a subdivision or branch, later, a department.
Q. What did that department deal with?
A. That department had to deal with the commitment of all manpower action, regulate it, especially the question of skilled workers, the training or workers, advice and education.
Q. Was your office also called Europe Office?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you see most of what went on in the office?
A. Not completely, due to the fact that Gauleiter Sauckel at the same time remained Gauleiter in Thuringia, and that he worked in Berlin in the Thuringia House, whereas the special department put at his disposal remained in the Ministry of Labor.
Q. You didn't understand my question. The question was whether you, from your office, could see everything which went on in Commitment of Manpower without regard to the activity of Sauckel.
A. No, not completely, because we were not informed about all events.
Q. What were the staff meetings, staff conferences? Who took part in them and what type of people were in them?
A. Primarily the liaison men to the various branches were called to staff conferences.
Q. What kind of people were they?
A. Those people were of various types, civil servants, but also economi
Q. But you should tell us from what offices they came, or were they people who were employed by Sauckel?
A. They were primarily people of different branches, such as the representatives of the plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, representativ of the armament industry, of the Ministry for the East, and other department;
Q. Was that the so-called specialist staff?
A. That was the so-called specialist staff.
Q. How many people were in it?
A. In my estimation, there may have been about 15 to 20 people.
Q. Besides that, Sauckel had a personal staff. What kind of people we in that?
A. The personal staff consisted of many men who Sauckel had brought with him from Weimar, men of his former surroundings.
Q. Did he have specialists, referents? Who were these?
A. He had two personal assistants, Landrat Berk, and Ministerialdirektor Stothfang.
Q. And what was the position of Dr. Didier?
A. Dr. Didier, as far as I remember, was the first referent.
Q. How were these staff meetings carried on? What was discussed?
A. All matters of commitment of manpower, that is, commitment of manpower all over Germany, were discussed, and the sessions were generally introduced by a complete report by Sauckel in which he explained his plans for the future.
Q. Were the questions of recruitment in occupied territories also discussed, and, what is most important here, what was reported about the difficulties which existed there, the methods of which we have heard?
A. Questions of recruitment were generally not discussed there; it was more questions of things in the Reich.
Q. I ask you, first, about the occupied territores. For instance, was there discussed a case which has been presented here, the surrounding of a movie theater, seizing of people there, and similar cases?
A. Yes, the case of the movie is know to me.
Q. That was discussed?
A. Yes, that was discussed.
Q. And what was done about it?
A. Sauckel charged several gentlemen -- I don't know precisely whom -with making all possible investigations in order to clarify the case.
Q. Were other cases reported?
A. There wasn't a single case which could have been compared in seriousness with that case that has been described here.
Q. Was there also discussion about the question of labor conditions in Germany for foreign workers?
A. There were discussions in the staff conferences about question of labor conditions.
Q. And wasn't it reported on these occasions that conditions existed in individual camps or industries which were objectionable?
A. Cases of that kind were discussed. In general, they were in the field of clothing, nutrition, and similar things.
Q. How did these reports come into the staff conferences? Who reported them? Where did one find out about them?
practice and established quite a system of inspection and inspectors in order to get an accurate impression about these questions and these reports of inspections which were discussed in the staff conference.
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. May and the Memorandum of the Defense Counsel in reply thereto, dated the 29th of May, the Tribunal makes the following order: of the individual defendants ge heard at the conclusion of the evidence relating to the individual defendants, and before the introduction of evidence relating to the accused organizations, is granted. The Tribunal, however, will not decide the question of the guilt or innocence of any defendant until after all the evidence has been heard; and, if any of the evidence relating to the accused organizations is thought by counsel for any defendant to support his defense, he may ask to be heard further with regard thereto. The Tribunal at the conclusion of the evidence relating to the individual defendants will accordingly hear first the argument in their behalf and then the summing up of the Prosecution. The statements of each of the def plants in his own behalf will be heard at the conclusion of the trial before judgment. innocence of the individual defendants will be more helpful if heard immediately at the conclusion of the evidence bearing thereon, and before the Tribunal has departed from this and gone into the branch of the case relating to the organization This arrangement, furthermore, will give the Commissioners who are taking the evidence as to the organizations, further time in which to complete their work. The defendants will not be prejudiced in any way by this arrangement; for, apart from the fact that their cases are essentially different from cases of the organizations, they will be allowed to call to the attention of the Tribunal any circumstance developed on the hearing of the organizations which is thought to be helpful to their defense. The Tribunal finds nothing in the Charter which forbids this procedure, and article 9 leaves to the discretion of the Tribunal the manner of hearing evidence in behalf of the accused organizations.
examine the witnesses called by counsel in behalf of the organizations or to take part in such proceedings save when specially authorized to do so by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal will sit tomorrow at ten o'clock in open session until one o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1 June, 1946, at 1000 hours.)
Karr
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for defendant von Papen): May I ask permission for the defendant von Papen to be absent on Monday and Tuesday to prepare his case. He will represented by my colleague Dr. Nelte. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, yesterday we were speaking of the staff conferences. I should like to come back to this question later when we talk about centrals.
First I should like to discuss the relationship of Sauckel's agency to the superior agency, I should, like to have that explained by you. To whom was Sauckel subordinate?
A. The Plenipotentiary General for labor commitments was under the Deputy for the Four Year Plan.
Q. And what did he have to do with Hitler?
A. He kept in close contact with Hitler and as far as possible he presented his plans to Hitler in personal talks.
Q. Was there constant contact with the Four Year Plan through a liaison man or how was that done?
A. There were various ways to keep contact. There were liaison men from both sides. The Plenipotentiary General sent men of his staff to report to the office of the Deputy for the Four year Plan and on the other hand, as far as I recall, there were almost constantly delegates of the agency of the Four Year Plan who took part in the staff conferences. In addition, the Plenipotentiary General had personal talks with the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan.
Q. How was the cooperation with the other ministries conducted, with Goebbels, in the first place?
Karr
A. The Plenipotentiary General on principle felt it was important to keep as close contact as possible with the other departments and to have his plans and intentions approved beforehand. Cooperation with the Propaganda Minister was not always as good, especially not at the time when the Minister, Dr. Goebbels, was commissioner for the total war effort.
Q. After the proclamation of total war was Sauckel subordinate to Goebbels?
A. Their relationship was not quite clear. As I understood it had to be considered in this way. The commissioner for the total war effort had comprehensive powers for all tasks. In fact, he was superior to the G.B.A. (Plenipotentiary General for Manpower).
THE PRESIDENT: What was the date of the proclamation of total war? BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Does the witness know when total war was declared?
A. I do not remember the date.
Q. It was about the time after the fall of Stalingrad.
As to relations with Himmler, what cooperation was there with that agency?
A. as for personal relations with the G.B.A. with Himmler I know nother. In Sauckel's labor staff there was a liaison man of the Reichsfuehrer SS, especially on general police questions as far as they might turn up in the labor committment program.
Q. What kind of questions were there?
A. Various questions, especially the question of insignia for foreign workers.
Q. Barbed wire questions?
A. Barbed wire questions; all questions which turn up in the police sector.
Q. Problems of labor education? about them as there were not detailed conferences on them.
Q. Now, I should like to go over to relations in the occupied territories. With whom were negotiations carried on; to whom did one turn when making demands in the occupied territories?
A. One had to turn to the district governments whether they were military commanders, Reich commissioners or whatever they were.
Q. What kind of position did the deputies of Sauckel have?
A. The deputies had been intended as men to carry out Sauckel's plans and instructions and to give them direct authorities but this goal was not reached since they were not able to establish their authority. I recall that the Plenipotentiary General, therefore, intended to ask Hitler for more comprehensive powers. I believe I recall that the Plenipotentiary General once announced that he had learned from Hitler himself or his entourage that Hitler was not inclined to extend these powers since the loval government, especially the military commanders, did not want to release their responsibility so that the Plenipotentiary General had only one resource, of negotiating directly with those agencies.
Q Why were the deputies not able to exert their authority? opposition was so strong that they could not assert themselves.
Q Did these deputies not have another position at the same time? the deputies were generally incorporated into the local administration. With few exceptions they were entrusted with the direction of the labor section, or were incorporated into the section for economy and labor, The military commander in general, used them as administrative officials.
Q From whom did this arrangement originate? Was that at Sauckel's suggestion of the local administration? the question of the position of the deputies. The local government did not want any men in their districts who were independent of their administration.
Q Then this rather reduced the power of the deputies?
Q How did Sauckel exercise his power to issue instructions? exercised in this form. Instructions, directives, and decrees were issued in the normal way, through the central agencies. there other agencies concerned with labor matters? after the appointment of the plenipotentiary General for Labor Commitments, agencies abroad interfered in labor matters or carried on recruitment; that is, agencies which did not have the power to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: What is he talking about when he says "at that time"?
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite understand.
THE PRESIDENT: He said "at that ime" At what time? What time is he speaking about? BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q At what time was that?
had been appointed.
Q When was he appointed?
Q In what way did the recruiting take place? Was it voluntary? Can you distinguish the types? the technical point of view -- that is, from the point of view of the use of labor which was recruited -- only voluntary recruiting could lead to success. It was the people who were willing to work who would achieve the necessary produ ction.
Q Was that the point of view which Sauckel emphasized? learned of no events which indicated another point of view. He repeatedly emphasized that the basis of recruitment would have to be voluntary.
Q Did he issue many directives and give many speeches?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, and witness, will you try and cause between the questions and the answers? the witness' sentences seem to me to be running on, whereas if he would pause it would give the interpreter some chance.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Sauckel issued a number of directives and gave speeches to that effect. Did he not give you more intimate instructions which were stricter?
A. The instructions which we received always agreed in principle with the instructions which he issued to larger circles.
Q. What was the result of voluntary recruiting? How many workers came on the basis of that recruiting; that is, on the basis of the conditions as described to them?
A. Of course, it is not possible for me to give exact figures. If I thing about the matter, I believe I can say that about two to three million workers could be called coluntary workers.
Q. Other workers came on the basis of the Labor Conscription Law which was introduced?
A. Yes.
Q. How high do you estimate the number of these people to be?
A. I can hardly give an estimate. It would have to be about two to three million volunteers.
Q. People were deported too. Are you sure you know what "deportation" means?
A. If I may ask, does that mean the people who were removed for military reasons? I am not quite clear as to what you mean by that.
Q. You do not know what deportations are?
A. Forcible deportations? Yes. I knew nothing about such measures in connection with the activity of the Plenipotentiary General for Labor Commitment.
Q. In connection with recruiting under the labor conscription law, there were a number of serious charges about abuses which occurred. To what extent did you learn of them?
A. I understand your question to mean abuses in recruiting itself.
Q. Yes.
A. I have no practical knowledge of the recruiting itself. As you said in your question, there were serious abuses. However, so far as I know, serious abuses were not reported to the GBA. Yesterday, in an answer, I pointed out that I knew of the case of the surrounded movie theater, and that I recall no events which surpassed that case in seriousness.
Q. Now I come to conditions in Germany. Have you heard anything about poor conditions there? You probably read the papers and know what these charges mean. Since you were one of the closest co-workers there, what did you learn?
A. Complaints about treatment of foreigners came, through various ways, to the GBA. They referred in general to questions of clothing, food, the barbed wire, which came up repeatedly, and the question of insignia for foreign workers.
Q. Witness, the prosecution is speaking here of crimes against humanity. Are those only things which could happen in normal administration, which occurred daily, or are they catastrophic things which were reported?
A. Again, such things as you call catastrophic did not come to my attention. Then I would remember them.
Q. Who supervised the execution of the orders, and how would it have had to come to your attention?
A. Various agencies were concerned with supervising the occupations of foreign workers. There were five or six different agencies. Especially the German Labor Front, on the basis of a so-called Fuehrer decision, claimed to itself the question of caring for foreign workers. And I may mention that it repeatedly said that on the basis of an assignment of the GBA (the Plenipotentiary General for Manpower) to the German Labor Front, it had a higher right to this task of caring for the workers. between the GBA and the German Labor Front on this question. Later these led to an agreement according to which these questions were entrusted to the German Labor Front by the GBA. To settle these matters, the German Labor Front established a central inspectorate which had the task thoughtout the Reich of caring for foreign workers. Labor Commitment within the German Labor Front.
Q. We will come to that in a minute.
A. Yes.
Q. What connection was there, then, between Sauckel's agencies and this inspectorate of the Labor Front? How was the connection established?
A. In the first place, a man of the German Labor Front was their liaison man for Sauckel's staff.
Q. Who was that?
A. That was Huffmann. And in the second place, the central inspectorate for the German Labor Front constantly had talks on its activity to which an official of the GBA was invited.
Q. This liaison man, Huffmann, presumably reported on what he heard from the Labor Front?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he report?
A. The things which he reported were in the same framework as I pointed out previously.
Q. The German Labor Front already had this task before Sauckel's office was set up?
A. The German Labor Front was of the opinion -
Q. (Interposing). Witness, you must answer me. The German Labor Front had this task before Sauckel came?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it consider that its powers were reduced by the fact that Sauckel was appointed?
A. I was just about to explain that. It considered its assignment a general, comprehensive one; and the newly appointed Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment concerned himself so intensively with this matter that he himself later did a certain damage to its task.
Q. And was this agreed upon between Ley and Sauckel?
A. Yes.
Q. At whose instigation was this agreement reached?
A. As far as I recall, the suggestion went back to a wish of the German Labor Front.
Q. And what was the aim?
A. Of course, I can only give my personal opinion. I believe that the aim was in any case to express the general competency of the German Labor Front for these tasks.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any reasons for referring to the agreement between Sauckel and Ley?
DR. SERVATIUS: It was submitted by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: We have it. We do not want to have his personal recollection of it, do we?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness speaks too comprehensively. I would like to know who suggested, it and who drew it up, and when it was signed.
There are two dates under this document.
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, the document which is being mentioned now was handed in to the Tribunal. It is No. 1913-PS.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is in my document book, in the first document, book, page 79. In the English book it is Page 74.
THE PRESIDENT: What are you after? There is no value in getting the evidence of a witness who said he does not remember in detail about it, about a document which we have before us. It does not seem to me to be in the least bit useful to know who suggested that the agreement should be entered into. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. There were other inspectorates and assistants. For example, the Gauleiter was Plenipotentiary for labor commitment. To what extent did the Gauleiters report things which occurred in their Gaus? Did they report them to the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment?
A. The Plenipotentiary General for Labor Commitment, by decree, appointed the Gauleiters his deputies, with the task of dealing previsely with this matter.
Q. What did they report?
A. We did not receive any written reports from the Gauleiters on this question; at least, not to any great extent. They did not send any written reports; at least, not to our agency.
Q. At this opportunity, I should like to clear up the question of the position of the Gauleiters as deputies for labor commitment to the Gau Labor offices. Was the Gauleiter chairman of the Gau labor office, and what was the relationship of the two?
A. The president of the Gau labor office was, in administration and personnel, doubtless subordinate to the Plenipotentiary General for Labor Commitment, or to the Reich Labor Minister. But the Plenipotentiary General had made it the duty of the presidents of the Gau labor offices to keep close contact with the Gauleiters and to make constant reports on the things which occurred in their districts, especially if there was tension or lack of clarity, and to turn to the Gaulieters for aid.
Q. If I understand you correctly, the party as such had nothing to do with commitment itself?
A. I should like to say that the establishment of the Plenipotentiary General emphasized the political aspect of labor commitment, and that the Gauleiters concerned themselves, to a greater or lesser extent, with all questions of labor commitment, and other labor matters.
Q. Witness, you will understand that your testimony concerning the knowledge of the events submitted by the prosecution is received with great scepticism. Did you not unofficiall hear and see things which did not some to your attention officially, but would have given you cause to investigate them more thoroughly?
A. Of course, one heard here and there of things. Ostensibly foreign workers were treated badly in some was. As far as such things came to my attention, I have always considered them official matters and hold the report correspondingly. In such cases, the necessary investigation was made and the necessary things were done to clear up the matter.
Q. Were these individual cases not symptoms of conditions as a whole?
A. I do not believe so. At any rate, what one man might call catastrophic never came to my attention. As I have already said, there were almost always many things arising from the standpoint of housing, clothing, and so forth.
Q. What as the production and the morale for the workers?
A. The production of foreign workers varied. The production of the Eastern workers was especially good. The production of the French workers, especially was also very good.
Q. That is enough. How, I want to come back to relationships to occupied territories. Did you take part in negotiations with agencies in occupied territories?
A Not in the East; a few times in the West. I was on trips in the west a few times with the plenipotentiary General and took part in the negotiations.
Q Were you with him when he visits General Falkenhausen? ned? Were they tense, were they friendly, or what were they like? general comparatively short. I had the feeling that the two gentlemen did not suit each other.
THE PRESIDENT: The question was, were they tense or friendly or short?
DR. SERVATIUS: General Falkenhausen made an affidavit which was submitted her in which he said that Sauckel gave him orders and negotiated with him in a manner which induced him to offer strong opposition.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have General Falkenhausen's affidavit you can show it to the witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: I don't have it here at the moment. I will pass that question.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q You were in France?
Q Were you present at negotiations with the French agaencies?
Q Of what nature were these negotiations?
Q Did the French not offer any complaints?
A Individual complaints were brought up. I recall that the complaints concerned especially wages. the methods of recruitment, forcible measures, such things, whether complaints were made about them?
A No, I don't recall any complaints of this sort, and I would surely recall them.
Q I have a few more questions concerning Sauckel's relation to the Central Planning Board and to Speer. You yourself repeatedly represented Sauckel with the Central Planning Board, is that correct?
Q What was the position of the Central Planning Board towards Sauckel?
A The Central Planning Board was at agency of the Four-Year Plan. Its task was, as far as the G.B.A. was concerned, to collect the demands for workers of the big users of labor and at regular sessions to adjust these demands. Since the Plenipotentiary General fo Labor commitment could not judge the information of the commitment of the workers for the various sources, this question was decided in the Central Planning Board. An attempt was made, for various period of time, for as long a time as possible, to work out a balance of workers -
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Sauckel told us all about this already, didn't he?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is no need to go into it with another witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Do you know Speer's position?
Q What was Speer's attitude to Sauckel and vice versa? Could Speer give Sauckel orders? entiary General for Labor commitment, and Speer hold the point of view that he, as Armament Minister, was competent for all affairs belonging to the production of munitions, that is raw materials, coal, and also labor commitments, and that he must have great influence to these things.
Q Could Speer give Sauckel orders on did he, in fact, give them? In fact, there was always a certain tension between the two men because the Armament ministry more or less wanted to claim the power to issue instructions. Tension was, in general, cleared up through talks or exchanges of letters between the two men. A few times it led to conferences headed by Reichsminister Lammers.
Q What was the result of these conferences? times taken down in writing and, in my opinion, led to an increasingly strong influence of the Armament Ministry on the labor aommitment.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other counsel want to ask anymore questions?
DR. FLAECHSNER: Dr. Hans Flaechsner Counsel for Speer. BY DR. FLAECHSNER: question. You have testified to tension between the Defendants Sauckel and Speer because Speer claimed the right to give instructions. Do I understand you correctly if I assume that the tension arose from the fact that Sauckel energetical disputed this right to issue instructions? fact that Speer, as Plenipotentiary General for Armament. said: "I must have control of all things which belong to my field of work. Then it is essential --"
Q I understood that witness. My question is only, did this tension arise from the fact that Sauckel refused to recognize this right to issue instructions whic you say was assumed by Speer? petent and responsible for all questions of labor commitment. sidered unjustified, have the point of view that he was responsible only to the Fuehrer?
A In that regard, I don't remember that. He was Plenipotentiary General -
THE PRESIDENT: Surely this is very far re eved from anything we have got to deal with. He says that the tension was cleared up by conferences. What more is there to discuss?
DR. FLAECHSNER: That was the last question which I wanted to ask the witness about that. BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q You spike of conferences headed by Minister Lammers. In the minutes of the session of 11 July 1944 and of 4 January, 1944, which have been submitted here, there is no mention at all of such differences. I would be grateful to you if you could tell me what sessions with Law was you have in mind?
A Unfortunately, I cannot give the time of the session exactly. I know only that the Plenipotentiary General for labor commitment had the wish to report those conditions to the Fuehrer and that the two men, as I recall, agreed that this question should be discussed with the Fuehrer. In order to avoid burdening the Fuehrer with these matters constantly, a conference was held with Reichs minister Lammers.
Q You cannot give any details about that?
A I recall, for example, that the question of "blocked industries" in France was discussed.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cros examine the witness? BY. M. HERZOG:
Q Witness, were you a member of the National Socialist Party?
Q From what date on?
A In 1933 I applied for admission. First my application was denied and, as I recall, in 1934 or '35 it was approved.
Q Have you been a member of the SA organization?
A I was a member of the SA for a short time. Then I left the SA when proceedings were instituted against me in the SA.