army office, rather than to me, and the army had its own agencies for this purpose. first page (a) that, "With few e xceptions the Ukrainian people were being used in the Reich in isolated cases in small industrial enterprises."
A Will you please tell no the spot?
A Sir, I do not have the place yet. There are several documents like that. in the Reich were very much satisfied with conditions and that the Ukrainians who were in certain camps were complaining; is that correct?
A Yes. In my testimony I quoted the places in whichthe author of the letter said that this took place in the first few months. Immediately had this situation checked and improved. I called the Reich Labor Minister to give out a now regulation for this, and that was on the basis of this complaint. Riga, Kovno, Sitomir did you speak to the administrative officers there? Russia I compiled this manifesto and had it published there, and everything that is contained in the manifesto was given to the offices and the agencies there. decree?
A That was my duty; that was at I was there for. your actual authority came from Goering. He was the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, and you were with him.
A Yes, that is correct. Fuehrer, Goering, Four Year Plan; that was the progression.
to give a certainemphasis?
A No, that was not my intention. The Fuehrer charged me with certain things. For instance, the loss of German soldiers was to be made up. and those were missions which I received directly from the Fuehrer through Goering on the basis of the demand.
Q Was that a written order to you?
Q Written by Hitler personally? of feet that Eastern workers in Germany, after their return to their own country, were to receive land so that they would not be at a disadvantage as compared with the people who had remained?
A Yes, that was set down between Rosenberg and myself; that is correct.
Q Did this actually take place?
A Just how far this was carried out, I am unable to state. That was a task of the Eastern ministry, and I assumed that it was carried out. of the Eastern emblem? emblem. There is a letter to the Reichsfuehrer SS, who rejected this, and at the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944 we were successful in doing away withthis Eastern emblem, and it was replaced by a national emblem.
Q Why was this emblem to be done away with? above all, so that the Eastern workers would not feel that they were being discriminated against by having a special emblem. talked over with Rosenberg, having received other complaints. Numerous complaints were received by the Central Agency for Eastern Peoples, and they were checked by the D.A.F. constantly. Did the D.A.F. report to you on this?
A The D.A.F., the German Labor Front, reported that they were acting in accordance with my directives, that they tried to put a stop to abuses. That was its obligation. In order to stop these abuses, the D.A.F. should not have turned to me but, rather, to a special branch of the Reich Labor Ministry.
Q Did you make sure whether this agency stopped these abuses?
A I installed my own inspection agencies, as Dr. Servatius mentioned, but this was the only authorized, agency which had the authority to use coercion but the Reich Labor Minister was its immediate superior.
DR. THOMA: I have no further question, and thank you. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q What is the emblem that you have been speaking about?
A The eastern Emblem consisted of a square; it had a blue inscription "East"; it had a blue border and on the responsibility of the Reich Leader SS, it had to be worn first on the right chest; later on, on the sleeve and later, on my responsibility, a national emblem was chosen -- I believe the Russian color blue, or as the people themselves wished the color to be. DR. NELTE: Dr. Nelte, on behalf of Keitel. BY DR. NELTE:
Q Mr. Sauckel, the defendant Keitel and the OKW are accused by the prosecution under the point "deportation of civilian people for the purpose of manpower mobilization." You were interrogated on this matter before the beginning of this proceeding, to the effect whether the OKW and Keitel, as Chief of the OKW, participated in the recruitment of people in the occupied countries. A series of things which are not clear, which are contained in some of the record, have been cleared up by your testimony and in answering the last question of my colleague, Dr. Thoma, you made it clear to us that the organizational official channel is as follows: G.B.A., Four Year Plan Goering, and Fuehrer, Is that correct? the OKW was included, as far as a matter of competence is concerned,or whether the Fuehrer as commander-in-chief of the Wehrmacht -- the Fuehrer? I am not familiar with the organization and the details of the OKW and of the OKH and it was hard for a layman to keep these matters separate. It is correct that as far as the field of use of workers in occupied countries where army groups were competent, the OKH was the superior; therefore, regulations for workers as applying to the occupied countries which was under the sovereignty of the army, laws or directives from the General Staff of the army had to apply.
Q You mean General Quarter master of the army, perhaps? in-chief of the army. Keitel, as far as the taking of these people for recruitment problem of workers in occupied countries, had no competence in this direction? I came in connection with Fieldmarshal Keitel in this way, that the Fuehrer repeatedly asked me to ask Fieldmarshal Keitel to give his decree, as far as the army is concerned, and transmit those decrees by telephone otherwise.
Q And what about the question of the workers. Did the OKW and, specifically, Keitel as Chief of the OKW, have a competent function for the question of the use of workers at home?
A No. For the use of workers took place in those economic branches for which they were needed and there was no connection with the OKW at all.
DR. NELTE: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of the prosecution wish to crossexamine? BY M. HERZOG: 1925, didn't you? Isn't that correct? member and that began in 1923. When the Party was reorganized in 1925, I again became a member. Socialism, didn't you? did not belong to the Party. I knew of the Party and I was interested for it, but that is perhaps all.
Q But didn't you, as early as that date, make speeches in favor of National Socialism?
A perhaps; beginning with the year, the middle of 1921 onwards, I made speeches in favor of Germany, not expressly for the Party, and I spoke about the things that were close to my heart.
Q You have been a Gauleiter, haven't you; a member of the Landrat, Minister for Home Affairs, and Reichsstatthalter, or Governor of Thuringia. Is it exact that in this quality, you carried out the Nazification of your Gau? and I was Minister of the Interior as well.
Q I am asking you the question again: Is it exact that as Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter or Governor of Thuringia, you carried out the Nazification of your Gau?
A The Nazification? -- that was a conflict with which I was neither familiar nor do I consider it correct. I recruited for the National Socialist Workers Party and I worked for it.
Q You were an Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS organization, were you not?
A I do not quite under stand -- SS? not? basis I was Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS but I was never active in the SS nor did I have any functionsin the SS. of the SS? of the SS beginning with 1934.
Q Up to when? book, Sauckel Document 95, on page 252 of the French translation, I am going to read the following passage: "My dear fellow-countrymen, our magnificent SA and SS, persecuted and insulted during a whole decade, have carried through, supported, and sustained this revolution with an unshakable discipline..." Is it exact?
THE PRESIDENT: What are you reading from?
M. HERZOG: From document 95, of one of the document books of the defendant, Mr. President; Sauckel Document 95, which was submitted yesterday by my learned colleague, counsel for the defense. Page 252 of the French translation, and it is in the third document book of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on. BY M. HERZOG:
Q I am going to put the question to you again. In this document, I am readings "My dear fellow-countrymen, our magnificant SA and SS, persecuted and insulted during a whole decade, have carried through, supported, and sustained this revelution with an unshakeable discipline ...". Do you still stand on this declaration? define my attitude.
yourself submitted?
your own personal convictions on the subject?
A The legislation? In adcord with the Nurnberg laws, that legislation was not influenced by me. The conviction which I have is that each people and each race has the right to exist and has the right to respect and to be protected through herself and that which I demand for my own people, that is exactly the same. fully applied to the Gau of Thuringia?
A The Nurnberg laws could apply to Thuringia. As far as the dismissal or appointment if officials was concerned, and, of course, according to German law, I was obligated to carry cut the law. There was neither an infraction or any other inhumane act that was connected with this law.
Q Did you approve of Hitler's theory on living of the so-called "Lebensraum". wrote about it in his book and how far I agreed or disagreed that, in my opinion, cannot in this proceeding be dealt with by me, for I had no influence on how the Fuehrer himself considered the word "lebensraum".
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that you must answer the question, whether or not you approve of the doctrine of "lebensraum."
THE WITNESS: The explanation made by the Fuehrer about the concept "lebensraum," I am not sure about everything he said. I should like to emphasize that I did not consider "lebensraum" and the carrying through of wars of aggres sion, that these two concepts to me did not coincide not even in my thoughts and I did not transmit this concept in thought, but the concept "lebensraum" was characterized for us by the fact that the European population in the last hundred years increased threefold, from one hundred fifty million to four hundred fifty million. BY M. HERZOG:
Q I am repeating my question. Did you, yes or no, approve of the theory of "lebensraum"? Kindly answer yes or no. 29-May-A-NG-19-1 Daniels with wars of aggression.
Q Did you approve of Hitler's theory of the superior race? master race in my speeches. I personally of the opinion that capacity is the deciding factor, and not a master race. many ought to have been determined by the two theories, the theory of Lebensraum on the one hand, and the theory of a master race on the other hand? myself with foreign politics. I am not versed in foreign political matters.
Q Didn't you, to the contrary, approve of all the measures of foreign policy which Hitler used, and didn't you participate in them?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had butter break off now, and you can repeat the question tomorrow.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 30 May 1046 at 1000 hours.)
Official Transcript of the International
DR. EXNER (Counsel for the defendant Jodl): Mr. President, I should like to put a request to you. My client is the one next in order and would like to be excused, if possible, this afternoon and all day tomorrow, so that he can prepare his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
THE MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that the defendant vonPapen is absent. BY. MR. HERZOG: Germany's foreign policy should have been determined according to Hitlerian culture withthe idea of the Master Race.
A May I please ask you to repeat the question? I did not quite understand it. of Germany should have been determined with respect to two Hitlerian theories, "Lebensraum" and "Master Race". carried on according to the principles of "Lebensraum" and the "Master Race"? have been so.
A Not according to the principle of the superior race. I should like to be permitted to give an explanation of this statement. I personally considered the statements made by some of the National Socialist leaders about a "Master Race" -- I heard their statements, and I did not approve of them. As a young man I travelled about the world. I travelled in Australia and in America, and I made some contacts whichnow serve as good memories to me, but I loved my own people and tried -- and this is something I admit-I believed that my own people was entitled to an equality of rights, and that was the position I represented.
I did not consider the principle of the "Master Race" to be good. Hitler, and youdid not coloaborate therewith? considered myself to be one to formulate the foreign policy. to two American officers?
M. HERZOG: This declaration is PS-3057. It was submitted as USA 223. BY M. HERZOG:
Q You said therein as follows:
"(1) I was a convinced National Socialist in about 1921 and adhered 100 per cent to the program of Adolf Hitler. I was actively working in that sense, and during the period from 1921 until the assumption of power in 1933 I made about 500 speeches, the sense and content of whichrepresented the National Socialist philosophy. It was forme a particular satisfaction to have elevated the Gau of Thuringia to a predominant position, and thereafter, especially as regards its National Socialist aspirations, there was no doubt in my mind, and I never questioned commands by Hitler. Until the crash came, I obeyed his orders blindly."
THE PRESIDENT: You are going a little bit too fast. Thias has been read, M. Herzog. I do not think you need read all of it. BY M. HERZOG: declarations which were made under oath and voluntarily and without any duress on the 4 September 1945 and which are in contradiction with these that you made yesterday and which you have just made to me.
A I confirm that my signature is appended to this document. I ask the High Tribunal's permission to tell how the signature came about.
This document was presented to me in its finished form. I asked that I might read and study this document in my cell and decide whether I could actually sign it. I was denied this privilege. During the conversation-and an officer was called in. This officer told me that he belonged to the Polish or Russian army, and he told me that if I hesitated too long in signing this document, I would be given to theRussian authorities.
Then this Polish or Russian officer entered and asked where Sauckel's family was. "His family will have to be taken into Russian territory as well." I am the father of ten children. I did not think about this matter, but, with consideration for my family, I signed this document. I wanted to talk with him alone on this matter, but this was not possible, for shortly thereafter I was brought to Numbers. that you "made the above declarations voluntarily and without any duress"?
THE PRESIDENT: Will you ask him whether he had read it now and whether it is true. BY M. HERZOG:
Q I asked you a few moments ago, and I ask you now: Are you ready to confirm whether your statements are correct? dividual points, and I asked that I might correct these various points, but I did not receive the time to do that. could discuss this matter in Nurnberg, and when I was interrogated here I told the American officer about that matter.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, was this document read over in the Tribunal during the prosecution?
M HERZOG: This document was submitted under USA 223.
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, as far as I recall, this document was not submitted. At that time I had a conversation with the American representative of the Prosecution and told him about these objections. He did not mention this at a later session, and the President himself, at the conclusion of this, asked whether this document would not be produced and the prosecutor said, "No, on the basis of a conference with the defense, we will dispense with this document."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you tell us that it wasn't read over in court.
DR. SERVATIUS: No, it wasn't read in court. I would like to object to the admissibility of this document, for it was given under duress.
THE PRESIDENT: Under these circumstances, M. Herzog, you may cross examine in what way you like upon the document. The Tribunal was under the impression that it had already been read over That is why they stopped you reading it. BY M. HERZOG:
Q In paragraph 2 you declared:
"After the putting into effect of the Nurnberg Laws, I took necessary measures for carrying out those laws in the Gau of Thuringia.
Paragraph 4:
"As regards foreign policy, I felt that the German people had a right to Lebensraum in Europe and they should take a preeminent place in Europe on account of their racial superiority. I agreed with all the decisions taken by Hitler and the NSDAP concerning the means to be used and the measures to be taken to obtain these ends, and I collaborated actively in the execution of this plan."
Q I will read it once more:
"I agreed with all the decisions taken by Hitler and the NSDAP concerning the means to be used and the measures to be taken to obtain these ends, and I collaborated actively in the execution of this plan." way if I had had my own will and if I had been able to act freely.
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing); M. Herzog, the Tribunal thinks that the document is before the witness and he should be asked to point out in what way he considers the document wrong. BY M. HERZOG: You say that this document does not coincide with the truth. Will you kindly tell the Tribunal in what way it does not.
A I should like to take this document point by point. I was 100 per cent for the social program, the program of Adolf Hitler for the German people's community. I agreed with that and I told attorney that.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, what the Tribunal wishes is that you should take the document and point out, sentence by sentence, what is wrong in it.
THE WITNESS: In paragraph 1, the year 1921 is incorrect I became a member, as my first membership card shows, in the year 1923 and 1925.
Before the year 1923, I had no connection with the Party. stand the "100 per cent" in this way, that the program was justified according to the constitution, according to humanity, and according to ethics and morality, as it appeared to me. say. My speeches and lectures, in the main, were based on my life and on my experiences. Those were the only things that I could talk about, and I wanted to bring about a coordination and a balance between the German professions.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, I have pointed out to you that what the Tribunal desires is for you to take the document and say what sentences in it are wrong, and not to make speeches.
THE WITNESS: In my eyes, all of the sentences are wrong. I would not have put them that way. All the sentences, as they stated are not correct, and they do not read the way they would have read if I had said them myself. The way they stand, I dispute each and every sentence, for I did not write them and I was not consulted. These sentences were shown to me as they are now.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, if I may be permitted to give an explanation of this matter, this statement is a resume of the entire number of interrogations in which the various points represent a confession in the sense of the Indictment. The defendant would not have to say a word in his own defense if this were correct. Since it is a resume, and since conclusions can be drawn from it, he will have to have the opportunity to refute the conclusions and that necessitates a speech. These are not certain facts which can be answered with yes or no.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has just said that the whole document is wrong, and he has also said that the document was obtained from him under duress.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And it is therefore not any use to go through it in detail. But the Tribunal would like to hear from the American Prosecution if they have anything to say about the matter.
MR. DODD: I do not have a copy of the document before me in English, but I -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): You see, Mr. Dodd, M. Herzog has said that it was offered in evidence under the exhibit number US 223.
MR. DODD: My recollection is -- I will check the record Mr. President -- that in the presentation of the case on slave labor, we included this in our document book but did not offer it in evidence. I think I said to the Tribunal at the time that we had decided not to offer it. It had been printed up and put in the document book. President, that the President of the Tribunal asked me if I did not intend to offer it, and I then stated that we had thought it over and decided not to use it.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand how it gets an exhibit number if it isn't offered in evidence.
MR. DODD: I don't either. I think it is an error.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Mr. Dodd, do you know whether this is a resume or a summary of a number of interrogations which were taken?
MR. DODD: My understanding is to the contrary. I thin it was taken before the defendant Sauckel was in Nurnberg and before any interrogations were conducted on the part of the Interrogation Division of the American Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you aware that Dr. Sevatius was objecting to the document on the ground that it was obtained under duress?
MR. DODD: My recollection is that at the time of the presentation of the Slave Labor case Dr. Servatius made some objection and I think that is what pointed the matter up at the time; and that is why we did not use it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then you had better pass from it. the 21st of March, 1942? Keitel?
A The decree, I believe, was countersigned three times. I believe that's right At this moment I cannot confirm it with surety, but believe so. Q Would you kindly explain to the Tribunal under what circumstances you were appointed to that office?
A I answered that question when it was put to me by my Counsel yesterday. It was a surprise to me. appointment?
A I cannot tell you that from my own knowledge. I believe it was a suggestion by Bormann, but I cannot tell you this from my own knowledge. interrogation in September, 1945? during which you appear to have state the following -- the Tribunal will find this on the first page in the extracts of the iterrogatory, which has been handed them.
"In March, 1942, I was summoned rather suddenly by Minister Speer who had been appointed a short while previously. Speer told me that it was urgent that I should assume" -
(A short interruption.)
(Resuming) "--Speer told me that it was urgent that I shoud assume new function concerning the matter of manpower. A few days later he asked me to go with him to the General Headquarters and I was introduced to the presence of the Fuehrer, who told me that I shoud at any price accept this appointment which was offered to me."
Do you confirm that statement?
A It is correct. However, I cannot say whether that was before a decision whether my appointment came through the initiative of some other gentlemen; but except for that, the picture is correct. and Munitions, to the Fuehrer Headquarters on the occasion of your appointment. your services and showing how it was connected to the other organizations of the Reich. You have declared that this plan was correct. I would ask you to confirm by saying yes or no, if you think that this chart is correct.
Q Have you that chart in front of you?
A No, I don't have it. the different -
THE PRESIDENT: Which number chart is it?
M. HERZOG: It is chart No. 1, indicating how Sauckel's department dove-tailed with the other ministerial services. there is the name of the Defendant Funk? Have you found it? inspectors? Is that a correct description of the employment of armaments inspectors under the Defendant Funk?
A Under Funk? Which department do you mean, which division?
A No, that is not quite correct here. It should be moved up a little bit to the side. It is corrected with Speer later. Highway inspection and construction, matter like those do not belong under Funk. That is a mistake, putting them under Funk's direction. to the direction of the Autobahnen Services the General Commission for Studies and Labor?
. Should it be connected to the Reichsautobalnen?
Q Should it not be to the one above, Inspector of armaments?
A Yes; I cannot understand how this mistake could happen. I did not see this diagram before this. This is the first time I have seen it. I didn't know. that so? ted. Mr. President, yesterday when I presented it, this chart, I mentioned that there might be a few discrepancies. These discrepancies came in when it was being mimeographed. But I did not see the final -
(Dr. Servatius came to the lecturn and microphone.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, these questions may give rise to further questions from you on re-examination, but there is no ground for objection to them; they are perfectly proper. Four Year Plan. or represented you at such conferences?
A That varied -- Dr. Timm, Dr. Hildebrandt, Dr. Stothfang, But it varied. conferences? Can you tell us?
A I recall with certainty only Mr. Speer, who participated in these conferences That is, of the Defendants who are here. Whether Mr.Funk actually participated to the best of my knowledge I cannot recall.
He may and he may not. I am sorry I can't say.
Q And the defendant Goering? Reichsmarshal but I do not know whether certain conferences which took place with him were carried on in line with this Central Planning Board. There were some conferences in which he participated. Some of these took place at Karinhall, when that was under the name and in the case of Central Planning. But I don't know; it wasn't always clear.
these meetings were they not represented, there? Minister Funk was represented I cannot tell you today from my exact memory. He might have been represented by Mr. Kerl or someone or other. There were many gentlemen but I did not know all of them personally.