What did you know about that decree? I see many things explained by it about which we could not find any answers. That seems to be a letter by Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, and to my surprise, it states quite clearly that other authorities -- and they can only refer to my offices of Speer's, that these measures should be described as security measures. That was a fraud against us.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass from this document, I understood the Defendant to say that workers were sent to labor camps for infraction of labor rules. That was what you said, wasn't it?
THE WITNESS: If workers, in spite of repeated warnings and fines within the industries, did not show improvement or the perpetrations continued, these workers were sent by the industries, not by me -- were reported by the industries, not by me, to the police officers; and these police officers, to my knowledge, had an agreement with the Reich Minister of Justice according to which police courts -
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you where they were sent, when you said that they were sent to labor camps for infraction of labor rules and for no other reason. Did you say that?
THE WITNESS: For no other reason; for perpetrations or for criminal offenses.
THE PRESIDENT: Then how do you explain the first words of Paragraph 1 of this document: "As of now, all eastern workers must be sent to the nearest concentration camps"?
THE WITNESS: It says here, in the German text, Your Lordship: "As of now, so far, until 1 February, '43, all eastern workers, or such foreign workers who have been fugitives or who have broken contracts, who do not belong to Allied friendly or neutral states, are to be brought by the quickest means, and under consideration of the necessary formalities as listed under No. 3, to the nearest concentration camps."
That is the directive of that office which I did not know.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q What do you understand by "extermination by labor"?
A I have heard that expression, "extermination by labor" for the first time here in the court room. Such a point of view happened to be absolutely contrary to my interests with which was charged inmy office. and I also directed my assistant that we would have nothing to do with that use of manpower. I had nothing to do with punitive measures of any kind. industries program? had nothing to do with it, and I never participated in conferences about that Order in order to get workers to Germany.
A I personally never know the Nacht and Nebel Order. I only found about this here. It had nothing to do with my task of manpower mobilization.
Q What about the commitment of Jewish labor? What did your office have to do with it?
A I had nothing to do with the commitment of Jews. That was the job of the Reichsfuehrer SS entirely.
Q I submit the document R 91. That is U.S.A. Exhibit 241, and RF 347. It is not included in the document books. That is a letter from the Chief of Security Police and Sd Mueller to the field command post of the Reichsfuehrer SS of the 16th of December, 1942. It says there:
"Because of the increase of the recruitment of manpower which has been ordered, and their transfer to the KL" -- which should be "KZ"; that is, concentration camps -- "in the use of Jewish manpower, we include the following: Total number. 45 Jews".
Then there is a detailed specification. And among other things, it says at the and, "3,000 Jews from the occupied territories of the Netherlands", and further, "The number of 45,000 does not include the number of these incapable of working."
What is your connection with that letter?
A I just noticed that letter for the first time. I have not known it before; and I can only emphasize that these transports and these happenings were not at all identical with my task, or my mission, and that at no time had I anything to do with them.
Q Then we have here L 61, which has been submitted. That is U.S.A. Exhibit 177, in the English Document Book, "Slave Labor", Document No. 6. This document was in the first list of documents which was made available to the defense, and it was listed as an original letter by Sauckel which admitted the dwportation of Jews. particularly as to how far you had anything to do there with deportation of Jews?
I shall briefly explain the contents. It says there in that letter of the 26th of November, 1942:
"By agreement with the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, Jews who are still in employment now are from now on to be evacuated from the territory of the Reich and are to be replaced by Poles who are being deported by the German government."
It is a letter which ends, "I transmit the foregeing copy for your information. Insofar as the removal of Jews concerns your area, I request that you take the necessary measures in cooperation with the competent officers of the Security Police and the SD".
Then it says, "Signed, Fritz Sauckel".
Will you state your position with respect to that letter, please? already in preliminary interrogations.
When it was presented to me again in the course of the proceedings, I found out that it was not an original document which I signe. It bears my name typewritten. supposed to have signed, was not detelined by my office. My office, as can be seen frommany documents, was in Berlin, in the Mohrland Strasse. This letter came from the Saarland Strasse. did I have an arrangement with the SD and Security Police in the sense of that letter. I could not remember the letter in any way, and I cannot remember it new, either. The only correct thing stated in that letter is that I was obliged to make up the loss of manpower in German industry, whether they were Jews, soldiers, or other losses of manpower, within two weeks. It is possible that that letter came from the Saarland Strasse, from a subordinate office. I cannot say anything else about it.
Q How is it, then, that the last phrase "Signed, Fritz Sauckel", comes under the letter? That I cannot understand.
THE PRESIDENT (interposing): Have you got the original there?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, I do not have the original. It has been submitted by the prosecution, and therefore is in the files of the Tribunal.
THE WITNESS: The happenings were happenings which occurred before I came into the office; that is, at the time I came into the office, they had already taken place. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Did you have any knowledge as to what would happen to the Jews?
A Do you mean - ?
Q (Interposing) The'final solution?
A No, I have no knowledge of that. It would have alleviated my task, and I would have had much less difficulty, if all these people, as far as they could have worked, would have been made available for the manpower mobilization. That final solution was quite unknown to me, and was quite contrary to my interests.
wages?
Q What kind of wages was paid? Will you first read these out? which had been agreed upon by contract with the various offices in the government, and that was the wage according to legal wages in certain regions in Germany.
Q What about the so-called Eastern workers? I took office which put heavy taxation on their wages in favor of the Reich. This was on the basis of a decree of the Ministerial Council for National Defense. conditions? which I issued during my term of office -- that this settlement, which I considered intolerable, was improved gradually stop by stop, as far as it was possible for meto overcome the resistance against it, so that in 1944 the Eastern worker was on the same level as the German worker.
The first improvement was reached already in June, 1942, by 100%, the second in 1943, and the last in March, 1944, by Decree 11.
DR. SERVATIUS: I am referring here to the following documents which I shall not read:
Document S-50, in Book 2, page 134; Document S-17, in Book 2, page 137; Document S-52, Book 2, page 143; a further document, S-58, Book 2, page 156; and finally, Document S-58 A, Book 2, page161. I submit the original in a collection "Working Conditions of the Eastern Workers."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I understood the defendant to say just new that that document L-61 was drawn up before he took charge of the labor commitment.
DR. SERVATIUS: No, he said that the contents referred to happenings which occurred before his term, of office and were almost completed at the time when that letter was drafted ; that the condition had already existed.
THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing in the document to show that, is there?
DR. SERVATIUS: It can be seen from the date.
THEPRESIDENT: The date is the 26th of November, 1942.
DR. SERVATIUS: The appendix refers to a decree of the 27th of March, 1942, the second appendix, and then if we go back further, there is an appendix of the 21st of January, 1942, and both of them deal with that question. That which we have quoted here was only the last letter, the final letter.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, We haven't got the full document before us then.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I shall submit it. BY DR. SERVATIUS: workers receive any compensation besides these wages? in the form of premiums for better work, Christmas bonuses such as the German workers received, and then there was an agreement with the Eastern ministry to the effect that the families of eastern workers should receive the amount of 131 rubles per month upon request.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to several documents, that is, Document 22 in the English book Volume 1, page 59, and then a decree, Document 54, concerning premiums, which is in Volume 2, page 151; then to Document 57 concerning Christmas bonuses, Volume 2, page 155.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q What remained for the eastern workers as cash? before the regulations I had brought about. After his expenses had been deducted for lodging and food, there remained about 4 marks 60 pfennigs per week. One might consider the average wage for an average worker in German industry of 60 pfennigs in order to give an example. for the same type of worker in June 1942, after I had an opportunity to examine these conditions, by about 100 per cent, to 9 marks 10. sidering his taxes and expenses for rent and heat, under no circumstances could save any more or have any more savings left over. That principle was made a general rule by the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense. That was not set up by me, but in March or April 1943, the Russian worker also on the basis of my intervention, found an improvement up to about 12 marks, and in the spring it was improved 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 didn't pay any of the workers, is there? I mean, he says he paid them and we don't want the details of thenumber of marks.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, an accusation has been made as to slave labor, which as a rule is unpaid labor, and the French Report RF-22 has figured a damage of 77 billions which was brought about to France by the use of her workers. In that connection, it is interesting to hear this at least briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't want exact details of it, do you? BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q What about the possibility of transferring these wages? because the only sensible reason for a foreign worker to work in Germany was so that he could support his family back home by sending part of his earnings back to his native country. That was done on the basis of agreement 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 one of the document books.
It is dated the 2nd of April 1943. It is a draft with the calculation of wages, dealing with the improvement of wages of eastern workers. I do not want to quote it, but a study will reveal that serious attempts were made here to bring about an improvement and a balance of conditions. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q What was the duration of labor contracts? in each particular case, been made with the governments in question. As far as the western and southern countries were concerned, the duration of the contract for one-half year or three-quarters year or one year was foreseen. As far as the countries in the east were concerned, or the Soviet workers, I found, when I came into office, I was confronted with a regulation which foresaw an indefinite period, and since I considered the regulation necessary here in spite of the great distances, I finally saw to it that here also a limitation of two years was made. after the war, that these foreign workers should remain in Germany? I ask that question because the French Prosecution, from the book "Europe Works in Germany", RF-5, on page 23, has quoted a passage which expresses the following:
"A large percentage of foreign workers, after victory, will remain in cur Gaus in order to be retrained for recovery work, and to continue what the outbreak of war made impossible, and what, on the basis of plans, is waiting for realization." exist even after the war. I believe that it can also be found there that the workers would return home and there put to us in the interests of their own homeland, part of their new experiences and their new knowledge which they had gained in Germany.
I do so -- to keep foreign workers in Germany after the war. On the contrary, I even directed that a very carefully set up card file of foreign workers should be kept, on the basis of which, in case of a favorable end of the war, it would be possible for me to return these workers conscientiously to their native countries and to keep a record of it.
Q If I understood you correctly? we are not confronted with forcible retention of the workers, but keeping them here at their wish. workers wanted to stay in Germany.
Q What about the forced obligation, the labor draft? How were contracts made there? difference made between the pay of what we called Dienstverpflichtungen, labor dra ft, and voluntary workers. They had the right, regardless of how they were recruited, to return after three quarters of a year. There existed the possibility of extension.
Q In which cases was that contract extended? continue his services or when extraordinary emergencies or loss of manpower in that particular industry justified an extension. Then that had to be discussed with the liaison man. used in Germany. What did you have to do with that use of manpower? it had to take place in accord with and under agreement with the General in charge of prisoner-of-war affairs. For me, it was very difficult to develop this so-called technique of commitment. That is a concept which I shall try to explain: war could not be used in armament, ammunition industries. If, however, the prisoners of war were not used in the armament industry , then that meant that so and so many German women and workers were replaced and put into those industries in which the Geneva Convention prohibited the use of prisoners of war, and that is, in their place prisoners of war were used. And that was done in agreement with the office of the General for prisoners of war.
Q And who saw to it that the Geneva Convention was kept? that is, the Administration for Labor Commitment,were adhering to the principle of the Geneva Convention and several times they compiled a catalogue of those types of labor for which prisoners of war could be used. Also, during my time, in 1943 and 1944, that was published as a special publication -- the so-called blue publication. contrary to the Geneva Convention? Government so far as volunteers were concerned, and in part also for Eastern workers. prisoners of war?
of War. the time you assumed office? Kesselschlachten in the East a great number of prisoners of war perished because they had been weakened by the long duration of those battles and there were great difficulties in the way of their evacuation, even on our side. war, didn't you? What could you find out at that time, or did you take any initiative? undernourished.
Q What did you do?
A Together with the General for the Affairs of Prisoners of war, I s** to it that all these prisoners of war -- as far as I know and remember, there were only 70,000 in the Reich at that time -- should be billeted with German farmers, German peasants, with an expression which we called "Aufpeppeln", that is feed them back into health. And there was an obligation connected with it, to feed these prisoners of war for at least three months without putting them to work. For that, the peasants received the assurance that un the end of the war this prisoner of war should stay with him for work. change into free laborers?
A Yes. The use of French workers especially took place only on the basis of agreement with the French Government. These agreements were concluded under the sponsorship of the German Ambassador at Paris, on the basis of task with which I was charged by the Fuehrer and by the Reichsmarshal. These qu* were dealt with and agreements were made. The first quota was 250,000 French workers, and as a counter-measure for the use of these voluntary workers -- and I emphasize voluntary in this connection -- there were to be and were 50,000 French prisoners of war who had been peasants, who were returned to the French Government and put at their disposal for agricultural purposes, so that French agriculture would be facilitated.
Q And what was really "the relief"?
A What was really "the relief" was an agreement between the French Government and my office that for three French workers who came to Germany one French prisoner of war would be put at liberty and put at the disposal of his hone country. And this was done on the decree of the Fuehrer. That is, this prisoner returned home.
Q And who was responsible for this agreement? the French Prime Minister and myself. I was much in favor of this agreement, for I myself during the First World War spent five years behind barbed wire.
Q Was it an improvement for the prisoners to return home?
Q And how did the civilian population react to that? That is, how did the people feel who had to go to Germany? received the feeling was favorable. workers come?
A No, everything was done in the same way. These workers were free. They were not prisoners in Germany.
Q Did they have to come to Germany for an unlimited period of time? like the others.
Q What was the duration of a contract? of war, as well as the other workers, could return home?
A Yes; this very exchange necessitated new quotas and new agreements with the French Government, for there always had to be replacements.
Q Were those negotiations carried on under a certain pressure?
A No; but I wish that you would hear witnesses on this. They were carried out on a free diplomatic basis. limited scale? go to Germany. weak and ill people were sent back, that is, people who couldn't work anyw* What do you have to say as to that? were sent back, and the sending back, the selection of those soldiers to be sent back, was not in my sphere but the duty of the General in charge the prisoner-of-war system; and I consider it entirely possible that sick soldiers were sent back to their home country in thisway and on their own wish. But certainly it was not the intention to send only sick people or elderly soldiers, but applied to all soldiers.
Q There was a seconc course which was followed; there was a law whi* was to alleviate conditions. What was that? provisions: In Germany French prisoners of war received the same contract as all other French civilian workers when a new French worker came to Germany. the time limited, or was it handled -disapprove of it?
A It was not disapproved; it was hailed, depending on the attitude of the soldier. A portion of them rejected it, but the others hailed it For, this measure saw to it that the worker would receive a high wage and that he would be outside barbed wire. And I myself saw how an entire c** hailed this statute, and it was shown that the gate and barbed wire were were done away with, and there was no further surveillance any more.
Q Could these prisoners who had been turned into workers come home?
Q Did they actually leave?
A Yes, they did. Many of them returned and an equally large part of then did not return from their leaves. theFrench Government report. This document shows and admits that the prisoners received leave to go home and the unfortunates did not return and therefore this procedure was stopped, it was done away with. Have you heard of the concept, "Indirect Forced Labor"?
A No. Please explain it to me. workers who worked in France in armament industries so that the result of this work was in favor of Germany, and, of course, Sauckel was not connected with this in any way. This French report, which deals at length with the economic side of manpower mobilization, says that according to that an elastic system was followed, a system in which there were amiable relations; then the measures were intensified and harshness used. In this connection was there a plan laid down? Did you have to carry through certain directives? Tell us what system you used and followed.
A I should like to go on record with this question. A plan of this sort, as you have just outlined it, actually did not exist. The only thing which existed was my program, a program which I set up and which is in the possession of the Tribunal, a program whic I have to admit and to which I adhere, as far as responsibility is concerned, and responsibility for my officials. This program was carried out in my decrees and directives which are available without any gaps. The development of this war did not permit me to contemplate just how it was to be construed. We ourselves were in the stream of development of this war and did not have time to ponder certain matters.
Q What were some of the industries in France?
A The Speer Betriebe (Works). They were industries between the Reich Minister, Speer, and I believe the French Economy Minister, Bichelonne.
Those two gentlemen had agreed that they were to be industries which in part would work for German armament, in part on German civilian production, and as far as recruitment of my office was concerned, they were to be excluded. foreign countries? according to careful estimates of the statistical department in the Reich Labor Ministry may be said to be about 5,000,000; that is a rough figure.
Q. Did you determine how far these laborers were to be used and who was to be brought in?
A. No, I could not determine that, but I was not the German economy, and of my own accord I could not determine the extent of German armament and agrarian programs.
Q. Aside from the constant needs and demands which you had to surely, there were certain programs, measures demanded by the Fuehrer. Is that true?
A. Yes, the Fuehrer set up the armament program, as far as I know.
Q. You mentioned four programs to me. I shall read these figures and perhaps you can confirm what I am reading. In the first program, in April 1942, the demand was 1.6 million; 1.6 million was the supply brought in, and the entire figure was made up of foreigners. The second program, in September 1942, 2 million, and it was met with 2 million, and one million of those, one half, were foreigners. In the year 1943, the demand was one million, and the demand was met with one million; foreign workers, one million. The last program, on 1 January 1944, the demand by the Fuehrer was 4 million, and the demand met with .9 million.
A. I should like to correct you. The figure should read, demand met with 3 million.
Q. The demand was 4, and the need met was 3 million, and how many foreigners?
A. That is .9 foreigners.
Q. How many workers came from the East, how many from the West, and how many from other regions?
A. It is hard for me to give you the exact figures without data or statistics, but on the average I can say that about 30 per cent might apply to each of these brackets, but perhaps the percentage in the East was slightly higher.
Q. And how were the demands set up?
A. Through the men who were charged.
Q. And what were the Bedarfstraeger?
A. The Bedarfstraeger, the ones charged with filling of the needs, was the armament Ministry, the Agricultural Ministry, the Reichsbahn, mines and so forth; various ministries and large concerns.
Q. And to whom id they give their demands?
A. Usually to the Fuehrer and to me, and there were collecting agencies, such as the Four Year Plan, which existed.
Q. And if your demands were to be scaled down -- or were these the first demands?
A. I have just said -- I should like to say that that varied. The demands were put to me, but at the same time they were also put to the Fuehrer because the Fuehrer had to approve of these demands.
Q. And what was the position of the Central planning Board in this connection?
A. The Central Planning Board was an agency in which, above all to my knowledge, the raw material quotas were set up, but in which workers' problems were dealt with and discussed.
Q. Could you receive orders from the Central Planning Board?
A. Yes, the demands which were put to me I had to consider as decrees, for the Fuehrer had obligated me to meet the demands of the war economy.
Q. Did you belong to the Central Planning Board yourself?
A. No, I was only called in when there were debates relating to the manpower problem.
Q. What was the relationship between your office and the office of Speer?
A. My office was in such a relationship to the office of Speer that I had to meet the demands put by Speer.
Q. Did Speer have a special machinery for manpower mobilization?
A. Yes, he had to have that in his ministry, and he did have it.
Q. Could you meet the demands put to you?
A. No.
Q. Were your labor supplies or reserves exhausted?
A. According to my conviction, yes, for even in the year 1943 -- and it was the objective of my manifesto to point this out -- the economic problems of the occupied countries were very severe, and they had to be regulated and settled, so that there would be no confusion.
Q. What were the Labor reserves present in Germany?
A. In Germany beginning with or after 1943, there were no manpower reserves which we could use: Many discussions took place about this problem but the chief demand for German workers was for specialized labor, miners and workers in heavy industries.
Q. And how about manpower reserves in France which were to be utilized?
A. I must say that from our point of view, with respect to our economic point of view, there was a very extensive reserve there.
Q. Do you wish to say that on a comparative basis the economic power of Germany was far more exhausted than that of the occupied countries?
A. Perhaps I can cite an example in a comparison with the first world war. In the first world war, in the mobilization of labor, ten to twelve million Germans were used. In this war about 25 German men and women were used, and about half of the second figure were women. In Germany these women were not included in the labor mobilization who were active in the Red Cross or other welfare agencies. These women could not be included in my statistics, but other countries used these figures.
Q. I have a concluding question. In your capacity or activity as Plenipotentiary for Labor, seen from today, what is your attitude toward the use of foreign labor in general?
A It is very hard for me to answer this question. I myself and the German people as well had to be of the opinion that this war -- and in order to be truthful, I have to include the Party -- we did not wish this war nor were we responsible for it. We are of the opinion and attitude that we had to do our duty for our people.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius -BY DR. SERVATIUS: brief answer on whether today you consider your activity justified or not. Just be brief, please. with that point of view, and the way in which I looked at my manpower mobilization, I considered it justified and above all, inevitable -- that it had to take place, for the countries which we occupied and Germany were an area that could not be separated; without Mi exchange of Eastern and Western workers, we could not have existed in Germany for even one day. The German people were used in work to the utmost.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have concluded my questioning of the defendant. BY DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): totals set down by you?
A Not only the East Ministry tried, to do that; I myself tried to do that, to lower the demand with the Fuehrer and the other members who were responsible. the abuses in recruiting and transporting of Eastern workers. I should like to put several questions to you in this regard. Did you personally try to take steps to stop the abuses which are listed here?
A Yes, of course. Please interrogate my witnesses on this. of Charkov in the Ukraine, and do you know that this entire district was never under the civilian administration of the East Ministry?