The documents do net show that defendant Sauckel was aware of those proceedings or that he could have prevented them.
This separation between defendant Sauckel's labor jurisdiction and the organization Todt is confirmed in Document L-191, i.e., the report of the International Labor Office inMontreal. military departments. This was to a certain extent run as brutal conscription and kept secret from defendant Sauckel because he opposed it and wished to prevent it by every means. To acertain extent his objections were dismissed by higher authority. Air Force Building Batallions, Speer's Transport and Traffic Units, certification and Engineering staffs and other services. must especially exculpate Sauckel, since in these cases Sauckel's orders were not authoritative. transport assistants were procured in White Russia. independent drive for Air Force Assistants, which can cast no guilt upon Sauckel. The commitment of adolescents, which is known as "Houaktion" under document 031-PS of 14 June 1944 as a point of the charge, lies outside of Sauckel's jurisdiction and activities, as it is shown specifically by this document. The IXth Army together with the East Ministry were the originators. 20 July 1944 (document 345-PS) refers falsely to the consent of the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commit ment; it states, however, that the defendant Sauckel was not connected with an SS-Helper Action and that he refused cooperation in this affair.
on individual office in the Resenberg Ministry takes care of the seizure youth and accomplishes the take with its own personnel. Excluding the defendant Sauckel's agency, labor is supplied directly here to the armament industry.
Circumventing defendant Sauckel's agency, measures also took place which Hitler induced directly by orders to the local offices of the Wehrmacht and of the Civil administration; it was so, for the labor commitment ordered in the occupied territories for the fortification of the Crimes; this is shown by document UK-68. under protest of the labor service offices, is another one of these cases; this is shown in document 3003-PS, in Lt. Haupt's report and the defendant Seyss-Inquart has confirmed it.
An important subject, which is beyond the defendant Sauckel's responsibil ity, refers to all the actions executed as punitive measures against partisans and resistance groups. Those are independent measures of the police; I already spoke about their judicial evaluation. Whether they were admissible and could be approved, depends on the circumstances. For example, measures against the resistance movement in France as described in document UK-78 (French Government Report) are excluded here. Therefore, a direct responsibility of defendant Sauckel ceases to exist. III, paragraph VIII of the Indictment under deportation, the destinations of which were the concentration camps, are not within the responsibility of the defendant Sauckel. end under VIII B of the Indictment as the deportation of Frenchmen into concentration camps, are also not within the responsibility of the defendant Sauckel. Furthermore, the resettlements of Slovenes and Yugoslavs described under B (2), also must be excluded. ally mentioned approximate 5 million Soviet citizens are mentioned as having been seized by labor commitment, the others were removed by other means to which the regulations of the defendant Sauckel did not apply.
This separation
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
(A recess was taken.)
of the defendant Sauckel. Those labor forces did not have to be conscripted but were only directed. from the other procedure with the prisoner camps and collaborated exclusively with the armed forces. The task consisted only of using the prisoners of war where they were needed. of war. Such a possibility is referred to by the Prosecution document 1296-PS of 27 July 1943, which refers under III to the increase in the use of prisoners of war in collaboration with the Army High Command. supervision of the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht controlled compliance with the Geneva Convention. Sauckel is not in any way connected with the death of hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war of the Soviet Union in 1941 of whom Himmler speaks in his Posnania speech, 1919-PS, and for whose replacement workers had to be brought in. report about the Lamsdorf Comp -- the defendant Sauckel is connected with the claimed ill treatment of prisoners, then this is done only on the basis of the claim that the number of personnel in the camp was reported to him in a purely businesslike manner. The charge cannot be maintained. The document at that does not certain a sufficient listing of time after the year 1941. intervened in excess of his official duties for the care of the prisoners of war because he was interested in their willingness to work. He issued general decrees. In this way Document 39 shows that he demanded the same working hours as for German workers; he also pointed out here the prohibition of disciplinary punishment by the plants. of the incidents. The defendant Sauckel took over his office only on 21 March 1942. His measures, therefore, could have had an affect only some time later.
from the year 1941. In Document 1206-PS, subsistence through horse and cat-meat is suggested by leading authorities, and in Document USSR-177 the production of broad of a very inferior quality is suggested. Just a short time before the defendant Sauckel's taking office, Himmler in a sharp decree orders the confinement of the workers behind barbed wire. It can be said that a low point in the treatment of the foreign workers, who at that time were in the Reich had been reached. The idea which one has of the simplicity and the efficiency of the Russians is tragic. change has taken place here, which led to a constantly increasing improvement of the situation. The credit for having established a change here falls, according to the following documents, solely to the defendant Sauckel. This is shown in particular by Document EC-313, which represents a record of 15 April 1942 about the first meeting of the defendant Sauckel with Reich Minister Soldte and his specialist staff on the occasion of his taking office. It has been recorded there that it was the defendant Sauckel who made the taking over of his office dependent on the condition that the subsistence of the foreigners must be the same as for the Germans and that the fulfillment of his demand was assured him by Hitler, Goering, the Food Minister Darce, and his Secretary of State, Backe. It furthermore has been recorded there that the defendant Sauckel demanded the removal of the barbed wire and succeeded in this, and finally that he immediately took steps against the low wages of the Eastern workers. employed by the defendant Sauckel and followed through with tenacity against the resistance of all authorities. demands that foreign workers be humanely treated; the hope is even expressed that a propaganda effect must surely achieved by the way in which the laborcommitment was carried out. This thought was frequently reiterated later.
the waste which was occurring on the part of influential agencies. declaration of program to all persons concerned in labor-commitment. This is the repeatedly mentioned "Manifest of Labor Commitment", Sauckel Document No. 84, which was issued as a warning and a call to battle, addressed to all agencies which opposed the serious responsibility of the defendant Sauckel. Goebbels opposed it under the pretence that the title was too assuming and the propaganda feature of the document essentially too weak, Other agencies just disregarded the copies sent to them and did not forward them, whereupon copies were sent directly to the industries concerned. How this message was handled by the reluctant agencies is shown by its description "notorious manifesto" which was unanimously adopted for it in a session of the Control Planning board on 1 March 1944, Document R -124, page 1779a.
Defendant Sauckel was reproached for having been "too good". I refer to a remark made by General Milch who was interrogated before the Tribunal. in whichhe refers to theCentral Planning Board and criticizes the ostensibly too lenient treatment of loafers and declares that if anything was undertaken against them, agencies were immediately to be found in Germany which would protect the poor man and would intercede for the human rights of others. This is Document R-124, 53 Session, Page 1913. confirmed by various documents; thus agencies addressed him because of complaints and deficiencies, not in order to make the defendant Sauckel responsible for them but to solicit his help, because everybody know how seriously and eagerly he advocated improvements.
Thus Document 0'4-PS, which is a report of Dr. Gutkelch of the Central Agency for Eastern People of the Rosenberg Ministry dated 30 September 1942, emphasizes in various parts the influence of defendant Sauckel and recommends getting into closer touch with him.
Co-defendant Rosenberg also is pointing at Sauckel's strenuous efforts in document 194-PS, page 6, a letter of 14 December 1942 to Koch, Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine.
Sauckel in Document 908-PS for a basic change of the legal position of Poles inside the Reich. stated? identical with deportation. is designed by the words "slave labor". on his own responsibility carried out the commitment and seizure of foreign workers through his own organization. It has been established that the supreme agencies of the occupied territories executed the laws regarding compulsory work, which they had received on Hitler's orders. All those agencies had their own administrative system and guarded their departments against the intrusion of others. Commissioner for the Ukraine, dated 14 December 1942, Document 194-PS, page 71, in which co-defendant Rosenberg particularly refers to the prevailing right of sovereignty questions of Labor commitment, proves that this administrative system had not broken through. These supreme agencies had their own labor offices, which were organized in detal from the Ministry down to the local office. See Document 3012-PS. Ordinance of the Supreme Command of the Army dealing with compulsory work in operationalsector East of 6 February 1943. Document RF-15, Ordinance of 6 October 1942. the number of workers he was ordered to send to Germany and only with them give departmental instructions. These were his limitations and he never went beyond them. He took note of the right of execution, as opposed to the right of instruction. For this task a deputy was appointed for each territory, who in accordance with the ordinance of September 1942, USA Exhibit 510, was directly subordinate to defendant Sauckel but did not belong to his agency, as he belonged to the territorial agencies. This was expressly confirmed by the witness Bail who had been appointed by co-defendant Rosenberg expressly for the most important deputy in the East, the Reich Councillor Peukert, who belonged to the Staff of the ministry of the Ministry East.
Economic Staff East of the rear Army Territory, which was close to the field of the civil administration; in addition to his duties he acted as deputy of the defendant Sauckel in the Personnel Union. This is proved by Document 3012-PS, which is a note on this document dealing with a conversation of 10 March 1943 concerning labor commitment, in which the position of Peukert is noted in the membership list. By this Personnel Union, created in the interest of the territorial authorities, all unauthorized interference of defendant Sauckel was made impossible.
When co-defendant Rosenberg complains about the methods of labor mobilization in the East as per document 018-PS, that is in the letter to defendant Sauckel dated 21 December 1942, this is to be considered as the complaint of a minister who does not consider himself in a position to be successful against his subordinate, and thus addresses the presumable source of the difficulties which had been made for him. Sauckel would desist from the execution of his order. But execution was just his job, which according to the decree of appointment, had to be executed under all circumstances, especially against just such opposition as occurred here on the part of co-defendant Rosenberg. from departmental egotism, and had to see to it that local agencies would not fail to supply the required manpower due to need for rest, or that other offices would hold it back from selfish interests. "With all means" and "ruthless" are recurring expressions which are employed in the fight against these aspects. during his hearing mistakenly declared in document RF-15 that defendant Sauckel forced him to execute the commitment of labor and accomplished it through his own organization. But he had to admit that this opinion was incorrect when the order signed by him about the introduction of compulsory labor service was put before him Stothfang.
In France seizure was made by the French administration. The German office above it was not the office of defendant Sauckel but of the Military Commander in France, where Sauckel had only a deputy. the subject of the evidence lie outside of this activity; they are negotiations of a diplomatic nature between the German and French Governments in which Sauckel participated. They were held in the German Embassy. staffs in the rear army districts and in operational districts, were by no means offices of the defendant Sauckel, as co-defendant Rosenberg assumes.
These recruiting commissions stood nearer to defendant Sauckel only because they were composed of experts who came from the German labor offices, which belonged to Sauckel's Department, They received specialised directives only through their superior office in order to Guarantee a uniform handling of all recruiting regulations. Regulation No 4 in Sauckel document No 15 is authoritative on this point. of the deputies on 30 September 1942, provides for the sole responsibility of the military and civil authorities of the occupied territories. The deputies mentioned there to whom were assigned the same functions, are the deputies at the German missions in friendly foreign countries. were arrived at to the disadvantage of the defendant Sauckel about the responsibility for recruiting and transport. Also the interpretation of the provision that "all technical and administrative procedures of the Labor Commitment were exclusivley within the competence and responsibilty" of defendant Sauckel is incorrect for the occupied territory. basis for the competence of the General Plenipotentiary for labor commitment, of the district labor offices and labor offices; this can be seen from document 016Ps (last paragraph).
The defendant Sauckel, therefore is not directly responsible for the seizure.
Indirectly, however, responsibility can be charged to him in that he was aware of these bad conditions and knew that they could not be stopped, but nevertheless demanded more workers. To this the following must be said : In the defendant Rosenberg's letter of 21 December 1942 ( document 018-PS) the defendant Sauekel learned for the first time of the recruiting methods which were designated as mass deportation. At the meeting which Rosenberg declared that he was opposed to this and that he would not tolerate such procedures. This is also confirmed by his previous letter of 14 December 1942 adressed toKech , Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine ( document 194-PS) , in which he clearly calls the latter's attention to his obligations to proceed legally. Koch's memorandum of 16 March 1943 ( document Ro 13), of which the defendant Sauckel did not learn until here at the trial, gives an explanation, according to which these incidents are said to be exaggerated individual cases, the justification of which is cased on the need for measures to be carried out for the restoration of the authority of the occupation officials. It is expressly declared in this that the recruitment of workers is to proceed with legal means and that steps will be taken in the event of arbitrary measures, ( document No. Ro 13, Page 11 and 12 ). It did not seem out of the question that it might have been a matter of propagandistic exaggerations and activities, to which Koch particularly refers. In war such a possibility is likely, and the propagandistic style of the M olotovreport ( document USSR - 151), only emphasizes this. The defendant Sauckel was also supported in this idea as the result of a " Manhunt investigation which was reported to him at Minsk by Field Marshal General Kluge; it had led to the explanation that it had involved the assembling of workers em ployed by a labor firm at the time of the retreat.
The Matyn case shows how difficult it is to clarify such events according to the truth when they are made use of propagandisticall as combat measures. As the witnesses from the defendant Sauckel's office have confirmed, no other incidents involving these abuses have become known. The cases which were reported are notoriously, in part, repetitions of the same happenings, which were reported from different sides. All these reports, however, do not show an edeavor to approve such things, but are a sort of house alarm for the purpose of remedying and improving them. Can one believe defendant Sauekel when he declares that he did not know about the conditons alleged by the Prosecution ? What reached him through official channels cannot be considered as proof of cognizance, and the witnesses confirm that the so-called methods were unknown. But we have here documents of the authorities of the occupied countries, from which it appears, that the Reich Commissioner in the Ukraine ordered the burning down of houses as a measure of combat restistance against the administration, and there are orders foreseeing such measures. Reports made to the Ministry of the East regarding such events do not lead to penal prosecution, out to the suspension of the procedure, e.g. the Raab case (document 254-PS) and the Mueller case (document 290-PS) In contradiction to this uncertainty the following must be stated The measures emplozed were not accepted by the highest instances, but were secretly made use of by the lower instances. From the preliminary proceedings of the Raab and Mueller cases, it definitely appears that the existing regulations were unknown at the Ministry.
Defendant Sauckel has travelled through the Ukraine, but he was not told just that which might have got the local offices into trouble.
The views of defendant Sauckel were well known, end on the other hand ther existed a violent quarrel between the offices of the Reich Commissioner Koch and the Reich Ministry Rosenberg, When the cocuments of both offices which have been submitted are read it can be seen from the file notes that in this battle both sides had collected arguments and that nobody wished to commit himself. Since the defendant Sauckel Himself had not direct authority, it i understandable that the actual conditions remained unknown to him. Another point of view has to be considered as well ; various documents mention that a certain pressure had to be applied in the procurement of workers, and that the workers had to be obtained " under all circumstances_". Does this give a free hand for all methods ? One must see what was actually done in pursuance to these statement The OKH in one case then ordered the increased conscription of workers, and permitted collective seizures, but prohibited collective punishments in connection with this. On this connection see document 3012 -PS with telephone message of the Economy Staff Last to General Stape of 11 March 1943. The best picture is shown here in the same-document 3012-PS by a remark in the files concurring a discussion of 10 March 1943. Here General Nagel requests clear guiding principles and State Councillor Peuckert wants " reasonable " recruitment methods established by the OKH as the authorized agency. Document 2280-PS is also relevant here, which shows the only personal statement of the defendant Sauckel concerning this question and which was made in Riga on 3 May 1943. There he states that only 1 all permissible means " are allowed. Document 3010 -PS is also to be quoted, Economy Inspection South, in which on 17 August 1943 the use of well suitable means" is permitted.
Orders are issued which contain severe measures against non-complia ce with the duty of compulsory labor : deprivation of food and clothing cards. Imprisoment of relatives is threatened, and the taking of hostages held out as a prospect.
How about the admissibility of such measures ? means of coercion which is based on the rationing system, and which has its cause in the conditions of time. It can be handled easily and does not require any special executive force: on the other hand, it is extremely effective. individual responsibility can be recorded even today. The Hague Convention of Land Warfare protects only against the collective punishment of the population, bit it does not protect the members of the family who may be considered as sharing the responsibility in the case of a refusal to work. The French law of 11 June 1943 which was presented as document RF -80 also provides for such responsibility only in the case of deliberate cooperation.
There finally remains the " shooting of a prefect " which the defendant Sauckel demanded. Apart from the fact that this statement as such is irrelevant from the point of view of criminal law.
because it was not actually carried out, its legal meaning is merely a demand to apply the existing French law.
This law has been submitted by the Prosecution as document RF-25; decree of 31 January 1943 by the military commander in France; article 2 of which provides for the death penalty. Also misunderstood by the Prosecution is a statement uttered by the defendant SAUCKEL, according to which one must handcuff the workers in a polite way. (Document RF- 86, page, 10, discussion by Sauckel in Paris of 27 August 1943.) But as appears from the context, what is in qustion here is only a comparison of the clumsy appearance of the police with the obliging manner of the French, without handcuffing being especially praised as a method of seizure; Prussian, clean, correct on the one hand but at the same time obliging and polite on the other hand, that is how one should work. I refer again to the case of the proposal for " shanghaiing" in document R-124, page 1770, which is known to the Tribunal from the proceedings. The statement which the defendant Sauckel has made gives an understandable explanation; according to it, from a legal point it was a question of a preliminary recruitment which was supposed to make the workers inclined to agree to the real obliga These various incidents shooting of a prefect, handcuffing, and shanghaiing may be; but one can reach a complete understanding of the subjective side only if one considers why these statements were made, and from what conditions. they oreginated. The background of all these statements is the struggle against resistance and sabotage which in France took stronger and stronger forms. Therefore, it is not a question of remarks of brutality andcynicism, but statements which were intended to counteract the indecision of the authorities. Another thought which has to be added here is, whether the defendant Sauckel had not exhausted the manpower of the country by his measures to such an exten that more workers could only be obtained by inhuman methods and that the defend Sauckel must have known this. The important thing here is the figure of the "quotas". It has been established that they were high, but it has also been established that they were not laid down arbitrarily, but only after a careful study by the statistical department.
Only a small percentage of the population was actual seized, and it was not the impossibility of performance that was decisive, but rather the will to resist.
In the occupied territories of the East there were large reserves of manpower, available especially among grown - up young, people who were not appropriately utilized. The German troops, their ranks seriously thinned, saw the richly populated villages, during their retreat, and felt the same forces shortly after wards as a reinforcement to the enemy's fighting power.
In France there, were likewise many forces which placed themselves under the protection of the Haquis or the protected plants. This is not only confirmed by the French government report - RF - 22 - , but is also appears froma remark which Kehrl , as witness for the co-defendant Spear, made in the Central Planning on 1 March 1944 (Document R - 124, page 66). There this witness states that workers are available to an extensive degree in France. Especially conclusive here is also document 1764-PS (Page 6). i.e. the report of Ambassador Hemmen of 19 February 1944 which deals with the "Reconstruction Pro gram" of Marshal Petain, and which refers to the population as untouched by the war which increased by 300,000 young men every year. If the number of the seized workers is of importance in this connection, it must be compared with the total population figures, and, on the other hand, it must be taken into consideration that Germany did not demand anything which she did not ask of herself to an even higher degree. The defendant Sauckel had to be convinced, not, that people were unable to perform In order to influence this desire, the Propaganda struggle and the competition of threats of punishment was created by both parties, and this first brought the population of the occupied territories into a state of moral conflict, which became the undoing of many. The defendant Sauckel could with good reason refer to the consequence of the counter propaganda and the deteriorated war situation as cause for the necessity to use coercion: he could, however, on the basis of the evidence we which he had access, not fail to be convinced that the exhaustion of the countries was so great that nothing mere could be extracted from them without the use of inhuman methods. The defendant Sauckelbelieved he could obtain his object, not by using violence but rather by special working conditions.
As example, I refer to the promise which Sauckel himself gave on 3 May 1943 in Riga) Document 2228-PS). Apart from this there is still another field of labor procurement which must be put in a different category.
This is the liberation of Prisoner of War in order to make labor forces available for Germany by " releve" or "transformation." The French governmental report RF-22 declares both methods of recruiting labor forces as inadmissible. It is pointed out in the report that the exchange on the basis of " releve" is equal to the enslavement of about triple the number of French workers. Against this it must be stated that the replacement workers came at times only for half a year for voluntary work and in succession. After a year and a half all the workers were free; the prisoner was free immediately. Coercion for the execution of the "releve" did not exist. The offer of release is not legally assailable. Captivity can be terminated any time; Release can also be made subject to a condition. The French report overdoes the moral indignation by quoting a phrase of the President of the News Agency of the United States; this phrase speaks of the " abominable choice" of either to work for the hereditary enemy or to rob a son of his country of the possibility of release from captivity." The refute this, I refer to the healthy sentiment according to which in the older Russian literature such a change was praised as a patriotic and magnaninous deed on the occasion of the Northern War. Neither the King of Sweden nor Peter the Great have therefore considered the exchange as replacement by a substitute slave. The "Erleichterte Statut" ( Transformation") is contained in document Sauckel No. 101. It is the release of a Frenchman form captivity against the acceptance of other work, under the consition that a further French worker would come to Germany according to the " releve" regulations volunteered for it.
If a prisoner made use of the possibility offered, he for fited thereby the juridical special labor protection of the Geneva Convention;but this was done in agreement with his Gonvernment.
This does not constitute first convoys.
The French report RF-22 itself states on Page 69, that of the The report states, that the "unfortunate people" were planed before the alterna tive:"
Either you return, or your brothers must die." This consideration, however did not impress them.
Their promise could also not prevent thorn immediately act in slave labor.
The reading of the French report can only increase this I now come to the question:
treatment of the workers.
and Dr. Ley The defendant Sauckel was directly responsible for the wages.
Already on entering office, he found a schedule of wages which he could not alter on his own re sponsibility; to do this he had to apply for the authorization of his superior The legal regulations summed up in Chapter "Wages question" of my Document but by the Cabinet Council for the Defense of the Reich (see Document Sauckel No.50,17 and 58 ) or by the Reich Minister of Economics (Document No.51) and the Reich Minister of Finance (Document Sauckel No.52) made amelioration possible; thus a series of his decrees shwo that he granted favours such as premiums, compensatory payments and similar favours (compare Document SAUCKEL No. 54 and 58a) The defendant Sauckel's activity, however, aims on the whole at increasing wares by influencing the competent authorities.
This is shown in Document 021-PS of 2.4.1943.
Therein we find as appendix at treatise with statistical material fendant Sauckel's term of office.
This is shown by Document Sauckel No.67, "where Seldte regulates the workung hour for Eastern workers in Par.
3 of the decree of 25.1.44.
This is also admitted by the French governement report UK-78-3; the cases enu Since they do not contain any dates of years, it cannot be recognized, if they deal only with temporary measures or with permanent conditions.
The same lack of clarity exists in the French report RF-22, Page 101; there the minimum working time has been listed as 72 hours, which was increased to 100 hours. This could deal with the work of concentration-camp inmates, which has been left abstruse and unclear. The settlement of the working hours was then changed by Goebbels, who on the basis of his plenipotentiary powers for the waging of total war introduced the 10-hour day for Germans and foreigner, although in practice this could not have been carried out generally. An unreasonably high working-time cannot be maintained and leads to setbacks. I should like to add that Sauckel was responsible for the fact that those extra hours were paid for, or compensated for, along the line of overtime work. Special attention has Been paid by the Prosecution to the regulation of the working hours of female domestic workers from the Fast, of whom in the place of the 400, 000-500,000 girls originally demanded by Hitler, only 13,000 came to Germany. The Prosecution has presented the memorandum for the employment of these female domestic workers as Document USSR-383. There it is stated under No.9, that a demand for time-off does not exist. The purpose of the regulation was to leave the settlement of the time off to the household according to its requirements.