Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-142.01
Last-Modified: 2000/03/26

                                                  [Page 132]

HUNDRED AND FORTY-SECOND DAY

THURSDAY, 30th MAY, 1946

DR. EXNER (Counsel for the defendant Jodl): Mr. President, I
should like to put a request to you. My client comes next in
order and he would like to be excused, if possible, this
afternoon and all day tomorrow, so that he can prepare his
case.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

THE MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made
that the defendant von Papen is absent.

FRITZ SAUCKEL - Resumed

CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued

BY M. HERZOG:

Q. Defendant Sauckel, I was asking you yesterday whether you
considered that Germany's foreign policy should be
determined according to the Hitlerian theories as to living
space and the Master Race.

A. May I ask you to repeat the question? I did not quite
understand it.

Q. I was asking you yesterday if you considered that the
foreign policy of Germany should be determined according to
the two Hitlerian theories, "Lebensraum" and "Master Race."

A. I understood whether German foreign policy should have
been determined according to the principles of "Lebensraum"
and the "Superior Race."

Q. Yes, I am asking you to answer whether, in your opinion,
it should have been so.

A. Not according to the principle of the "Superior Race." I
should like to be permitted to give an explanation of this.
I, personally, have never approved of the statements made by
some of the National Socialist speakers about a "Superior
Race" and a "Master Race." I have never advocated that. As a
young man I travelled about the world. I travelled in
Australia and in America, and I made some contacts which I
count among my best memories, but I loved my own people and
sought for them, and this I admit, equality of rights, and I
have always stood for that. I have never believed in the
superiority of one particular race, but I always held that
equality of rights was necessary.

Q. That being so, you did not approve of the whole of the
foreign policy of Hitler, and you did not collaborate with
it?

A. In answer to the question by my counsel, I stated that I
never considered myself to be one to formulate foreign
policy. I entered the Party through quite another door and
for quite different motives.

Q. Do you remember the declaration which you made on 4th
September, 1945, to two American officers?

M. HERZOG: This declaration is Document PS-3057. It was
submitted as Exhibit USA 223.

                                                  [Page 133]

BY M. HERZOG:

 You said the following:-
   
  "(1) I have been a convinced National Socialist since
  1921 and adhered 100 per cent to the programme of Adolf
  Hitler. I have worked actively to that end, and during
  the period from 1921 until the assumption of power in
  1933 I made about 500 speeches, the sense and content of
  which represented the National Socialist philosophy. It
  was for me a particular satisfaction to have elevated the
  Gau of Thuringia to a predominant position, as regards
  its National Socialist capacity and aspirations. There
  was no doubt in my mind, for I never questioned the
  commands of Hitler. Up to the time of the crash, I obeyed
  his orders blindly."

THE PRESIDENT: You are going a little bit too fast. This has
been read, M. Herzog. I do not think you need read all of
it.

BY M. HERZOG:

Q. I would ask you then, defendant Sauckel, if you confirm
the declarations which were made under oath and voluntarily
and without any duress on 4th September, 1945, and which are
in contradiction with those that you made yesterday and
which you have just made to me.
 
A. I confirm that my signature is appended to this document.
I ask the Tribunal's permission to tell how that signature
came about.

This document was presented to me in its finished form. I
asked that I might read and study this document in my cell
in Oberursel and decide whether I could sign it. That was
denied me. During the conversation an officer was called in.
This officer told me that he belonged to the Polish or
Russian army, and said that if I hesitated too long in
signing this document, I would be handed over to the Russian
authorities. Then this Polish or Russian officer entered and
asked "Where is Sauckel's family? We know Sauckel of course
and we will take him with us, but his family will have to be
taken into Russian territory as well." I am the father of
ten children. I did not ponder long about it and, thinking
of my family, I signed this document.

When I returned to my cell, I sent a written message to the
commandant of the camp, and asked to talk with him alone on
this matter. But that was not possible, because shortly
afterwards I was brought to Nuremberg.
 
Q. Your signature is at the end of this document in which
you declared that you "made the above declarations
voluntarily and without any duress"?
  
A. That is correct, but in this situation -

Q. I think your explanation is sufficient.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you ask him whether he read it, has now
read it, and whether it is true.

BY M. HERZOG:

Q. I asked you a few moments ago, and I ask you now: Are you
ready to confirm that your statements are correct?
 
 A. These statements are not correct in the details on
individual points, and I asked that I might correct these
various points, but I was not given the time to do that.

On the last morning before I came to Nuremberg, I was told I
could discuss this matter in Nuremberg, and when I was
interrogated here I told the American officer about that
matter.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, was this document read to the
Tribunal by the prosecution?

M. HERZOG: This document was submitted under Exhibit USA
223.

DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the defendant Sauckel): Mr.
President, as far as I recall, this document was not
submitted. At the time I had a conversation

                                                  [Page 134]

with the American representative of the prosecution and told
him about these objections. He did not bring it up at a
later session because of these objections and the President
himself, at the conclusion of this, asked whether this
document would not be produced, and the prosecutor said,
"No, having talked it over with the defence, I will dispense
with this document."

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you tell us that it was not read over
in court.

DR. SERVATIUS: No, it was not read in court. I would like to
object to the admissibility of this document, for it was
given under duress.

THE PRESIDENT: Under these circumstances, M. Herzog, you may
cross-examine in what way you like upon the document. The
Tribunal was under the impression that it had already been
read over. That is why they stopped you reading it.

BY M. HERZOG:

Q. In paragraph 2 you declared:

  "After the putting into effect of the Nuremberg Laws, I
  took necessary measures for carrying out those laws in
  the Gau of Thuringia."

Paragraph 4:

  "I agreed with all the decisions taken by Hitler and the
  NSDAP concerning the means to be used and the measures to
  be taken to obtain these ends, and I collaborated
  actively in the execution of this plan."

A. I could not follow your concluding sentences.

Q. I will read it once more:

  "I agreed with all the decisions taken by Hitler and the
  NSDAP concerning the means to be used and the measures to
  be taken to obtain these ends, and I collaborated
  actively in the execution of this plan."

I ask you to confirm that you made these statements.

A. I  certainly would not have made those statements in the
way I did if I had been able to act freely and according to
my own will.

Q.  Is it a fact that you were appointed -

THE PRESIDENT (interposing): M. Herzog, the Tribunal thinks
that the document is before the witness and he should be
asked to point out in what way he says the document is
wrong.

BY M. HERZOG:

Q. Defendant Sauckel, you heard what the President has said.
You say that this document does not coincide with the truth.
Will you kindly tell the Tribunal in what way it does not?

A. I should like to take this document point by point. I was
100 per cent for the social programme and I told my counsel
that when he examined me.

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, what the Tribunal wishes is that
you should take the document and point out, sentence by
sentence, what is wrong in it.

THE WITNESS: In paragraph 1, the year 1921 is incorrect. I
became a member, as my first membership card shows, in 1923
or 1925. Before the year 1923, I was a sympathiser with the
ideas of the Party.

As far as 100 per cent agreement with Adolf Hitler is
concerned, I meant "100 per cent" in this way; in so far as
the programme appeared to be justified legally and
constitutionally and according to ethics and morality.

Just how many meetings I conducted, I cannot say. My
speeches and lectures, in the main, were based on my life
and on my experiences. Those were the only things that I
could talk about, and I wanted to bring about a
reconciliation between the German trades and the German
professions according to National Socialist ideology.

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, I have pointed out to you that
what the Tribunal desires is for you to take the document
and say what sentences in it are wrong, and not to make
speeches.

                                                  [Page 135]

THE WITNESS: In my eyes, all of the sentences are wrong. I
would not have put them that way if I myself had been able
to formulate them. The way they stand, I dispute each and
every sentence, for I did not write them and I was not
consulted. These sentences were shown to me as they are now.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, if I may be permitted to give
an explanation of this matter. This statement is a resume of
all the interrogations, in which the various points
represent a confession in the sense of the Indictment. The
defendant could not say a word in his own defence if this
were correct. Since it is a resume, and since conclusions
can be drawn from it, he must have the opportunity of
refuting these conclusions, and that necessitates a
statement. These are not definite facts which can be
answered with yes or no.

THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has just said that the whole
document is wrong, and he has also said that the document
was obtained from him under duress.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And it is therefore not any use to go through
it in detail. But the Tribunal would like to hear from the
American prosecution if they have anything to say about the
matter.

MR. DODD: I have not a copy of the document before me in
English, but I -

THE PRESIDENT (interposing): You see, Mr. Dodd, M. Herzog
has said that it was offered in evidence under the exhibit
number USA 223.

MR. DODD: My recollection is that - I will check the record,
Mr. President - my recollection is that in the presentation
of the case on slave labour, we included this in our
document book, but did not offer it in evidence. I think I
told the Tribunal at the time that we had decided not to
offer it. It had been printed and put in the document book.

My memory may be faulty, but my recollection is, Mr.
President, that the President of the Tribunal asked me if I
did not intend to offer it, and I then stated that we had
thought it over and decided not to use it.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not understand how it gets an exhibit
number if it is not offered in evidence.

MR. DODD: I do not either. I think it is an error.

THE PRESIDENT: I see. Mr. Dodd, do you know whether this is
a resume or a summary of a number of interrogations which
were taken?

MR. DODD: My understanding is to the contrary. I think it
was taken before the defendant Sauckel was in Nuremberg and
before any interrogations were conducted on the part of the
Interrogation Division of the American prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Were you aware Dr. Servatius was objecting to
the document on the ground that it was obtained under
duress?

MR. DODD: My recollection is that at the time of the
presentation of the Slave Labour case Dr. Servatius made
some objection and I think that is what brought the matter
up at that time; and that is why we did not use it.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then you had better pass from it.

BY M. HERZOG:

Q. You were appointed Plenipotentiary for Labour by an
ordinance of 21st March, 1942?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Is it correct to say that this decree was countersigned
by your co-defendant Keitel? .

                                                  [Page 136]

A. The decree, I believe, was countersigned three times. I
believe that is right. At the moment I cannot confirm it
with certainty.

Q. Would you kindly explain to the Tribunal under what
circumstances you were appointed to that office?

A. I answered that question when it was put to me by my
counsel yesterday. It was a surprise to me.

Q. Did Speer, the Reich Minister for Armaments, have
anything to do with your appointment?

A. I cannot tell you that from my own knowledge. In
Bormann's announcement it said at the suggestion of Speer,
but I cannot tell you this from my own knowledge.

Q. Do you recollect having made any statement on that
subject in your interrogation in September, 1945?

A. At this moment I cannot remember the statement.

Q. On 12th September, 1945, you were interrogated by Major
Monigan, and you appear to have stated the following-the
Tribunal will find this on the first page in the extracts of
the interrogatory, which has been handed them.

  "In March, 1942, I was summoned rather suddenly by
  Minister Speer who had been appointed a short while
  previously. Speer told me that it was urgent that I
  should assume -

THE PRESIDENT: Could you move away those papers from the
light, you cannot see the light which is constantly going
on.

(A short interruption.)

  Q. (resuming). " ... Speer told me that it was urgent
  that I should assume new functions concerning the matter
  of manpower. A few days later he asked me to go with him
  to the General Headquarters and I was introduced into the
  presence of the Fuehrer, who told me that I should not
  fail to accept this new appointment which was offered to
  me."

Do you confirm that statement?

A. It is correct. However, I cannot say whether that was
before a decision - whether my appointment was arranged
before these meetings through the initiative of some other
gentlemen; but except for that, the facts are correct.

Q. But you confirm that the defendant Speer, Minister for
Armament and Munitions, took you to the Fuehrer Headquarters
on the occasion of your appointment.

A. Yes, that is correct.

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