Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-141.01
Last-Modified: 2000/03/25

                                                   [Page 92]

HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIRST DAY

WEDNESDAY, 29th MAY, 1946

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn this afternoon at 4
o'clock in order to sit in closed session.

MR. DODD (of the American Prosecution): Mr. President, the
day before yesterday the Tribunal asked if we would
ascertain whether or not Document D-880 had been offered in
evidence. It consists of extracts from the testimony of
Admiral Raeder and we have ascertained that it was offered,
and it is Exhibit GB 463. It was put to a witness by Mr.
Elwyn Jones in the course of cross-examination, and it has
been offered in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

MR. DODD: Also, with respect to the Tribunal's inquiry
concerning the status of other defendants and their
documents, we are able to say this morning that, with
respect to the defendant Jodl, the documents are now being
translated and mimeographed and there is no need for any
hearing before the Tribunal.

The Seyss-Inquart documents have been heard and are now
being translated and mimeographed.

The von Papen documents are settled; there is no
disagreement between the prosecution and the defendant von
Papen. And they are in the process of being mimeographed and
translated.

With respect to the defendant Speer, we think there will be
no need for any hearing, and I expect that by the end of
today they will be sent to the translating and mimeographing
departments.

The documents for the defendant von Neurath have not yet
been submitted by the defendant to the prosecution.

And with respect to the defendant Fritzsche, our Russian
colleagues will be in a position to advise us more exactly
in the course of the day. I expect that I shall be able to
advise the Tribunal as to the defendant Fritzsche before the
session ends today.

THE PRESIDENT: Does that conclude all questions of
witnesses?

MR. DODD: Yes, I believe - at least, we have no objection to
any of the witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then; there need not be any
further hearing in open court on the cases of the defendants
Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, von Papen and Speer until their actual
cases are presented.

MR. DODD: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the defendant Sauckel). Mr.
President, I have a technical question to bring up.
Yesterday the witness Hildebrandt arrived, but again it was
the wrong Hildebrandt. This is the third witness who has
appeared here in this comedy of errors; it was the wrong one
for Mende, the wrong one for Stothfang, and the wrong one
for Hildebrandt. But this witness knows where the right ones
are.

                                                   [Page 93]

The witnesses had received information in their camp that
they were to appear here and they were then taken to the
collecting centre for Ministerial Directors in
Berlin-Lichterfelde. Perhaps it will still be possible to
bring these two witnesses here. Especially the witness
Hildebrandt, who can testify about the French matters, would
be of importance, if we could still bet him.

THE PRESIDENT: Was the name given accurately to the General
Secretary?

DR. SERVATIUS: The name was given accurately. The other
man's name was also Hildebrandt, only not Hubert, but
Heinrich. He was also a Ministerial Director -

THE PRESIDENT: I do not mean only the surname but all his
Christian names.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, one name was Heinrich and the other
Hubert, and as abbreviated it was "H" for both, "Dr. H.
Hildebrandt," that apparently caused the confusion.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I say the names of all witnesses had
better be given in full, really in full, not merely with
initials.

DR. SERVATIUS: I had given the name in full. As to the
physician, the witness, Dr. Jaeger, I received his private
address this morning. He is not under arrest. He was at
first a witness for the prosecution. His private address is
in Essen, on the Viehhof Platz, and he is there now.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better take up all these
details with the General Secretary and he will give you
every assistance.

DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the case of Sauckel, I should like
to make one more remark to the Tribunal.

There are about 150 documents which have been submitted by
the prosecution, and some of them are only remotely
connected with Sauckel. No trial brief and no special oral
charges were presented here against Sauckel so that I cannot
see in detail to what extent Sauckel is held responsible.
The case was dealt with only under the heading of "Slave
Labour," and so the ground of the defence is somewhat
uncertain.

I do not intend to discuss every one of these 150 documents,
but I should like to reserve the right to deal with some of
them later if that should appear necessary. I want to point
out only the more important ones and then return to them in
the course of the proceedings. At any rate, may I ask you
not to construe it as an admission if I do not raise
objections against any of these documents now.

THE PRESIDENT: No admission will be inferred from that. Dr.
Servatius, I have before me here a document presented by the
French Prosecution against the defendant Sauckel. I suppose
what you mean is that that document, that trial brief,
entitled "Responsabilite Individuelle," does not refer to
each of these 150 documents.

DR. SERVATIUS: There was, first of all, the Document Book
"Slave Labour," submitted by the American Prosecution, that
is not headed "Sauckel" but "Slave Labour," and I cannot say
therefore which parts concern Sauckel in particular.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it does say, "And the special
responsibility of the defendants Sauckel and Speer
therefore." That is the American Document Book. It does name
Sauckel.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And there is this other trial brief presented
by M. Mounier on behalf of the French Delegation, which is
definitely against Sauckel, but there is no doubt that does
not specify all these 150 documents that you are referring
to.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

                                                   [Page 94]

FRITZ SAUCKEL - Resumed

DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Witness, yesterday near the end of the session we spoke
about a manifesto, a memorandum which was intended to
impress upon the various offices their duty to carry out
your directives and to remove the resistance that existed.
Now, you yourself have made statements which are hardly
compatible with your directives, it seems. I submit to you
Document R-124. That concerns a meeting of the Central
Planning Board of 1st March, 1944. There, in regard to
recruitment, you said that it would be "necessary to
Shanghai," as it was the custom in earlier times, in order
to get the workers.

You said:

  "I have even resorted to the method of training staffs of
  French men and women agents who go out on man-hunts and
  stupefy the victims with drink and persuasive arguments
  in order to get them to Germany."

Have you found that?

A. I have found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Whereabouts in 124 is it?

DR. SERVATIUS: That is R-124.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but it is a very long document.

DR. SERVATIUS: It is in the document itself, Page 1770.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have it.

A. (Continuing) That is, as I can see, the report on or
record of a meeting of the Central Planning Board in the
spring of 1944. During that year it had become extremely
difficult for me to meet the demands of the various user
groups which were represented in the Central Planning Board.
At no time did I issue directives or even recommendations
for "shanghai-ing." In this conference I merely used that
word reminiscent of my days as a seaman, in order to defend
myself against those who demanded workers of me and in order
to make it clear to the gentlemen how difficult my task had
become, particularly in 1944. Actually, a very simple
situation is at the root of this. According to German labour
laws and according to my own convictions the
"Arbeitsvermittlung" (procurement of labour) - the old word
for "Arbeitseinsatz" (direction of labour) - was a privilege
of the State, and we, myself included, scorned private
methods of recruitment. In 1944 Premier Laval, chief of the
French government, told me that he was also having the
greatest difficulties in implementing the labour laws where
his own workers were concerned.

In view of that, and in agreement with one of my assistants,
Dr. Didier, conferences were held in the German Embassy -
the witness Hildebrandt, I believe, can give more
information about that - with the chief of the
collaborationist organizations; that is to say,
organizations within the French population which advocated
collaboration with Germany. During these conferences at the
German Embassy, these organizations stated that in their
opinion official recruitment in France had become very
difficult. They said that they would like to take charge of
that and would like to provide recruiting agents from their
own ranks and also provide people out of their membership
who would go to Germany voluntarily. Recruitment was not to
take place through official agencies but in cafes. In these
cafes, of course, certain expenses were necessary, which had
to be met, and the recruiting agents had to be paid a bonus
or be compensated by a glass of wine or some liquor. That
way of doing things, naturally, did not appeal to me
personally, but I was in such difficulties in view of the
demands put to me that I agreed, without intending, of
course, that the concept of "Shanghai-ing," with its
overseas reminiscences, and so forth, should be seriously
considered.

                                                   [Page 95]

Q. Did this suggestion come from the Frenchmen, or was it
your suggestion?

A. As I have said already, the suggestion was made by the
French leaders of these organizations.

Q. If you read on a few lines in the document, you will find
that mention is made of special executive powers which you
wanted to create for the employment of labour, it says
there:

  "Beyond that I have charged a few capable men with the
  establishment of a special executive force for the
  Arbeitseinsatz. Under the leadership of the Higher SS and
  Police Leader a number of local troops have been trained
  and armed, and I now have to ask the Ministry of
  Armaments for weapons for these people."

How do you explain that?

A. That, also, can be explained clearly only in connection
with the events that I have just described. At that time
there had been many raids on German offices and mixed
German-French labour offices. The chief of the Department
for the Direction of Labour in the office of the military
commander in France, President Dr. Ritter, had been
murdered. A number of recruiting offices had been raided and
destroyed. For that reason these organizations who were in
favour of collaboration had suggested for the protection of
their own members that a sort of bodyguard for the
recruiting organization should be set up. Of course I could
not do that myself because I had neither the authority nor
the machinery for doing it, but it had to be done in
accordance with the orders of the military commander by the
Higher SS and Police Leader, that is, under his supervision.
This was done in conjunction with the French Minister of the
Interior at that time, Darnand. For the same reasons, namely
to be able to stand my ground against the reproaches of the
Central Planning Board, I used an example in this drastic
form. As far as I know, these hypothetical suggestions were
not put into practice.

Q. Who actually carried out the recruitment of the foreign
workers?

A. The actual recruitment of foreign workers was the task of
the German offices established in the various regions, the
offices of the military commanders or similar civilian
German institutions.

Q. You ordered recruitment to be voluntary. What was the
result of that voluntary recruitment?

A. Since voluntary recruitment was the underlying principle,
several million foreign workers came to Germany voluntarily.

Q. Now, in the meeting of the Central Planning Board - the
same meeting which we have just discussed - you made a
remark which contradicts that. It is on Page 67 of the
German photostat, English, Page 1827. I shall read the
sentence to you. Kehrl is speaking; he says:

  "During that entire period, you brought a large number of
  Frenchmen to the Reich by voluntary recruitment."

Then an interruption by Sauckel:

  "Also by forced recruitment."

The speaker continues:

  "Forced recruitment started when voluntary recruitment no
  longer yielded sufficient numbers."

Now comes the remark on which I want you to comment. You
answered:

  "Of the five million foreign workers who came to Germany,
  less than two hundred thousand came voluntarily."

Please explain that contradiction.

A. I see that this is another interpolation by me. All I
wanted to say was that Herr Kehrl's opinion, that all
workers had come voluntarily, was not quite correct. This
proportion which is recorded here by the stenographer or the
man writing the records is quite impossible. How that error
occurred, I do not know. I never saw the record. But the
witness Timm or others can give information on that.

Q. I refer now to Document S-15. That is Directive No. 4,
which has been quoted already and which lays down specific
regulations with regard to recruiting

                                                   [Page 96]

measures. It has already been submitted as Document 3044-PS.
Now, why did you abandon the principle of voluntary
recruitment?

A. In the course of the war our opponents also carried out
very considerable and widespread measures. The need for
manpower in Germany, on the other hand, had become
tremendous. During that period, a request was also put to me
by French, Belgian and Dutch circles to bring about a better
balance of economy in these territories; and even to
introduce what we called a labour draft, so that the force
of enemy propaganda would be reduced and the Dutch,
Belgians, and French themselves could say that they were not
going to Germany voluntarily, but that they had to go on
account of the compulsory labour service and on account of
legal orders.

Q. Did the proximity of the front have any influence on the
fact that people no longer wanted to come voluntarily?

A. Of course I believed that also, and it is understandable
that the chances of victory and defeat caused great
agitation among the workers, and the situation at the front
certainly played an important part.

Q. Did purely military considerations also cause the
introduction -

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle Interposing): Dr. Servatius, will
you ask the witness what he means by a labour draft law.
Does he mean a law of Germany or a law of the occupied
countries?

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q. Witness, you heard the question, whether you mean a
German law or a law of the administration of the occupied
countries?

A. That varied. The Reich Government, in some of the
territories, introduced laws which corresponded to the laws
that were valid for the German people themselves. These laws
could not be issued by are, but they were issued by the
chiefs of the regional administrations or the government of
the country concerned on the order of the German government.

In France, these laws were issued by the Laval government in
agreement with Marshal Petain; in Belgium, by a vote of the
general secretaries or general directors of the ministries
there.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean in the other countries by the
German government or the German government's
representatives? You have only spoken of -

THE WITNESS( Interposing): The directives to introduce
German labour laws in the occupied territories were given by
the Fuehrer. They were proclaimed and introduced by the
chiefs who had been appointed by the Fuehrer for these
territories, because I myself was rat in a position to issue
any directives, laws or regulations there.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor