This is your order of the 22nd of August 1944 in regard to sup-
plying manpower from occupied territories. Do you happen to know this order?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the PS number?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: The PS number? One minute, please. Unfortunately, I regret. I don't have the PS number. All I have is the United States exhibit number, which is 206.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the United States Prosecutors got the corresponding number to USA-206?
MR DODD: I could have it in a few minutes, Mr. President.
I don't have it right at my fingertips, but I will obtain it.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:
Q. Defendant Sauckel, paragraph 8 of this order states that it is valid so far as the prisoners of war are concerned. Was there such a directive?
A. Yes.
Q. Therefore, you yourself didn't differentiate between the prisoners of war and the civilian population as far as their utilization and demand in the German war industry was concerned. Do you acknowledge that?
A. I have already answered to my defense counsel, and I think I also said so yesterday, that I and the Minister of Labor of the Reich generally had a catalogue under which prisoners of war could be employed. But this paragraph 8 has nothing to do with this particular letter, because that was an instruction which didn't come to me and which wasn't addressed to me.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, the document USA-206 has PS No. 3044.
Q. Beside the statements to your defense counsel which you mentioned, you also stated that during the utilization of manpower in the German war industry, the requirements of the Geneva Convention were observed.
A. Yes, and that is available in documents, that the Reich Ministry of Labor and my offices had issued instructions that the Geneva Convention was to be observed in all respects concerning prisoners of war.
Q. And here you maintain that you didn't differentiate between the Soviet prisoners of war and the civilian population, is that correct?
A. No, that isn't true at all.
Q. In other words, a violation of this convention took place as far as the utilization of prisoners of war was concerned, inasmuch as they were treated by you in the same way as the civilian population and were utilized by industry in the interests of waging war.
A. In that case, I must have misunderstood you, or you may have misunderstood me. I said particularly that I did attach importance to it and that during the time I was in office I stated that the Geneva Convention was to be observed.
I couldn't do more than that.
Q. Your defense counsel questioned you in regard to Operation Ost, and you answered in this way, and here I am citing the transcript of the record:
"Sauckel: No, I had nothing to do with this particular measure." July 1944. This document is PS-199, This letter is addressed to you. Will you please read Paragraph 1:
"That the war employment command formerly stationed in Minsk must continue under all circumstances the calling in of young White Ruthenian and Russian manpower for military employment in the Reich. In addition, the command has the mission to bring young boys of 10 to 14 years of age to the Reich."
the letter is adressed to me, and although I must have information of it, I nevertheless had nothing to do with that plan in my office or personally. The case of the defendant Schirach has already brought the subject up, that these things were carried out within the authorities concerned, and the labor under my control was not actually concerned with it. utilization of manpower? What was your relation to the staff which was in charge of manpower center? Kriegseinsatzkommando Mitte; was that your staff?
A I don't understand the question. staff dealing with the utilization of manpower "center".
A I can't find the word.
A. Kriegseinsatzkommando Mitte is completely unknown to me. I don't know who he was; I don't know what he was; I don't know whether he was a military or civilian authority. I can't tell you. I have nothing to do with that. workers, the Reich Security Administration introduced markings. For the Soviet citizens, it was -- you don't hear me?
A I can't understand. occupied territories, certain identification signs were introduced. For the Soviet citizens it was the marking "Ost"; for Polish people, it was the letter "P", and so on, and you testified that you were not in agreement with this.
Now, what did you do in order to rescind this mockery?
A I made an attempt to stop such markings altogether. The Reichsfuehrer SS demanded categorically, however -- and I think there is a letter -that these foreign workers be marked, the foreign workers who were going about freely in Germany at my request, and they had to be marked when they left the camp.
A It was not a mockery. I want to state that emphatically. I did not consider it as mockery.
the defendant Goering?
A Whether I talked to Goering directly, I cannot remember today. I can only testify that again and again, at regular intervals, I tried, until in March 1944, I think, my efforts were in fact successful, when the small eastern badge was changed to a national badge on the sleeve, as had been suggested by liaison officers for the various people from the east. whether you did not.
A I cannot recollect; maybe yes, maybe no.
THE PRESIDENT: General Alexandrov, I think you might pass on from this.
colleague in regard to how Speer treated your appointment as general plenipotentiary, you mentioned that you did not know anything at all about it. Now, you shall be given an article from a newspaper, the "Voelkischer Beobachter" This os document USSR 467 and is being submitted to the Tribunal.
(Witness handed document) your appointment as general plenipotentiary. Do you find the place wherein it states:
"The appointment of Gauleiter Sauckel was made on the wish of Reich Minister Speer because of the extraordinary work involved in the task of utilization of manpower in the armamemt industry." is possible pr probable. I did not have much time to read newspapers but I want to tell you, Mr. Prosecutor, firstly, during the time when I was in office I had more than five million German workers from various branches of German economy introduced into the armament industry. This task was done by me and in principle referred to German workers and involved their transfer. your personal appointment as a general plenipotentiary. That is what I wanted to ascertain. Can you tell me anything in regard to that matter? something I cannot tell you about. I have already told my defense counsel that I myself was surprised at the time. government went on the criminal path of enslavement of civilian populations and also utilized prisoners of war. Is that correct, is that what you maintain
THE PRESIDENT: General, I have already pointed out to you twice that i is not right for you to put questions using such language as that -- criminal, crimes or violation of treaties for it involves assuming the guilt of the defendants. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:
country the Hitlerite government started on the road of mobilization and utilization in the war industry of civilian populations and also the prisoners of war, is that right?
A I have already answered this question to my defense counsel. I stated that I personally, upon being nominated, suggested a different program but that the Fuehrer and other sources were not satisfied with that and while giving me the corresponding explanations also gave me orders. Germany was concerned they were exhausted; did you say that? as well as in occupied territories and because of the existing economic tasks, employment resources had been exhausted and could no longer be carried through so easily. That is shown by my statement. sent to you by Speer on the 22nd of January, 1944, and I quote from this document, which is in the document book of the defendant Speer. It is number Speer 06. In this particular document Speer draws your attention to the insufficient utilization of manpower.
DR. FLAECHSNER (Counsel for defendant Speer): In my document book I have included a letter which refers to a subject which is about to be brought up here. Whether or not I am going to use the document will only transpire as the trial progresses and I do not consider it proper that the Prosecution use my documents before I myself have had a chance to bring my case up before the Tribunal.
Please, may I have the Tribunal's decision?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think the motion should be granted and that you ought not to be allowed to use the document until the defendants' counsel have used the documents.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, May I ask you then, to exclude from the transcript the preceding question which dealt with the lack of manpower resources in Germany because if this motion is granted there is no sense to the previous question.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if you wish it.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Yes, I ask that.
BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV: document 69 during the session of May 29. This document deals with the treatment of foreign born workers. The document number is 68. I shall not go into detail as to the document and I will limit myself to your answer to defense counsel as it appears in the transcript.
I read the transcript:
"Sauckel: First of all I would like to state the fact that this document was composed on the 6th of March 1941; in other words there is a difference of one year, with reference to my stay in office.
"Since this document is being presented here I shall add to my case documents which confirm or acknowledge the fact that I automatically destroyed similar orders. Second, in such a case I could not have given such orders to any agency in the Reich." 29th of May of this year?
THE PRESIDENT: General, I am told that this is an incorrect translation. It was revoked and not destroyed. You said "destroyed" did you not?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: I read the Russian transcript and perhaps there are certain inaccuracies in it but I do not argue against the word "revoke" because the meaning of it, after ail, remains the same.
THE WITNESS: May I ask that this story be repeated because I am not quite clear about it. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:
Q No, I do not want to refer to document 68. All I want to find out is whether, in reply to your defense counsel, this is what you stated. You do not argue against the transcript of your testimony which was read by me? That is the same statement you made here, What you spoke about on the 29th of May? word "destroyed" has to do with what you have just been talking about. revoking or rescinding.
A That is possible.
transcript? Ukrainian women and girls from occupied territories placed by you, people who were drafted to work in German agriculture?
(Witness handed document) THE PRESIDENT:
Do you have the PS number?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: No, sir; this is a USSR document. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV: directive dated the 8th of September, 1942. That appendix is called "Instructions to housewives as to the utilization of foreign workers in agricultural and household tasks."
Do you know this document? Do you remember this instruction or notice? what kind of conditions were placed by you upon these Ukrainian women and girls who were sent to work in Germany in agricultural and household tasks.
Please find Paragraph B, "Registration with the Police." Have you found that? Then, "Medical treatment and control." Have you found that? "Registration with the Police", and "Medical treatment and control."
A No. not quite.
Q Paragraph B. Have you found it?
A Page 4? with the police and medical treatment and control. There is written here:
"Eastern workers must carry their registration with them, with the marking on the right side."
A But 1 haven't got that. there.
Q Have you found it?
Q Now paragraph 4, which is entitled "Labor Conditions". It is written here that Eastern female workers who are being used for household work in the Reich must work under specific labor conditions.
What were the specific German labor conditions?
New please find paragraph 9, "Free Time". The first line deals with the right to have free or spare time. It states that these Eastern female workers do not have any right to have any spare time.
A But please read it all. It says that just as with other German household staffs-
Q I wish to interrupt you. I shall read the whole paragraph right now, the whole ninth paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: General, I don't think you should intrupt him when he is making a legitimate explanation. You should wait until he has made his explanation, and then draw attention to anything in the rest of the document that you wish to. Now, what did you wish to say, defendant?
THE WITNESS: I asked that a further part should be read. I was thinking of a sentence in which it is stated that, nevertheless weekly assistance could be granted. Perhaps I may read the sentence: "Household workers from the East may principally only move about outside the household when they are dealing with matters of the household, but they can, nevertheless, if they have proved themselves, be given the opportunity to go out once a week that is the same as German workers. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:
Q It is written differently here. There was no leisure time allowed. It is stated that there may be a possibility, for the duration of three hours, once a week, to stay and not do any work, outside the confines of the household should the work be ended by the time darkness falls. In other words, we are not dealing with one full day, but only with three hours.
A But I didn't say that. This evening time, because of the blackout, applied to German household staffs as well during war.
Q Please find paragraph 10, "Leisure time leave and return to one's country."
That is the title of this particular part. Have you found that? It is written here: "No leave should be granted. Eastern female workers who are being used in households are being mobilized for an indefinite time."
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think you can pass on from this? You know, this isn't a matter of very great importance.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: MR. President, I would like to have the defendant Sauckel explain to us the apparent contradiction between his testimony before his defense counsel in regard to document 668, and in connection with this particular construction as to how they utilized these Eastern female workers in German households. I would like to have an answer from him inorder to do away with this apparent contradiction.
THE WITNESS: I am in a position to give an exact answer to that. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:
Q Yes?
A This paper wasn't only written by me, but a large number of points had been inserted and demanded by the Reichsfuehrer SS. As early as spring of 1943 I succeeded in having these paragraphs altered, and the uncertain time of service for Eastern workers was limited to two years. Then, further, in a document -- which, in my opinion, my defense counsel should still submit to this Tribunal -- it states that I achieved the altering of too-limiting instructions regarding Eastern workers, and through my efforts they were, in fact, done away with. I made efforts from the beginning., as I stated in my first answer, and all these restrictions were taken away so that they were equal to other foreign and German workers. That wasmy aim, it was the meaning of the conception of my office. I wanted to see this done with reference to the Eastern workers because they were the best workers we had in Germany. Frank . I shall read to you what is written in regard to your conversation with the defendant Frank. This is document USSR-223, and your conversation is recorded there. This is the diary of Frank as to 1944, and I refer to page 918.
"Dr. Frank: I am very glad that I can officially inform you that up to now we sent to Germany over 300,000 workers.
Not so long ago you applied to us to send 140,000 more workers. Besides these 140,000, for the next year you may count on new shipments of workers from the Government General, because we shall use police force for the recruiting or drafting of workers."
Does thatcorrespond with the facts? Did such a conversation between you and Frank take place? Was it correctly written in his diary? fore, and the details of which I cannot possibly recollect. I cannot say, on the basis of the documents before me, that the use of polish civilian workers -
THE PRESIDENT: If you don't remember, why can't you say so and stop? BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV: manpower, or did he not say anything about it? Do you remember this or do you not? in 1942. Conditions at that time were so utterly different. cerned, did the defendant Frank use police measures or police methods? D you know about that? the Governor General solved this problem with police forces. Please ask him yourself.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: I am submitting to the Tribunal document USSR-469, which characterizes the methods of recruiting manpower which were used in the territory of Poland. This document is an official order printed by the Kreishauptmann in the Minsk or Warsaw District. It is dated the 2nd of February, 1943. This order is given to Kazimier Nowa, who was born on the 6th of May, 1926, and who lived in Dyzin, the village of Kotbiel, and it is stated:
"On the basis of an order as to the labor draft, dated 13 May 1942, page 255, I order you to work in the Reich." And here is what is written at the end of this order: "In the event that you disobey this order" -
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a document you are offering in evidence new for the first time?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: This document is being presented for the first time.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any copies of it?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Yes, I have, and naturally you should be given the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you Offering it now for the first time, or is it already in evidence?
Didn't you hear that?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Yes. This document is being presented for the first time.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not seem to have it, anyhow. I mean, I do not have a copy of it.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: The original document was given to the defendant, and the copies in German were given to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I have it now in German. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:
Q It is stated:
"In case you disobey this order relating to forced labor, the members of your family (parents, wife, close relations) will be placed in the police camp and will be liberated only after your appearance. Moreover, I reserve to myself the right to confiscate your real and personal property and also the real and personal property of the members of your family.
"Moreover, in accordance with Paragraph 5 of the above mentioned order, you shall be punished with confinement in jail or confinement in a concentration camp." manpower in the territory of Poland were used? penalties was completely unknown to me in this particular form, and that I would never have approved of them if I had heard of them. I would have stopped it at once. appendix at the end of this document, from my office's point of view, is incorrect, and it was not approved by me.
What is correct is the first paragraph of this document, which I would like to have permission to read. That is in keeping with the German Workers' law. It says:
"Based on the law of the 30th of May, 1942, I will call you up to work in the Reich. Your employment in the Reich will take place in keeping with properly regulated working conditions, and the payment will be in keeping with the scale of pay. Savings can transferred to your home by you. Close relations to whose support you have up to now made important contributions can apply to the labor office for special allowances from the labor office."
THE PRESIDENT: We need not have the details. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV: regard to manpower, directives which were issued by the higher government authorities in Germany, and also personally by you in your own program. The document is USSR 365, and you wrote the following. the record now?
Q It is written there:
"In connection with this, it is necessary to utilize fully all the manpower resources present in the occupied territory. If it is not possible to obtain the desirable manpower by volunteer methods, then it will be necessary to use the methods of forced recruiting."
Did you give such directions?
A No, I have not found the passage. It has not been pointed out to me properly.
Q All right. You will be shown again at once; page 8 of the Russian text.
Did you ever give such directions? calling up of labor. That would have to be done by the local authorities. But I did not understand that there were such threats of penalties as have been obtained in this document signed by Bittrich.
I was thinking about the example of German ruling, and that was very different, indeed. was it not written? order.
Q Let us go further. In the letter of the 3rd of October, 1942, addressed to Gauleiter Meyer-- this is Document No. 017 PS -- you wrote the following. Now this document is going to be presented to you. Will you please follow my reading? Did they show you the place?
Q It is written there:
"I do not ignore the difficulties which exist for the execution of this new requirement, but I am convinced that with the ruthless commitment of all resources and withthe full cooperation of allthese interested, the execution of the now demands can be accomplished for the fixed date."
Did you write that?
A yes, I wrote that. But I want you to let me explain it in detail. In all these instructions whichI gave, I demanded considerate treatment for human beings. That has already been proved in the trial. If I had known of the ruthless use of means -- and by that I mean the ruthless use of all tecnhical and propaganda arrangements -- I would have stopped then. There had been reports to me that recruiting measures were not sufficiently employed on the spot. That is for explanation and "pre-history" of this letter. That is Document No. U.S.S.R. 127. This will be presented to you in a moment. You wrote in this document the following:
"Recruiting for which I have been responsible must be enforced or speeded up by all acceptable measures, including a very severe application of principles of forced labor, so that in the shortest possible time it will be possible to treble the number of recruited people."
Did you give such directions?
A They were instructions of mine, and I gave them. I did not mean criminal or bad methods when talking about the "duty to work". I was more thinking of fulfilling the figures.
Q Now I shall cite a few excerpts from documents of other people. I shall now read an excerpt from a speech by Defendant Rosenberg. This is Document No. U.S.S.R. 170. The document is a transcript of Rosenberg's speech, which was delivered at the gathering of the German Labor Front in November, 1942. I shall read a short excerpt from this speech:
"Millions of wretches trembling with fright react the same way -
A (Interposing) I have not found it.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better recess now.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours 31 May 1946.)
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I should like to draw the Tribunal's attention to the following fact: General Alexandrov this morning referred to Document 744-PS. First of all, a document was given to me which was described as the German translation. That translation contains obvious impossibilities.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you said 744-PS?
DR. NELTE: 744-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't got any note that he referred to that document. I don't know whether he -- did you refer to 744-PS this morning General Alexandrov?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Yes, I did refer to that document. It was a telegram of Defendant Keitel dated July 1943, and referring to the utilization of prisoners of war in the mining industry.
DR. NELTE: Then the Russian prosecution supplied the original, that is to say the photostat copy of a letter dated 6 July 1943; signed by Keitel. I now have two German versions before me which, not only as far as the contents are concerned, differ a great deal, but the translation even contains an addition which is not contained in the original. That is to say, the heading of the letter, Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, has an addition, Armed Forces General Staff. I do not want to delay you, sir, by referring to the other incorrect translations, but I must assume that you have the texts in the foreign languages before you which, from the re-translation, appeared to me to be incorrect. Since this document, the original I mean, is the exhibit and is not being objected to, I should like to ask you to make an order that the translations in the foreign languages which you have before you should be checked to establish how far they differ from the original document.
THE PRESIDENT: Had the document been put in evidence before: Had it been offered in evidence as an exhibit?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV:PS-744.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that doesn't mean that it has been put in evidence.
That only means that it is identified in that way. Had it been offered in evidence before?
GENERAL ALEXANDDROV: I do not know the U.S. number of this document, but as far as I knew, this document was submitted in evidence to the Tribunal. On the German copy of this document there is a reference which states that the German translation was made on the 26th of November 1945, by 20 Lt. Niebergall. Inasmuch as Dr. Nelte finds some deficiencies in this translation, I believe that we should ask the translation division to check it.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is the best thing to do, to have it checked by the translation division. We will order that that shall be done at once.