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.
Another idea of the regulation is also hardly imaginable, because after all it was intended to accept these female domestic workers in particular into the families, and to give them the opportunity to remain in Germany. They had been selected as girls who were considered particularly dependable, who had reported voluntarily for domestic work. In accordance to the general practice the order was amended by a subsequent decree (in Document Sauckel No.26) simultaneously with the rescinding of all remaining limitations. within the field of German Labor Security-Legislation. In this case it deals with children who, contrary to the decrees of the defendant Sauckel, had come to Germany with their parents in an unregulated manner. it is also practiced for German children. In this respect it is pointed out, that during the war, the school children in Germany from their 10th year upward could be utilized for work, according to the decree of the Reich Youth Leader of 11 April 1942 (Document Sauckel No. 67a) A summarizing discussion by Dr. Blumensaat in the complete Document Sauckel No. 39 gives the best information about the whole complex of wages and working-hours, as it was finally regulat by law.
the defendant Sauckel as an excuse, if he know and tolerated those things which, according to the Prosecution's assertion, branded the transportation and the life in the camps and factories. It is his duty to superintend, even there where he is not directly responsible Such a sphere of activity, which consisting in the accommodation and feeding of the workers was the responsibility of the works. same regulations as for the camps for German workers were applied, by virtue of decrees of the competent Reich Minister of Labor SELDI (Document Sauckel Nos.
42, 43 and 44). It is indisputable that the accommodation suffered from war exigencies, in particular from the effects of air warfare.
The abuses, however, were eliminated as far as possible. The condition of the foreign workers was not different here from that of the German civil population. The food supply suffered from blockade and want of communications. The established rations, contrary to the notorious statements on the feeding of the Russians laid down according to the schedule of 24. November 1941 in Document USSR - 177, amounted to 2540 calories for the Soviet prisoners of war. A further schedule has been submitted with the Affidavit of the witness HAHN as Exhibit Sauckel No. 11. According to this the ration In the Krupp works amounted to 2.156 calories for the Eastern normal worker, 2.615 calories for the heavy workers, and supervision ensured their careful distribution. The Reich Food Ministry was responsible for the supply of food. Strong accusations have been brought in by the Prosecution with regard to both points. These, however, are only possible when the existing regulations have not been observed. It is quite likely the mistakes have been made in this large sphere of activity In the course of years, but the general picture is not only composed of mistakes, whereon a judgment cannot be based. The actual conditions have not been clarified in this procedure to the extent that one could say the abuses were so general and obvious that the defendant Sauckel must and did know them.
Contrary to the uncertain statements of the witness Dr. Jaog is the affidavit of the witness HAHN which refutes them to a large extent. The affidavits of the witnesses Dr. Scharrmann and Dr. Voss (Exhibit Sauckel No. 17 and 18) confirm that no serious abuses existed in their spheres of activity.
In addition to the obligation of the Works Managers, the German Labor Front had to care for the foreign workers (Document Sauckel 15.)
Its field of activity was amongst other things transportation and the supervision of medical care, as well as general care. The extensive activity which this very large organization developed, has not been described in these proceedings. The basic principles of the German Labor Front can be seen from Document Sauckel No.27, which is a regulation of the German Labor Front regarding the status of foreign workers in the plants. The aim is emphasized as follows: Maintenance of the willingness to work by observing conditions of contracts, absolutely fair treatment and comprehensive care and control. transportation according to Regulation No. 4 (Document Sauckel No. 15). SAUCKEL instructions are contained therein. This task includes transportation to their place of work. The witnesses Timm and Stothfang and Hildebrandt have testified about this field of activity and did not report anything about bad conditions.
The descriptions in the Molotov-Report (USSR-51) cannot refer to transporta which was carried out under coordinated cirection, but only to so-called "wild" convoys. The same applies to convoys, the destination of which according to the indictment, were the concentration camps. The great extent to which the defendant SAUCKEL has occupied himself from the very beginning with transportati conditions, is particularly shown by Document 2241-PS submitted by the Prosecut It contains a decree where conscientious directives for the prevention of the utilization of unsuitable trains are given. of the return transport of workers. These had been brought into the Reich before SAUCKEL's time in violation of his basic principles. This was a matter of a single incident, and the necessary orders were issued immediately. The return journey of sick persons in conditions which did not permit them to travel in convoys was prohibited, and Bad Frankonhausen was placed at their disposal. This was followed by the order regarding the accompanying of such transports by male and female assistants of the Red Cross (Document Sauckel No,99). worked under the collaboration of the Association of Panel Doctors, has not feailed, in spite of the greatest difficulties. Rather the great result has been established that no epidemics and serious diseases broke out.
camps of the Krupp firm, can only have arisen from the unusual chain of circumstances. They cannot prove generally bad conditions, of which these conditions could be typical. Another Document, RF-91, has also been presented, i.e. the medical report of Dr. Fevier of the French Delegation of the German Labor Front, which was composed after the beginning of the invasion on 15 June 1944. Besides faults which it is intended to correct, the report also points out good things. It speaks with particular acknowledgement of leaders of youth-camps, of the systematic X-Ray examinations, and of the support given by the district administrations, and similar things. A real overall picture of conditions could only be obtained by the study of the medical reports of the Health Offices of the German Labor Front existing everywhere. importance here in that a distant onlooker like himself could not have a clear picture of bad conditions. The sanctioning of such bad conditions would have stood in gross contrast to the actions and declarations of Sauckel. The defendant Sauckel did not acquiesce if a Gauleiter perhaps saids: "if somebody has to freeze, then first of all the Russians". He intervened here, and he stood out against it publicly in his official Handbook of the Commitment of Labor (Document Sauckel No. 19). The defendant Sauckel also tried to improve the food outside of his competence. This has been confirmed by several witnesses, amongst others the witness Goetz (Exhibit Sauckel No. 10). It is also shown by the record of the Central Planning Board (Document R-134, Page 1783). The defendant Sauckel did not let matters go on anyhow, but he established this own personal staff, whose members travelled around the camps and corrected had conditions on the spot. He also attempted so obtain clothing, and let factories work to a large extent for supplying the Eastern workers. All Witnesses who have been heard regarding this problem have again and again unanimously confirmed the benevolent basic attitude of the defendant Sauckel. always advocate good treatment, I do not wish to enumerate the documents in detail, and only emphasize the "Manifesto of the Commitment of Labor, Document Sauckel No. 84, in which he refers to his binding basic principles, and demands that these be recalled constantly and with emphasis.
I also refer to the speeche to the Presidents of the District Employment Offices of 24 August 1943 (Document Sauckel No. 86) and of 17 January 1944 (Document Sauckel No. 88). The defendant SAUCKEL finally obtained, that even Himmler, Goebbels and Bormann acknowledged his ideas as correct. This is shown by document 205-PS of 5 May 1943. This is a memorandum regarding the general basic principles for the treatment of foreign workers. There the basic principles of a regulated commitment of labor are accepted.
of workers as if they were slaves with this? It will be necessary to examine closely whether the cases referred to involve real abus affecting workers in the process of normal mobilization, or abuses involving the deportation of prisoners and prisoners' work. Then one should investigate exaggerations and delays which can be explained by human weakness and peculiarities. In my opinion no ad quote clarification of incidents has so far been obtained. Press reports already began to appear, which are bound to strengthen doubts as to the traditional concept of how foreign workers live. numerous offices for checking and inspection, relative to the question of laborers. They did not report to the offices of the defendant Sauckel conditions of particular abuse. Perhaps the fact that offices were so numerous point to a weakness: it is quite possible that each Governmental Department kept silent about whatever mistakes originated under its own jurisdiction, rather than permitted their coming to the attention of the defendant Sauckel, because as a rule the controlling agencies were of a higher standing than that of the defendant Sauckel. This should particularly be considered with regard to rotations between the most important agency, the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labor Front), under the leadership of Reich Loader Dr. Ley, and Gauleiter Sauckel. agreement on the creation of "central inspection offices charged with the care and control of foreign labor", it appears to be a carefully set-up "screen" against the defendant Sauckel. The document was devised by Dr. Ley and signed on 2 June 1943, then submitt to the defendant Sauckel for signature. He did not approve and announce it until 20 September 1943. For that very reason it is quite likely that Dr. Ley did not wish to invite criticism. On the other hand, there is also little likelihood that the abuses were general and manifested themselves openly. Otherwise it would obviously have become known to the defendant Sauckel through his own control agencies.
April 1942 appointed the Gauleiters as "Commissioners for the Mobilization of Labor", impressing upon them as their foremost duty the supervision needed for enforcement of his orders. This becomes apparent from Sauckel document No. 8, figure 5; the same holds true for document 633 PS of 14 March 1943. Several Gauleiter were examined by the Tribunal as witnesses, and they have confirmed that the supervision was carried out as ordered and that Sauckel checked it through members of his staff. No abuses were reported.
After due consideration of things, whom should one believe? Are we concerned here with exaggerated laments or do findings of a contrary nature deserve credit? There is no testimony by the French who, according to document UK 78/3, IIIrd study, were taken to the real slave centers; There is no testimony by the Russians who, according to document USSR 51, were sold for 10 to 15 Reichsmark. namely the fact that workers were always confirmed by competent witnesses - and that when the collapse came no rising occurred in which the workers would have given vent to their natural wrath against the slave owners. juridically. All this, however, must appear to be juridical trifle where a higher responsibility is concerned. ficant Works' Managers take the blame, but that the moral responsibility must go to the highest Reich Government offices; of their own volition, they should have introduced corrections on a larger scale to cope with difficulties inherent in the circumstances of that time. This might be in order for offices which had the power and the means of alleviation. The defendant Sauckel and his small personal staff had merely been incorporated in a Ministry already in existence and he did not have such means at his disposal. His authority consisted of a narrowly circumscribed power to give directives on the mobilization of labor, and he has used it untiringly The Works Managers of the armament industry were formed into an independent administration, and outwardly separated from so-called bureaucrats.
The duty of self-preservation corresponds to this administrative independence. Consequently, if the case arose that something should be done to improve the safety of foreign workers, of their situation in armaments works, it would have been the duty of such establishments and of the Armaments Ministry under whose supervision they operated to deal with the matter. It was not the duty of the office of the defendant Sauckel to intervene in these matters, as they were under the Armaments Ministry. This is clear evident from document 4003 PS with decree of 22 June 1944. This is borne out by the most intimate personal relation between the Armaments Minister and Hitler which made the former the most influential man in the economic sphere. If greater responsibility were to exist for mistakes made in the factories, such responsibility can be placed only where there is knowledge of such conditions and power to correct them. to the indictment; namely, whether the position of the General Commissioner for Labor Commitment is determined by Article 7 or Article 8, i.e. whether the defendant Sauckel was an independent government official or whether he had to carry out orders. The recruitment of labor took place from time to time upon Hitler's special order, as part of the general program, and the subsequent distribution alone was left to Sauckel. This is also confirmed by the fact that defendant Sauckel always refers to Hitler's "Order and Commands", as in the Manifest of the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment (GBA) (Document Sauckel No. 83) and others. From this also derives the fact that defendant Sauckel from time to time specially reports execution of the orders, as well as the beginning and end of his official trips, (Document 556 PS of 10 January 44 and 28 July 43). nomination decree, the defendant Sauckel was immediately subordinate to the Four Year Plan and incorporated into the Reich Ministry for Labor which had been preserved with its State secretaries.
Only two departments were placed at his disposal. If the kind of responsibility is to be determined, it can be only within the limits of article 8 of the Charter. Herewith I conclude my exposition regarding the special sphere of activity of labor commitment.
over and beyond labor commitment. Particular isolated acts are, however, not charged against him as active agent. A closer characterisation of the accusation has been effected in the course of the proceedings only in regard to the concentration camps. In this connection, however, it has been proved by a sworn affidavit of witness Walkenhorst (Exhibit No.23) and a statement in lieu of oath of witness Dieter Sauckel (Exhibit No.9) that no order for the evacuation of the Buchenwald camp upon the approach of Americantroops was given. Knowledge and approval of conditions at the camp cannot be deduced from two visits of the camp before 1939, as the excesses submitted by the Prosecution did not yet exist. Nor did the local proximity of the camp to the Gauleituna of the defendant Sauckel bring about any close connection with the SS staff, as it had its seat in Kassel and Magdeburg. Sauckel which resulted from his previous career, and which was irreconcileable with Himmler's point of view.
What part can defendant Sauckel have played in the conspiracy? He was Gauleiter in Thuringia and did not rise above the rest of the Gauleiters His activities and his aims can be deduced from his fighting speeches, which have been submitted as document Sauckel No. 95. These persistently show the fight for "Liberty and bread" and the desire for a real peace. authoritative for defendant Sauckel; the wishes contained therein required neither war nor the extermination of the Jews. The practical realization of the program alone could disclose the reality. For the convinced party member, however, the official explanation of the event was authoritative and it net with no doubts. Up to his nomination as the Plenipotentiary General for Labor Committment in March 1942, defendant Sauckel did not belong to the narrow circle of those who had access to Hitler's plans. He had to rely upon the press and the broadcasts like everybody else. He had no contact with the leading men. This is shown somewhat tragically by his action, so often laughed at, in boarding a submarine as an ordinary seaman for a raid into enemy waters. That is not the way to participate in conspiracies.