If indeed and in practice he acted differently, that I do not know. the Reichcommissar for the Ukraine, were you not?
A Yes, I knew that very well. Rosenberg was always the man who was for mitigating influences and who wanted to have all matters, political matters handled reasonably. Koch was the one who leaned toward a more radical solution.
Q When you say a "more radical solution," what do you mean by that, "Mass murder"?
Q But you did in fact know that Koch was a murderer, did you not?
A That Koch was a murderer?
Q I will just draw your attention to them. Look at the document 032-PS, which will be GB 321, the document which has not yet been exhibited. That is a report dated the 2nd of April 1943, from Rosenberg to Himmler, with a copy to you. It is a report on the murder of the people of the Zyman wooded area so that there could be established a place for Reichscommissar Koch to hunt in.
A I know of this complaint. I transmitted it to the Fuehrer. Mr. Rosenberg complained that Reichscommissar Koch had said he had a certain region cleansed for he wanted to hunt there, and Rosenberg complained about this to the Fuehrer.
Q And this word "cleansed," does that mean emigration or does that mean murder?
Q I don't want you to shut this document. I just want you to look at this document because you have denied knowledge that Koch was a murderer. In paragraph 2 of the report you see this:
"Now, I received the following information from an old Party Comrade who has worked for nine months in Volhnia and Podolia for the purpose of preparing for the taking over of a District Commissariat or of a chief section in General District Volhnia and Podolia. This information goes as follows:
"On the order of the highest position it was directed that the whole Rayon Zuman be evacuated. Germans and Ukrainers both stated that this was happening because the Reich Commissar wishedto have the whole wooded area Zuman for his beloved hunting. In December 1942 (when the cold was already severe) the evacuation was begun. Hundreds of families were forced to pack all their possessions over night and were then evacuated a distance of over 60 km. Hundreds of men in Zuman and the vicinity were mowed dawn by the gunfire of an entire Police Company, 'because they were Communist party members'. No Ukrainer believed this....." see. Have you found it?
A No, I have not found it.
document, you know. murders might be refreshed.
"Hundreds of men in Zuman and the vicinity were mowed down by the gunfire of an entire police company because they were Communist Party members. No Ukrainian believed this and likewise the Germans were perplexed by this argument because if the security of the area were at stake it would have been necessary to execute communistically inclined elements in other regions. On the contrary it was generally maintained that those men were ruthlessly shot down without judgement because so extensive an evacuation in so short a time was out of the question and furthermore therewas not enough space available at the new place for settling the evacuees." that Koch was amurderer?
A On the strength of that report I did everything possible. The report was immediately submitted to the Fuehrer and if it actually took place then I must admit it was murder but today I do not recall if this did take place but if it did it was murder but I am not a judge. was immediately passed on to the Fuehrer. commissars, did he not? Bormann and he tried to console Rosenberg. Rosenberg tried to resign repeatedly but was not able to do so. information to the Court as to the conditions in the occupied territories because what I am putting to you generally, you see, is that the battles that were going on there were battles between ruthless men struggling for power and that there was a totally absent from this scene of Nazi control any person who was pressing for human decency, pressing for human pity.
You were not pressing for either of those things, were you?
A I did not quite understand your question. There are several languages it seems to me on this channel, at least there is a disturbance. May I ask that you please repeat the question. on the side of human pity or human decency in this regime, were you? manythings. I have saved the lives of perhaps one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand Jews. and Bormanns and Hitlers, was that not so?
AAnnihilation orders, no I did not issue any of them. They never went through my hands. the defendant Keitel and the ruthless policy that Terboven was carrying out against the Norwegian people. I draw your attention to the document -
A I asked Mr. Keitel to define his position and I objected to the Fuehrer against the shooting of hostages and my officials, my subordinates can vouch for that. will be Exhibit G.B. 322, which is a letter from Keitel to yourself and is related to the report by Terboven in document 870-PS, which my learned friend Sir David Maxwell-Fyffe put in in connection with the defendant Keitel.
Keitel to yourself and it says in the first paragraph:
"In view of checking sabotage in Norway I agree with the view of the Reichscommissioner for occupied Norwegian territory to the extent that I expect results from reprisals only if they are carried out ruth-lessly and if Reichscommissioner Terboven is authorized to carry out shootings."
my view against the shooting of hostages and I was successful to the Fuehrer.
Q You were successful in what respect? expressed explicitly that the shooting of hostages was net to take place on that scope and that extent which he desired and others wanted. Hostages were to be taken only from the circle of miscreants. take place on the scale thatTerboven wanted to commit them, did it? but the Fuehrer did not approve of that and I objected to the shooting of hostages and the gentlemen of the Reichschancellory can vouch for that.
A Yes, it is right that I received this message. Matters took the following course. I had a request from Terboven and then I wrote to Keitel and told him that I intended to submit the request of Terboven to the Fuehrer -- please give me your views and your position. Then the report came back from Keitel and then it was submitted to the Fuehrer.
The request of Terboven was watered down. The Fuehrer took the position that first of all the miscreants were to be taken; then hostages were to be taken out of the circle of the miscreants but shootings were not talked about. where Nazi power ruled hostages were taken, fathers and mothers were killed for the actions of their sons against the Nazi regime. Are you saying you do not know about that? theoccupied territories and I never went to the occupied countries. between the ministers. Just a minute -- you were the Hitler, were you not?
A Not in all cases, no. Many of them went through Bormann, especially Terboven. My officials and my subordinates in the Chancellory can vouch for that. Terboven went over my head all the time and sent his reports to Bormann.
Q You were working hand in glove with Bormann, you know, were you not?
Q You had to work with him? You were the head of the Reichschancellory. Bormann. I had to work closely with him to keep the Party agreement on many things and in many matters the agreement of the Party was prescribed and therefore I had to work with Bormann.
Q Did you find it distasteful to work with Bormann?
A I did not particularly like it. It was my duty to work with him. Bormann exercised was very great. daily but I only every six or eight weeks. Bormann always passed on the decision of the Fuehrer to me and had personal audiences with the Fuehrer but I did not. Bormann, were you not? certain things to the attention of the Fuehrer at all. During those last eight months I had no personal discussion with the Fuehrer and the things I could succeed in through Bormann. 1945, a letter, Exhibit D-753A. that from memory without reading the letter. I complained that I could not be heard by the Fuehrer any longer and I complained that this situation could no longer go on.
Q And you say in that letter in the last paragraph but one:
"For our unanimous cooperation to date has for a long time been a thorn in the flesh of one person or another, because they would have preferred to play us of one against the other."
A The next to the last page you mean?
A "In conclusion I would like to say --",is that the paragraph you mean?
"For our unanimous cooperation to date --." relations and that it was the New Year and I was congratulating him on the New Year and I stated that we might continue cordial relations. Therefore, I said everything had not gone well. Bormann. You were the link between the occupied territories and Hitler? importance. The Reichscommissars were directly responsible to the Fuehrer. in the territory that Germany conquered but about the terror in Germany itself. You have testified as to the defendant Frick that as Minister of Interior he was in effect a man without power, a man of straw. That is the rough effect of your evidence, isn't it? camps went to Frick? the victims who were in those camps? Did you not hear my question?
A I can only understand half of what you are saying. Loud noises interfere on my channel. Perhaps I had better take the earphones off.
Q No, put them on. Just try again, just put them on will you? Put your earphones on will you and just try patiently you see, a little patience.
from concentration camps went? that sort came to me. I dealt with them carefully and methodically and in many cases I was responsible for the release of certain people. matters? petitions and such I do not know.
Q I want you to listen to an affidavit by a Dr. Sidney Mendel, a Doctor of Law, which is Exhibit 601-PS. member of the Berlin Bar and admitted as an attorney at law of the German courts. His legal residence is now 88520 Elmhurst Avenue, Elmhurst, State of New York.
In his capacity as attorney he handled numerous concentration camp cases in the years 1933 to 1938. He remembers distinctly that in the years 1934-1935 he approached in several cases Frick's Vice Ministry of the Interior as the agency superior to the Gestapo for the release of concentration camp inmates. Frick's Ministry had special control functions over concentration camps. illegal arrests, beatings, tortures, mistreatment of inmates, but the Ministry declined the release and upheld the decisions of the Gestapo.
That was Frick's attitude towards those matters, wasn't it?
A I really don't know just what caused Frick to make these complaints. You will have to ask Dr. Frick.
Q But you have testified on behalf, you see of Frick. If you now say you know nothing about him, then I shall not trouble you further with the case of the defendant Frick; but you gave evidence for him, you know. know just what caused him to give out particular matters. again was a man without power. That was the effect of your evidence, wasn't it? but that does not exclude that he received petitions and proposals. How he did them and in so far as he was competent in those matters, I don't know.
Q You say he was a decorative personality. That is a matter of taste. But one of his functions, at any rate, was that he was the person to decide whether death sentences in his territory were carried out or not. That's not a small matter for the human being in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, you know.
A Please then let us eliminate the word"decorative". I mean, more decorative than actual. The head of the state is usually competent as far as certain state matters are concerned, and Frick was the German head of state there and had to do with matters of releases and reprieves,
Q You know, witness, perfectly well that it was within Frick's power to reprieve the death sentences that were being carried out in the territory of Bohemia and Moravia, don't you?
A Yes, certainly that was within his power; there is no doubt about that. influence by moderation, but on the contrary enforced brutal measures against the victims of Nazi administration in that unfortunate part of Europe. ercised that power, according to what inner principles he exercised that power I do not know.
in the drafting of penal laws against Poles and Jews in the annexed eastern territories, were you not? me, but I believe nothing ever came of the matter.
Q You had no part in the drafting of that legislative, did you? recollection. The putting down of laws was left to the Gauleiter, but I do not know.
Q The laws were left to the Gauleiters, to the Koch's and the Frank's and the Rosenberg's; is that what happened? of Posen and we corresponded to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn for ten minutes?
MR. ELWYN JONES: If Your Lordship please.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lammers, can you hear what I say?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you kindly try and answer the questions after they have been put to you and not break into the questions? Try and wait for a moment until the questions has been put because the interpreters and the reporters are finding it very difficult to take down what you say and to interprete what you say. BY ELWYN JONES: You were receiving reports from him as to his administration in the low countries, were you not?
A Every quarter of the year or so a report did reach me, yes. I transmitted it to the Fuehrer. There were also individual reports. administration was to extract and exploit that territory for the German advantage as much as possible, do you not? A The purpose in the occupied countries was to make them useful to us for the waging of the war; whether there was a question of exploitation, I don't know.
Q To reduce their standard of living, to reduce them to starvation; that was one of the results of the Netherlands policy; you know that, didn't you?
A I don't believe that we went as far as that. I have relations in Holland and know that people there lived much better than we die in Germany.
Q I want you to look at the document 997-PS, which is already Exhibit RF122, which consists of a letter which you sent to Rosenberg, th Defendant, enclosing a report given to you by Stabsleiter Schicketanz to the Fuehrer, together with a report delivered by Reich Commissioner Dr. Seyss-Inquart, about the period from May 29 to July 19, 1940. If you look at page 9 of your text, page 5 of the English text, of 997-PS, you will see there is a first statement of the outlines of German economic policy in the Low Countries. You will see the paragraph is marked on your copy, so that your difficulty of finding where those passages are might be eliminated. You see it reads:
"It is a question here of reducing the consumption of the population in time of war as a matter of course. There is also a question here of getting supplies for the Reich."
"It was clear that with the occupation of the Netherlands a large number of economic but also police measures had to be taken, the first ones of which had the purpose of reducing the consumption of the population in order to get supplie for the Reich, and, on the other hand, to secure a just distribution of the remaining supplies." was pursuing towards the Dutch people, is it not?
A. It is also a very reasonable policy. The consumption had to be reduced so that the supplies can be equally distributed in order to have something for the Reich. This is not my report but rather a report of Mr. Schicketanz.
Q. But the object of this reduction of consumption of the population was to benefit the Reich so that the territory of the Low Countries should be robbed in order that the Reich should profit. That was the whole policy, wasn't it?
A. That does not stand in this report; it stands here that first the supplie should be aquired for the Reich; and, secondly, on the other hand there should be an equitable distribution of the supplies, that is to say, also among the Dutch people. there is nothing here about a policy of exploitation. in which it appears.
I want you now to turn your mind to the Defendant Sauckel. You, witness knew quite well of the vast program of enslavement of the people conquered by the Nazi forces that Sauckel was engaged upon, did you not?
A I had Sauckel's program at hand and also his explanation of it. I did not have the impression that this was an enslavement program. Sauckel was in his opinion very reflective and quite moderate, and he made all sorts of efforts to acquire labor forces by voluntary enlistment -- those labor forces that he felt to be necessary. that Sauckel dragged into the Reich came there voluntarily?
A They did not all come voluntarily. For instance, in the case of France they came from France because of a law passed in France for obligatory labor. That was a measure taken by the French Government.
ceived from Saukel on his labor program. It is 1296-PS, Exhibit GB 325. It starts with a letter from Saukel to you dated the 29th of July 1942:
"Dear Reich Minister:
"I am taking the liberty of sending you enclosed the copy of a report to th e Fuehrer and to the Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich for your information. Heil Hitler.
"Yours faithfully, "Fritz Saukel,"
Q Yes. And you must presumably have examined it, did you not?
A Not right now; but it was submitted to me for me to look at.
Q And you examined it at the time?
A I presume so. I may have just skipped through it quickly. It didn't have any further interest for me. indicates, for instance, that in the period from April to July 1942, which was the first period of activity of Sauckel as plenipotentiary for manpower, he had obtained a total of 1,659,794 foreign workers, and of those you see that 221,009 were Soviet Russian prisoners of war. You saw that, didn't you?
A I probably did read it, yes; but I had no reason to object to it. Sauckel was not my subordinate. He was actually subordinate to the Four-Year Plan; for practical purposes he was subordinate to the Fuehrer.
This was not sent to me immediately and it was not given by me to the Fuehrer because I know that the same report had been submitted by Reichsleader Bormann to the Fuehrer. I had nothing to do with this matter.
Q But you know perfectly well that it was wickedly wrong, didn't you, to compel soldiers that had been captured in bottle to go to work against their own country?
A That was Sauckel's job to arrange with the offices that it had to do with.
As I said, he should arrange this with the appropriate offices and with the Wehrmacht, and matters of international law with the foreign office. Moreover, I don't see in this report any mention of prisoners of war.
Q I don't went to suggest that you are--
A I haven't read anything here of prisoners of war so far.
Q Just look at the first page of the report. There is no mystery about this, you know. You can read German perfectly easily.
A But I can't read pages and pages of a long report in one minute. matter--- Just a minute, if you please. When I am speaking would you mind waiting until I have finished before you interrupt. Otherwise the translation machinery is not able to offer a prompt translation. You see from that report quite clearly, do you not, that in the very first four months of Sauckel's career as a slave driver he obtained 221,009 Soviet prisoners of war to work in this labor machine?
A That didn't interest me in detail. I had no supervisory powers in this matter. The report as to whether he had done this or whether he might was turned in and was taken up by the authorized offices, and it wasn't my job,to examine this matter. I simply received this so that I should know about it.
Q You have testified on Sauckel's behalf that he resisted the suggestion that the SS should work in this sphere of labor personnel. Did you not say that ?
A No, that I did not say. I said that he did not want exclusively the SS, but that he wanted sore support for the exclusive powers that he had at that time. This was particularly true in the partisan regions. more labor. That is what he was after, wasn't it?
A Yes, Otherwise he couldn't work in these regions That is the report of a conference on the allocation of labor in 1914, the 4th of January, the minutes of which you wrote yourself, so that if anything you say is to be relied upon that is your report. You will see that at that conference Hitler was there, Sauckel, Speer, Keitel, Milch, Himmler. inform the proper offices. I took part in this only because it was a measure which covered a number of offices had to be made known to all of them Otherwise I never would have participated in this at all. other four million workers for the manpower pool, did he not?
A That could be. The Fuehrer asked -- demanded -- more of Sauckel than Sauckel though he could provide. what German enforcement agents will be made available; his project cannot be carried out with domestic enforcement agents. And then your record goes on:
The Reichsfuehrer SS explained that the enforcement agents put at his disposal are extremely few, but that he, that is to say, Himmler, would try helping the Sauckel project to succeed by increasing them and working them harder. The Reichsfuehrer SS made immediately available 2,500 men from concentration camps for preparation in Vienna. That is to say, it is clear from that report, is it not, that Sauckel was seeking more help from the SS and that Himmler was saying he would do his best to help him? Is that not so?
A There can be no doubt of it, but Sauckel did not went to have exclusively the SS in the countries in question.
He wanted whatever help was necessary. In France, for example, the fort commanders. It is Exhibit 3819-PS, GB 306, a small part of which was read into the record by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. That is a report from Sauckel to Hitler, dated 17 March 1944. I take it that you probably saw a copy of that report, did you not? Sauckel toward the assistance of the SS and the German police.
A This is of the 11th of July, 1944. I have one in my hand of 11 July 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Elwyn Jones, he is saying that he has in his hand a document of 11 July 1944.
The document you referred to was 17 March, was it not?
Q Yes. You have got your minutes of the conference. Is there not attached to it a report of Sauckel dated 17 March?
MR. ELWYN JONES: I shall not proceed with that part of the document, purposes. You remember that is your own report of the conference of 12 July 1944 on the question of the increased procuring of foreign manpower, and you opened that conference, witness, did you not?
Q What were you neutral about, witness?
A I had no office under me. The other departments had their departmental interests. you? a compromise between the Hitler genius sort of people, and also under such circumstance it might have happened that I did so between Himmler and Sauckel.
I do not think that can be referred to as playing the honest broker. I wanted to make efforts to bring these two together so that it would be possible to inform the Fuehrer of such differences of opinion.
Q Just look at the manner in which youopened that conference. You said there--it is the second sentence under your name:
"He limited the theme of the discussion by saying that actually all possibilities would be examined by which the present deficit of foreign manpower could be covered."
Then you say in the next question:
"The primary consideration will, have to remain the solution of the question whether and in what form greater compulsion can be exercised to accept work in Germany."
The operative word is, you know, "compulsion". also the work of minors
Q Just go on to the next sentence of your statement.:
"In this connection it must be examined how the executive forces, regarding the inadequacy of which the Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment raises lively objection, can be strengthened on the one hand through an influence on the Foreign Office and on the other through building up the indigenous administrative executive, whether by an increased use of the Wehrmacht, of the police or other German agencies."
A That is quite correct. Those were the problems that had to be discussed. police and what pressures by Ribbentrop the results could be achieved? That was the object of the conference, was it not?
A No, that was not the object. We did not consider how we might terrorize but how we could, through some sort of of official action, get our hands on the labor forces which we needed. Itis a matter of course that there had to be some enforcement agency behind this which did not have to be called a terror. I could describe the situation in France, for example. The workers whom Sauckel had recruited were, because of the French enforced labor law, brought to the railroad station by the French government for transportation.