occurred in his capacity as Armament Minister.
Q. Can you tell us something about the struggle between Speer and Sauckel, or Sauckel's struggle with Speer? Can you give me some more details about that matter?
A. I only know very little about these questions. I know that Speer himself took himself or reserved himself the right, with respect to the laborers brought by Sauckel, to distribute these laborers, that meant to distribute them to the central industry branches. Sauckel with respect to that stated, and it was his power to do so, that he was the one who had the right to distribute these single laborers to these single factories or branches of industry. Speer also brought his wishes to the Fuehrer's attention, and conferences took place between Speer and Sauckel and Hitler. However, Speer did not got through with his ideas because Hitler's view of Sauckel's position was that he should support it.
I know that from what Speer told me.
Q Witness, do you know the decree of Hitler of the 30th September 1942, concerning the Plenipotentiary General for Labor assignment?
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors. This is Document No. 1903, Exhibit No. 17, from Document Book No. 1-A of the prosecution.
A Yes, I know the contents of this decree. However, at the time I did not receive a copy, at least in my office didn't. However, I knew his tasks, and I knew that he was his own boss in this field.
Q Witness, how did you explain to yourself this decree at that time? It says here for the execution of this task, in order to carry out the task they are entitled to issue directives to competent military authorities in charge of the labor mobilization and wage policy.
A I considered this a far-going measure, too far-going measure which was contradictional with the administration of the German policy at the time, because prior to that it was absolutely impossible that a civilian organization could issue orders to a military organization.
Q. What power was given to Sauckel by such a decree, was he depending on someone apart from Hitler?
A No, he was his own boss, but he depended only on Hitler and on Goering pro forma, but only pro forma. At the time that he wanted to relieve the Field Marshal in this position, one should not have the impression that someone was going over Goering's head, but Goering had the impression already that something was going over his head, and he took care not to speak in those questions because otherwise he would have had a struggle or a fight with Hitler. This also applies especially to Sauckel's case.
Q If here the chief of the OKW signed, namely Keitel, would that mean that this power, Sauckel's powers to military positions, applied to all other divisions, also to the Luftwaffe?
A Of course, it was, otherwise Keitel's signature as OKW would not have been affixed underneath this document. Hitler was he only one, generally speaking, who signed these things, but only in special cases where he wanted to stress the point for a special field as in this per ticular case with the military field, the higher man also had to sign with him.
It is a sign that in this order by Hitler, Hitler wanted to put a special stress on the point that the military organization offices were under Sauckel's orders in this particular case. It was something entirely now, and so new that Hitler wanted Keitel's signature underneath his.
Q. Thank you.
Q. Witness,I shall come now to the documents which the prosecution has introduced, namely, in the document books I-A, 2-B, 2-A and B. Prosecution has introduced Document Number 1375-PS, Exhibit Number 4-A, in Document Book Number I-4. This is a telephone call of Frank who was the Governor General for Poland; namely, a phone call from Frank to Goering on 25 January 1940. This is a letter of 25 January 1940 and concerns the directives concerning the exploitation of the polish workers; namely, for the preparation and transportation of at least one million Polish workers for the Reich. Do you know this decree and this pact between Frank and Goering? Do you know anything about them?
4. This is the first time I heard about it. At this trial.
Q. I shall proceed now to Document Number 2233-PS, Exhibit Number 4-A. At the same time I can take care of Exhibit Number 4-B, which is Document Number 2233-PS-B. Witness, those are extracts from Frank's diary or a record of the meeting of department chiefs. Do you know anything about these discussions or anything about this diary?
4. Not until these trials started.
Q. I shall go over to Document Number 1352-PS, Exhibit Number 5 of 16 May and 29 May 1940. This is a report concerning the confiscation of Polish agricultural enterprises, signed by Kusche. Do you know anything about that?
A. Not until I came to these trials.
Q. The next document Number is EC-68, Exhibit Number 6, on Page. 19, your Honors, from 6 March 1941. This is a confidential letter of the Minister for Finance and Economy of Baden and it contains directives on the treatment of Polish farm workers of Polish nationality. Do you know anything about this decree or these directives?
A. Not until I came to these trials.
Q. The next document, 3044-PS-B, Exhibit Number 6-A. Those are directives and instructions concerning the treatment of Eastern househole workers. Did you ever know anything about that?
A No.
Q. Did you ever have any servants, any Eastern servants, at home?
A. No.
Q. Document 3005-PS, Exhibit Number 7, from 26 August 1941. This concerns a letter of the Reich Minister of Labor to the Presidents of Regional Labor Offices concerning the use of Russian PW's. Do you know anything about this directive of the Reich Minister of Labor?
A. Not until I came to the trials.
Q. The Document Number EC-104, Exhibit Number 8, of 31 October 1941. This is a secret memorandum of Keitel concerning the use of prisoners of war in war industry. Did you ever hear anything about that decree? It came from the Chief of the OKW, of the Command of the Armed Forces of the Wehrmacht.
A. Until these trials, no.
Q. Don't you think, such a decree should have been sent to you?
A. I know nothing about the context for the time being.
Q. I shall submit this decree to you, and I want you to read the distribution on the back of the document, and I want you to tell me if any office which was under your control is mentioned there.
A. No, no agency under my command is mentioned here. It only went to the Quartermaster General, because it is also here the question of work concerning the Wehrmacht; that is, clearing up work in the East. It is also clear that the GL has nothing to do with it because it says here that for the Arbeitseinsatz the following may be considered: For example, the Wehrmacht as one and number two, the Reich Minister for Armament and Ammunition. He is a man who came before the Armament Minister. The name was mixed up. And as third is mentioned the Reich Minister of Labor. The GL even in his industry had nothing to do with labor assignment questions.
Q. Was the Quartermaster General of the Luftwaffe under your orders?
A. No. He was directly under the Chief of the General Staff. Quartermaster General is not G. L.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, on the distribution list at the end of this document, the fourth line, what does that report refer to, L/General?
DR. BERGOLD: That means Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, Quartermaster General.
Gen. Qu. means Quartermaster General.
THE PRESIDENT: Who was that?
Q. (By Dr. Bergold) Who was that?
A. The Quartermaster at the time was General von Seidel. He was immediately under the Chief of the General Staff, and he again was under Goering's orders.
Q. In other words, the GL had nothing to do with that?
A. No, nothing whatsoever.
Q. Did the Inspector General - because you were Inspector General at the time, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the Inspector General have anything to do with that?
A. No, nothing whatsoever.
Q. In other words, they were two entirely different offices?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. What you said yesterday applies to these offices; namely, that they ran parallel to each other but had nothing to do with each other?
A. Yes, that is quite correct. They were entirely different fields of task. The Inspector General was, as can be clearly seen from his name, the Inspector General for the troops. He had no power of issuing orders to the troops because the Commander in Chief was in charge of that. He just inspected the troops and wanted to investigate their general situation; namely, with regard to everything concerning the troops.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. What official position did you hold on October 31, 1941, witness?
A. I was Inspector General.
Q. At that time you had no connection with the Luftwaffe?
A. The Inspector General - I was the Inspector General of the Luftwaffe; that is, I inspected the troops of the Luftwaffe, and only of the Luftwaffe.
Q. But you had not yet taken up your task as deputy to Goering?
A. I was never a full deputy of Goering since 1937.
Q. Was Inspector General the only post that you held on October 31, 1941?
A. Yes, indeed. Only toward the end of November I became GL. I can add one things. I was State Secretary on top of that.
Q. (By Dr. Bergold) Did the State Secretary, however, have anything to do with the Luftwaffe?
TEE PRESIDENT: No, we understand that.
Q. (By the President) You became GL at the end of November 1941?
A. Yes.
Q. (By Dr. Bergold) Witness, from all these documents which are up to the 7th of November, 1941, did your office of Inspector General have anything to do with the labor assignment?
A. No, nothing whatsoever.
Q. Witness, you visited troops very often and inspected them. Did you see their general situation in Poland, the situation which prevailed there with respect to laborers?
A. I was in Poland just during the Polish campaign. That is all because during the war I carried out the inspections only at the front, and only with a very few exceptions at home; namely, in German itself. Therefore, I knew nothing about the situation concerning the workers, and I saw nothing, and apart from that, this field of task did not belong to the field of task of the Inspector General.
Q. Witness, I shall now come to Document Number 3040-PS, Exhibit Number 10. This is a secret decree and secret orders of Himmler concerning the commitment of manpower from the East. Do you know this secret decree or these secret orders of Himmler and were they brought to your attention?
A. Not until these trials.
Q. Document Number 1435-PS, Exhibit Number 11. This document contains a speech by Speer which he held on 24 February 1942 to the Gau leiters, concerning the legacy of the party member Todt.
Did you know anything about that? Did Speer give it to you or show it to you?
A. No. All I knew was the fact that he had held a speech there but I did not know the contents of the speech.
Q. Document D-316, Exhibit Number 12, on Page 38, is a memorandum of a certain Huper of the 14th of March 1942, concerning the employment of Russians with the firm of Krupp. Did you know this memorandum in your capacity as GL, or in any other capacity did you over see this document, and was it ever brought to your knowledge?
A. Not up until these trials.
Q. Witness, did the air armament industry have any contact or contacts with the Krupp firm?
A. I believe that there were orders for our engine groups. What I mean is that our ministries had nothing to do with it.
Q. In other words, Krupp did not belong to the air armament industry as such?
A. No.
Q. The Document Number 016-PS, Exhibit Number 13, on the 20th of April 1942, contains Sauckel's program for labor assignment. Was this program submitted to you in your capacity of GL or to the Central Planning, or did you ever hear anything else about that in any other of your capacities?
A. No.
Q. Did you know anything at all, and were these Sauckel decrees ever submitted to you, generally speaking?
A. No, they were never brought to my knowledge.
Q. Such decrees may appear in certain law publications of the Ministry. How was it in the Luftwaffe, was there a law booklet and then others concerning questions with respect to the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes, that was only questions concerning Luftwaffe.
Q. You didn't let me finish my question. How was it in your Ministry? Any agency naturally had decrees appear in some information leaflet. Were they all submitted to you, or did you experts show you only those decrees which had something to do immediately with your own office or the task of your office?
A. Only the latter, and that only to a very small extent. In certain cases as far as I can remember my office had nothing to do with these decrees.
I was never shown these Reichsgesetzblaetter; but we had to know what was in our own information leaflet; and only those things were submitted to me in exceptional cases, an excerpt only, when I absolutely had to know about those things. I believe that the Hitler secrecy order was also applied to this case.
Q. Witness, Document R-129, Exhibit Number 14 of the 30th of April, 1942, on Page 52, concerns a letter of Pohl, who is on trial here in the fourth case, Pohl's letter to Himmler concerning concentration camps. Was this letter here of Pohl's ever brought to your attention and to your knowledge?
A. Not until those trials.
Q. Witness, on this occasion I would like to ask you, what then do you know about these concentration camps during the war?
A. I only knew of two concentration camps, namely, Dachau and Oranienburg. I visited Dachau personally in 1935; in other words, before the war. That was the only time that I had visited a concentration camp, with the exception of now when I was a prisoner of war. What there was inside the concentration camps I do not know. In 1935 there were only Germans in there; and I was very much surprised to learn after the collapse of Germany that there were also foreigners in the concentration camps. I did not know that. I am quite convinced that none of my collaborators knew about those things in the concentration camps. We had been told at the time that in these concentration camps criminals of most various categories were being detained; but what I saw in 1935 were habitual criminals. I thought it a very good idea that these people be not allowed to walk around freely. When we were there these people had to tell us their sentences; and there were several barracks around which were crowded with people, and there the average criminal record was twenty to thirty times, rape of small children. Therefore, I, being a father believe that it was best for these people to be locked up.
However, I know that there were also political people there; and I saw them too. There my opinion differed. But I was told that those people were there only on temporary basis and would only be kept in there for a longer period if they actually committed active sabotage against the state. At Dachau most of the political people who were being detained there as prisoners in 1935 were members of the SA, on account of the Roehm-Putsch in 1934, and that was the basis and reason for their being there.
I should like to add that I asked to be allowed to visit that concentration camp at the time, together with other officers of my arm, in other words, of the Luftwaffe, because during my meetings and conversations with foreigners, I repeatedly heard the statement, particularly from British, "We understand your Hitler's system very well. There was no other way for you to go. However, we do not understand your concentration camps." That is why I decided to get some sort of a picture for myself by seeing the camp. It took a little while; but finally I get the permission to visit the concentration camp. That at the time was my only contact with the question.
Q What was your impression of the camp? Was it clean?
A In 1935, well, yes, at that time it locked very well. There were good barracks, absolutely waterproof, wooden floors, with two cost, one above the other, like the soldiers. Our old barracks always had the same system one above the other; and I was the only one to get that principle in the Luftwaffe, so that there was quite a revolution amongst the soldiers in the army. I witnessesed one of their meals. There was a good portion of food, meat, vegetable, potatoes, first soup. The people were thus well fed. Of course, they had to work. The work they did was not an easy task. Cleanness was noticeable. The beds had checked sheets. The entertainment of the people was taken care of. There was recreation. They had special, rooms where they could hold speeches. They had facilities for writing and reading. There was an excellent library there which even according to its size and contents was very interesting. I looked through the index one time. The man in charge of the library was a Gruppenfuehrer of the SA and also a concentration camp inmate.
I saw the bakery, saw the butcher shop.
1841-A At that time I am sure that there were no cruelties and no inhumane equipment of any kind.
Of course, I could not speak to these same individuals and ask them how they liked it in here, we were only allowed to stop these people; but the person was allowed only to say what his sentence was.
Q. Did you see what kind of work these inmates had to carry out?
A That was very hard. They worked on their own equipment, I believe, not only for the camp but for all sorts of purposes and for the SS. In other words, they made furniture for themselves and for the Waffen-SS--far instance, cupboards, chairs, stools, tables. They also had a locksmith shop there. As far as I know they did work outside the camp as well.
I believe therewere special commands for cutting down trees; there were special commands for splitting stones. However, I cannot go into detail because I carried out this visit one day -- it was in the afternoon after I had an inspection of the troops in Munich, which inspection I got through with about 9:30 in the morning, and at four o'clock in the afternoon I had another inspection to carry out, of the Luftwaffe, and in the meantime I saw the camp. I myself ate or tasted the food which the German inmates had, and I thought it was very tasty, good and sufficient.
Q. Witness, at a time following that, did you ever hear, even if there were rumors, that inhumane acts were being committed in the concentration camps?
A. I cannot remember that anything had been mentioned in that had anything to do with the truth or that seemed like the truth. I can confirm the fact that there were quite a few rumors during the war. However, all our efforts to find where these rumors originated were not succesful. We were not able to find out anything at all, I had very few connections with the SS itself.
Q. I shall come back to the SS later on. Now, witness, however, as witness said, you yourself saw to it that persons in concentrations camps be freed, or would not be sent to the concentration camp. Can one not draw the conclusion from that that you were of the opinion that it was not very good in the concentration camps; that bad things were happening there, because if somebody did something wrong, then he is to be protected to be put in jail?
A. At the beginning I was of the opinion, or I was quite convinced that these concentration camps were just a temporary measure in appearance. I know from the press that they had done the same thing in Italy with the Mussolini regime, and that then, after a few years, these institutions had been dissolved -- at least that's what I heard at the time -- and, as many things were being imitated here in Germany which Mussolini's Italy had done, I saw in that concentration camp nothing but such an imitation.
That certain abuses would occur there, I could understand, and I knew, because, after all, the National 1843a Socialist movement itself, in its early beginnings, was a revolutionary group, and even if they weren't so, at least that's what people said about the organization.
I considered it to be like certain children's diseases. However, if I ever heard, if anything was brought to my own personal attention, then I thought it my humane duty to help. That the parents of somebody who is sent to a concentration camp or something, are always convinced of his innocence can be understood and every one of us knows how they feel today. However, certain other reasons prevailed at the time, wherever the family wrote: that is probably the case with one of the cases which was submitted here as an affidavit, the main reason was not that the man was a Social Democrat Leader. No; he was blamed for other things. And that had to be cleared up. That is why my help took a little bit longer here, and I believe that the man had been rehabilitated. The blames which they made to him, and which came from those two denouncers whom we had at the time had to be refused by bringing counter evidence.
Q. That's enough, witness. Now such people were taken out of the camp by you. Then I'm sure that they came to see you and thanked you for it?
A. No; they didn't do that and I did not pay too much attention to that. I told their parents and their relatives to restrain them from doing that. Maybe they wrote a letter though, sometime, but i did not do it in order to get their thanks and appreciation.
Q. Witness, didn't you over speak to anybody who had been released from a concentration camp and who then would have given you more details about the concentration camp?
A. I never spoke with anybody who had been released from a concentration camp -- at least, not that I know of.
I never spoke with anybody about his experience in a concentration camp. However, during my captivity, I learned through other prisoners and that no one else was ever supposed to have heard suck a thing either, because these people were not only prohibited from speaking, but they were also so scared that they followed that order to every letter.
1844a