Q. Have you been a member of the SS?
A. No.
Q. What were your functions up to the time you entered Sauckel's office?
A. I was employed in the Labor Department of the Reich Labor Ministry, in the Labor Recruitment Department.
Q. When did you first meet Sauckel?
A. As far as I recall, I saw him far the first time when Sauckel visited State Secretary Sirup in the Reich Labor Ministry and all the individual officials were invited to this visit.
Q. At what time did this take place?
A. I can not give the time exactly. I believe it was about a few weeks after the appointment of Sauckel as Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment.
Q. What was your exact position at the time that Sauckel was nominated?
A. In the main section, Labor Recruitment and Unemployment Compensation. I headed the Labor Recruitment Section.
Q. And at the end, what was your position?
A. At that time I was a Ministerial Counsellor in the Reich Labor Ministry
Q. Will you tell me where Sauckel's offices were in Berlin.
A. I did not understand the question.
Q. Will you tell me where Sauckel's offices were installed in Berlin?
A. In Berlin Sauckel personally worked in Thuringia House, while the Experts Section, made available by the Labor Ministry, worked in the Labor Ministry in Saarland Strasse, and after a part of the Building had been destroyed, in quarters near Berlin.
Q. Thank you. The offices at 96 Saarland Strasse therefore depended on Sauckel's administration, did they not?
Q. The agency in Saarland Strasse 96 was not a new agency. That was the Reich Labor Ministry. The two sections had been made available by a Fuehrer decree to carry out the tasks of the G.B.A.
Q. A document which has at the head "General Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, Labor Department, Saarland Strasse 96" therefore comes from Sauckel's offices?
A. I did not quite understand.
A. A document which has the following heading: "General Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, Plenipotentiary for Labor and --"
THE PRESIDENT: Why not show him the document? BY M. HERZOG:
Q. I show you document L-61, which was submitted to the Tribunal in the course of the last few sessions. This document hears, as you know, the following heading: At the top on the left, "The Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan. Plenipotentiary for Labor. On the top of the right hand corner, "Berlin, Saarland Strasse." It is dated 26 November 1942, and if comes, therefore, does it not, from Sauckel's offices?
A. This document comes from the Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment; that is, from Sauckel's agency.
Q. Thank you. You have represented Sauckel in the conferences of the Central Planning Office for the Four Year Plan?
A. I represented him, or I went with the Plenipotentiary to take part in the sessions. Not always, but frequently.
Q. When you represented him there, you received instructions before going there, did you not?
A. When we went to more important conferences, we received the announcement through the Thuringia House that there was a session, and we received directives on how we were to represent the Plenipotentiary General at the session.
Q. And when you came back from these meetings, you reported to Sauckel concerning them, did you not?
A. After the sessions, we either reported to him personally or we reported through his personal representatives.
Q. The declarations that you made in the various meetings, therefore, engaged Sauckel's responsibilities, did they not?
A. As an official, it was always my duty when I made reports in a session, I had to ascertain -
Q. That is not what I asked. Will you answer my question? You received instructions before the conferences; you reported to him afterwards what had happened in the conferences, so Sauckel was responsible for what happened there, was he not?
A. I should like personally to explain -
THE PRESIDENT: Is it not really a matter of law, not a matter of evidence?
M. HERZOG: I will go to the next question, Mr. President. BY MR. HERZOG:
Q. You declared a short while ago that the conversations at which you had been present in Paris had been friendly conversations. Do you remember participating at the conference of January 12, 1943?
A. At the moment it is not possible to confirm my participation according to the date, but I could know according to the content of the talk whether I was present.
Q. I submitted yesterday to the Tribunal this document which is a document 809 and contains the minutes of this conference. In the course of the conference, Laval, amongst other things, said to Sauckel:
"It is no longer a matter of a policy of collaboration by, on the French side, a policy of sacrifice, and on the German side, a policy of constraint. We can not take any measures of policy without immediately coming up against a German authority which has substituted itself for us. I can not guarantee measures which I have not taken. It is, finally, not possible for me simply to hove a power of attorney in the implementation of German decisions."
Do you think that those ore friendly remarks?
A. I did not understand the one word.
Q. Friendly questions. You have said that these conversations were friendly. I have given you an extract from these conversations. Do you still say that they were friendly?
A. I can only confirm the spirit of the conferences at which I took part. These statements in the form as given are not known to me.
Q. If you had known them, would you still have said that these were friendly conversations?
THE PRESIDENT: He was not there. He just said that he did not know about about it.
We can judge for ourselves whether the tome of it is friendly. BY M. HERZOG:
Q. You stated earlier that you had no knowledge of forced deportations.
A. I said that I knew of no forced deportations under the authority of GBA, and I do not know of any.
Q. Do you remember having been present on 15 and 16 July 1944 in Wartburg, having been present at a conference where Sauckel and a number of other presidents of general offices and people cooperating with him were present?
A. The conferences of the presidents of the Gau Labor Offices? I was there for this conference.
Q. Thank you. Do you remember having spoken there?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember making statements on methods of recruiting?
A. I do not recall that, not from memory, no.
Q. I'will have submitted to you document 810, which I submitted under the Number RF 1507 yesterday. The Tribunal will find it on page 10, the extract which I want to submit to the witness. Plenipotentiary for Labor was having with the Army concerning the Army's cooperating with recruiting, and you said:
"The Fuehrer has approved the use of measures of coercion to the fullest extent."
Do you contest the fact that you knew of this? That you knew that workers were being recruited for forced deportations?
A. I ask for a moment's time. I have not yet found the place. commander of Paris. I do not have my statement on this question at hand, but I imagine that the Plenipotentiary General -
Q. Will you look higher on page 8, paragraph 4?
A. Page 9, yes.
Q. Under Roman IV, on page 8:
"Concerning the utilization of European labor, the problems which arise therefore under me and processes which can be used --" "Timm made the following remarks:
First in Northern Europe. Second, in the Southeast. Third, in Italy. Fourth, in France." explanation, because you made this statement. Will you answer me? Do you still contest the fact that you had knowledge of the fact that these deportations were forced?
A. I have no intention to deny anything. I can only say that Sauckel did have powers from the Fuehrer to take all sensible means to activate the obtaining of workers. Measures were instituted and carried out in France, in agreement with its Prime Minister at that time, which one might be able to call compulsion.
Q. Thank you. I have one last question to ask you. In this quotation you say, "The Fuehrer has approved-- ". If the Fuehrer has approved, it means, therefore, that it had been proposed to him. Is that not a fact?
A. As far as I can remember, Gauleiter Sauckel always reported the results of his talks in Paris to the fuehrer. It is possible that he brought up the question of methods or recruitment, which he had discussed with Laval, and that he reported to the Fuehrer, and it was customary, as I said in introducing my testimony, that he asked for approval from the Fuehrer of certain measures so that he would not work in opposition to the Feuhrer's ideas.
Q. Thank you.
M. HERZOG: No more questions. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, the document which was submitted to you, L-61, from Saarland Strasse, is not here in the original, but it says, "Signed Sauckel". The defendant Sauckel has informed me that it is possible that he did not sign it himself, but that he was only generally informed. That is, that there were so many letters that were normally mailed that he gave authorization to sign. Is that not true?
A. It was so -
THE PRESIDENT: Did Sauckel state that in evidence, or are you telling us simply what he said to you? Do you remember?
DR. SERVATIUS: I can not say exactly whether he stated that here.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on then. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Answer the question.
A. Yes, it happened as Sauckel continued his functions as Gauleiter in Weimar that things did not reach him. The section in Saarland Strasse presented its drafts to the personal representative in the Thuringia House, and I know from my own knowledge of the conditions that the contents of the drafts was transmitted by telephone and that the personal representative was authorized to sign the name of the Plenipotentiary General.
exact knowledge of individual letters?
Q That is enough. One more question---Fuehrer, Sauckel, Speer. Is it true that the defendant Sauckel told you that the Fuehrer had ordered him to fulfill all Speer's defends?
A Whether such statement was made directly, I don't know. about the attitude or of the conduct of the German agencies. Did this complaint refer to Sauckel's activities or wasn't it so that those complaints were reported in that he thanked Sauckel for his attitude? ly expressed to Sauckel his gratitude for the fact that measures suggested by him had been put into effect. Specifically, Laval was always interested, as he said, in clearing up the climate and the atmosphere and that he wished to have talks with Hitler himself as soon as possible and he asked Sauckel to open the way for him. As far as I know, Sauckel carried out talks of this kind and Laval thanked him for doing so.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions for this witness. BY THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): men who had been taken into the army out of industry. That was largely your work, was it not? was it not?
Q All right. Now, you were therefore told beforehand the number of people that the army was taking out of industry, weren't you, so you could make up your estimates?
Board. That was the task of the Central Planning Board.
Q Wait a minute. I don't care who examined the figures, but your organization certainly had knowledge of the needs of the army, of the number of people the army was taking out of industry. You had to have that information, didn't you? Central Planning Board.
Q Reported to the Central Planning Board. Now, then, they were taking people out of industry also who were not needed for the army, weren't they? I mean Jews. They were taking Jewish people out of industry, were they not? Sauckel said yesterday that Jewish people were being taken out of industry. You admit that, don't you?
Q All right; and I suppose the Central Planning Board was given the number of Jewish people that were taken out of industry, were they not?
A That is not known to no. In the sessions whore I was
Q Don't you assume that that must have been the case If they had to find the number of replacements. It must have been so, was it not?
A I can't judge that because I only learned the total number of men to be drafted but independently of the Jewish question---I can't make any personal judgment on that.
Q Don't you know that Himmler and the SS told the Central Planning Board the number of Jews that were being taken out of industry for whom replacements were needed? You know that as a fact, don't you?
Q You don't?
A No. I know only that we received certain figures from the Reichsfuehrer SS that the forces had been withdrawn and through the objection of the Plenipotentiary General, I recall, these measures were in part withdrawn.
Reichsfuehrer SS was to withdraw Jews from industry; you know that. withdrawn from industry.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire. The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. SERVATIUS: With the permission of the Court, I now call the witness Hildebrandt.
HUBERT HILDEBRANDT, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated, the oath).
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. SERVATIUS: correct?
Q You were subordinate to him?
Q What was your special field? of iron and metal economy, and textiles, and after 1940 I also dealt with questions of western workers.
Q That is, France, Belguim, and Holland? of Sauckel?
Q But you participated in the staff conferences? happenings in ether offices?
Q I want to ask you especially about the conditions in France.
that was the position of the General Plenipotentiary for Manpower in France? other occupied countries, had appointed special plenipotentiaries who carried out his tasks and demands. Some of the organizations of manpower commitment were in the hands of the military and civil administrations there in the occupied territories.
Q So he did not have an organization of his own?
AAn organization of his own? The first plenipotentiary in France tried to establish an organization of his own, but after a short time Laval met the opposition of German civil administrative offices, and the various offices which he had established were taken over by the military commander.
Q What was the position of the military commander? commitment in has district, and also for the commitment of labor from his district to Germany/
Q What was the position of the German Embassy in that respect? carried out by the General Plenipotentiary or his special plenipotentiaries with French Government offices.
Q What was the part of the French Government in labor commitment? tiary for the carrying out of his programs and ordered their own offices to carry out these tasks. When the labor draft was established in France, it published the necessary decrees and have the necessary directives to the subordinate offices.
Q And who had the executive power to recruit manpower? Was that done by the French or the Germans?
A One has to distinguish between two periods. When it was still a question of recruiting volunteers, until fall 1942, these volunteers could come to German offices as well as to French offices, and also to recruiting offices which had been established by German firms and by parts of the armed forces. After the introduction of the labor draft, the administrative executive power rested only in the French offices.
Q And what happened when somebody did not come as they had been ordered to?
if that proved to be unsuccessful, then the French offices called the French police into action.
Q Were those who did not come brought before the courts?
A I assume that that may have happened. I don't know for certain.
Q German or French courts? to Germany? 1942 -- and that I can say only approximately from memory -
A --- was about 200,000. After the labor draft had been established during 1942, at the same time there were voluntary recruitments to a large extent. The number of volunteers was, at times, much larger than the number of draftees, so that all together, more than half of all labor recruited in France were volunteers. teered. There was no labor draft for them. that the drafting of a large number was only a formality. In reality, those people also had come voluntarily, but for economic reasons or for reasons of consideration for relatives and friends, they wanted it to appear as if they had been drafted. We had draftees who asked for that. Especially during the last months before the end of the war we received such requests at the German labor offices, and the Foreign Office put the request to the General Plenipotentiary to approve such demands, and that happened. such as the surrounding of churches and movie houses in France?
A No, such measures of recruitment are not known to me. I only know that in France as well as in Belgium there were checks made among people of the age groups which had been called in the draft.
Q You probably were in Paris, also, and you spoke with the German officials there, is that right?
A Yes. Every time I was in Paris I saw to it that I spoke with members of our offices about current events.
Q Didn't they tell you about things which should have surprised you? We haddifficulties in special cases. Once it was reported to me that in a camp for people who were about to be transported to Germany, there were impossible conditions. That was reported immediately to the commandant of Paris. Thenit happened again on the occasion of recruitment in another locality, and that was stepped also. there were difficulties about vacations, salaries, and so forth, always which I transmitted to the particular offices.
Q Was that part of your task, to follow through those things?
AAs far as they fell into my field, I took the necessary steps. As far as other departments had to do with it, it was immediately transferred to these departments. duty to be concerned about these things. and statistical control. Questions of housing, pay, and transport were dealt with by other departments. Of course, when I found out about bad conditions it was my duty to investigate them, and in the interest of further recruitment we considered it very important that each one of these perpetrations was stopped, because only then could we be assured of further recruitment. the draft was always considered the last possibility. or your moral duty to worry about these things? Mention has been made of peer conditions on transports. That is why I would like you to tell us how the transports that came from France were conducted and cared for.
A Yes. for the carrying out of transports, the military commander established a special department.
For each individual who went to Germany, it was certain from theoutset to what industry he was to be sent, because the recruiting was done on the basis of contracts, and labor conditions had been worked cut. It was definitely known ever what route he was to be transported. Transports were arranged in such a way that as many people as possible were on the same transports who went in the same direction and to the same firm. of how you conducted these transports and controlled it so that nothing happened on these trips. the last detail records were kept of every person who was supposed to go to Germany. Detailed lists of the persons and firms to which they were sent were made and given to the people who accompanied thetransports to the point of destination, and there they were given to the representatives of the provincial labor offices who had to care for them further on.
Q I should like to put to you a very drastic case. A case has been reported here where a transport was stopped in the Saar district in the winter. The doors were opened after a few days, and most of the people had been frozen to death.
Did you have any control over such transports? Was that supposed to have been reported to you? Is it possible that that was a train which was sent upon your orders? How can you explain that?
A Such an incident would have become known to us immediately. Since the transports had been announced before, we were informed about them immediately. That is, we were informed immediately when transports did not arrive. That happened frequently. If, on account of emergencies en route,transports were stopped, -- for instance, in the last years of the war for the removal of bomb damage or obstructions of traffic -- then we made investigations about the transports, and that was always done.
Q Witness, you must speak more slowly. The interpreters cannot possibly follow.
Will you state your position on the incident which I have des-
cribed, that train with people who froze to death in the Saar District. labor recruits. These transports were well prepared.
Q How do you explain then, the case of that one transport?
A This is the first time I have heard about that. I have heard through the press during the last few months, that the SS also conducted transports to Germany in which such conditions as you have just described prevailed.
Q Witness, were you present during negotiations with Laval?
Q In what kind of an atmosphere were these negotiations conducted? occasionally, especially when promises on the part of the French Government had not been kept, it came to violent disputes. But real difficulties did not obtain in the course of these negotiations. Arrangements were made concerning the number of people who were to be sent to Germany, and Laval and the French people always were willing to put manpower at the disposal of Germany.
Q And what, particularly, was the relation of Laval and Sauckel? Did Laval make favorable statements concerning Sauckel? for France; for instance, the provision for prisonersof war by the Reich as French workers. All these things occurred as have said, in the form of arrangements where one party put labor at the disposal of the other and the other party had granted advantages. Laval stated repeatedly that he would like to do more for Germany and he could do more if he would be granted political advantages. Therefore, he asked the German plenipotentiary repeatedly if he would make contacts with the Fuehrer in order to create a better atmosphere for the further cooperation between France and Germany.
Q Did that friendly atmosphere prevail until the end? of 1944.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I believe the question of relief and transformation has been clarified considerably, so that it is not necessary to ask this witness any questions about them. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
A I only want to say the following: Of course the military commanders, such as in Holland, would rather accept demands for possession rather than send manpower to Germany, and that led to difficulties, because they had to be persuaded that manpower had to be sent to Germany because of agriculture, which could not be carried out in Holland.
Q Concerning Belgium and Northern France, a few questions: was the position of Sauckel there, the realtion between Sauckel and the local administrations, the same as in France generally; and was everything conducted similarly, or were there any differences?
German plenipotentiary was incorporated into the military administration; that is, he was a part of that military administration. conditions?
A Yes. There were such conditions. So, for instance, I was informed one day that reprisals had to be taken against relatives of people of age groups which had not followed the draft call. We stopped that, partly, in conversations with the representatives of the military commander.
Q And how did Sauckel negotiate with the military commander?
A He presented his demands to the Falkenhausen. Of course, it was also understood that demands be carried out in Belgium, that he understood also that manpower had to be sent, to Germany. However, mostly he tried to protect students and mambers of younger age groups. von Falkenhausen on 27 November 1945. I want you to look at a few sentences. If you take page 2, you find there in the middle of the page -
THE PRESIDENT: What is that number?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is the number R. S. 15. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q It is the following questions: "Is the witness in a position to inform us about the limitations of his powers and the competence of Manpower Commitment Administration?" Answer by General von Falkenhausen: "Up to a certain time there was a labor office in my district which was concerned with the recruitment of voluntary workers. I cannot remember the exact date any more. It may have been in the fall of 1942 when that labor office was subordinated to Sauckel; and from then on I had only to carry out the orders received from him." Falkenhausen correct?
A. It is incorrect in several points. In Belgium there was not one labor office but a number of labor offices and also recruitment offices; but these labor organizations from the very beginning were under the supervision of the field commanders in Belgium.
These field commanders' offices were offices of the military commander. A transfer of the task rendered the task for the German plenipotentiary -- not only was it subordinate to him, he only could son his demands, his requests, to the administration of General von Falkenhausen, but not directly to a labor office.
Q What were conditions in Holland? Who was competent for Holland?
Q And there was a plenipotentiary of Sauckel with him? representative of Reich commissioner.
Q Who issued the labor decrees there?
Q And who carried out the recruitment, German or Dutch officials? Germans; the rest of the personnel essentially Dutchment. These offices took the necessary steps for the recruitment.
Q Now, I have one more question concerning Germany. The metal industries were a part of your field, weren't they? the care and comfort of the worker?
A I have not had any unfavorable reports about Krupp. The citizen representative of Germany visited the Krupp Works frequently and reported about the reports and impressions that he had received, and never mentioned anything about the care and comfort of foreign workers; nothing unfavorable. I myself have never come to the firm Krupp during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions, Witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the German Counsel want to ask questions?
Prosecution?
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, we still have the same problems here. The Tribunal has already heard explanation on these problems. The Tribunal is in possession of a document which I have submitted and I have, therefore, no questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then with the permission of the Tribunal, I call the witness Stothfang.
WALTER STOTHFANG, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Would you state your full name?
Q Will you repeat these words after me: truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Witness, what was your position with Sauckel? assistant.
Q When did you assume that position? had assumed office; that was on the 19th of April, 1943.
Q Was the witness Timm there when you came?
Q The witness Hildebrandt?
Q What orders did you receive when you came? personal orders because his principles could be clearly seen in his decrees and his program, and I only started that work one year later.
Q Before that, had you been in the Labor Ministry?
A Yes, I had been connected with that type of work since 1926; for eight years I was the personal assistant of the State Secretary, Dr.Syrup, in the Reich Labor Ministry.
Q Was that an essential change when you came to Sauckel? entire work and the attitude of Sauckel to the work? principles and decrees, which were not essentially different from previous principles. Practically, of course, as far as the dimensions were concerned, they weren't far beyond anything previously done.
Q Did you work very closely with Sauckel in your field? You were his personal assistant. potentiary for Manpower was concerned, he was not only General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment, but at the same time he had remained as personal Referent, or advisor to the Reich Government, and he was Reichsstatthalter for Thuringia. Besides that, during the last year and a half of his activity he was very much concerned with the establishment of an industry in Kala, in Thuringia.