Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-142.02
Last-Modified: 2000/03/26

Q. Yesterday your Counsel submitted a chart showing the
general organization of your services and how they were
connected with the other organizations of the Reich. You
declared that this chart was correct. I would ask you to
confirm by saying yes or no, if you think that this chart is
correct.

A. According to my own personal recollection, yes.

Q. Have you that chart in front of you?

A. No, I have not.

Q. It is the document which was handed up yesterday by your
counsel showing the different -

THE PRESIDENT: Which number chart is it?

M. HERZOG: It is Chart No. 1, indicating how Sauckel's
department dovetailed with the other ministerial services.

Q. Will you look at column 6 starting from the left, the
column above which there is the name of the defendant Funk?
Have you found it?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you go down that column, the third square,
representing the armaments inspectors? Is it correct that
the armaments inspectors were under the defendant Funk?

                                                  [Page 137]

A. Under Funk? Which department do you mean, which division?
That is not quite correct. It should be moved a bit to the
side. Later it was under Speer. It says Reichsautobahn and
Highway Inspectors. Matters like those did not come under
Funk. That is a mistake.

Q. Do you see the square beside that one, which connects the
General Commission for the Employment of Labour with the
direction of the Autobahnen Service. Should it be connected
with the Reichsautobahnen? Should it not be with the square
above, Inspector of Armaments?

A. Yes; I cannot understand how this mistake could happen in
this chart. I did not see this diagram before this. This is
the first time I have seen it. I did not know.

Q. And you mentioned it was accurate without having examined
it beforehand, is that so?

A. I assumed it to be the same chart as the one which was
put before me as complete.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, when I presented this chart
yesterday, I mentioned that there might be a few
discrepancies. These discrepancies came in when it was being
mimeographed. But I did not see the final -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you can ask any questions if
you want to in re-examination, but there is no ground for
objection to questions which have been put. The questions
are perfectly proper.

BY M. HERZOG:

Q. Defendant, you did take part in the conferences of the
Central Office for the Four-Year Plan?

A. Only in part, only when labour problems were being
discussed.

Q. Will you please tell the Tribunal what associates of
yours accompanied you or represented you at such
conferences?

A. That varied - Dr. Timm, Dr. Hildebrandt, Dr. Stothfang,
but it varied.

Q. Who among the other defendants were the people who also
assisted at those conferences? Can you tell us?

A. I recall with certainty only Herr Speer, who participated
in these conferences. That is, of the defendants who are
here. Whether Herr Funk actually participated, I really
cannot recall any particular meeting. Maybe he did and
perhaps not. I am sorry I cannot say.

Q. And the defendant Goering?

A. At the meetings of the Central Planning Board I
personally never saw the Reichsmarschall. I do not know
whether certain conferences which were held at his place had
strictly to do with the Central Planning Board. Some
conferences in which he participated took place at
Karinhall, but whether they dealt with the Central Planning
Board I cannot say. It was not always clear.

Q. But when the defendant Goering and Funk did not take part
in these meetings were they not represented there?

A. The Reichsmarschall was represented by Field-Marshal
Milch, but whether Reich Minister Funk was represented I
cannot remember exactly. He might have been represented by
Herr Kehrl or someone else. There were many gentlemen but I
did not know all of them personally.

Q. Is it not correct to say that at these conferences of the
Central Office of the Four-Year Plan the general decisions
about the utilization of manpower were taken by all the
people who were present or were represented?

A. In the Central Planning Board no general decisions were
made. The demands were voiced there, and since there was
nearly always a dispute, the higher levels had to decide.
Mostly they were cleared up by the Fuehrer. That happened
frequently.

Q. The Central Office of the Four-Year Plan had established
a collaboration between you and the people who were present
or represented, is that not so?

                                                  [Page 138]

A. That collaboration did not originate there, as those
questions had been discussed before the formation of this
Central Planning Board. The questions had been discussed
there, and the demands put in and discussed.

Q. Will you please take Document R-124. It has already been
handed to the Tribunal under Exhibit USA 179. You will see
therein a declaration which you made at the meeting of 1st
March, 1944.

I read:

 "My duty towards the Fuehrer - "

A. Will you please tell me the page from which you are
reading?

Q. Page 1780. The place is no doubt marked.

  "My duty towards the Fuehrer the Reichsmarschall,
  Minister Speer and you, gentlemen, is clear and I shall
  fulfil it. A first step has been taken. Already 262,000
  new workers have arrived and I hope and I am convinced
  that I shall obtain most of what has been asked. We will
  have to decide in which manner the work will have to be
  distributed according to the needs of German industry, as
  a whole, and I shall always be prepared to remain in
  contact with you, gentlemen, to assist the Labour
  Exchanges and collaborate with you. If there is such a
  collaboration all will go well."

Therefore, you do not contest the fact that the Central
Planning Board did establish collaboration amongst the
various services which recruited manpower, because you
yourself asked for this collaboration.

A. I did not dispute a collaboration. Collaboration is
necessary in every regime and in every system. We were not
concerned with foreign labour only but chiefly with German
labour, even at that period. I did not dispute the fact that
work was being carried on, but final decisions were not
always made there.

Q. Is it correct that you appointed delegates to represent
you in the various German administrative departments?

A. I did not have representatives in the various
administrative departments. I had liaison men in the
administrative departments.

Q. Did you .not have such a liaison officer with the
defendant Speer, Minister for Armaments and Munitions?

A. The man who was constantly with Speer was not a liaison
officer. He talked over with the Minister questions of
demands, etc. As far as I remember it was a Herr Berk.

Q. And did you have a liaison officer with the Reich
Minister of Labour?

A. I had no liaison officer with the Reich Minister of
Labour. There were two branches in the Reich Ministry of
Labour which concerned themselves with these problems in an
administrative capacity.

Q. In your interrogatory of 12th September, 1945, you said
as follows:

M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will find it on Pages 6 and 7 of the
interrogation that I have handed to you.

BY M. HERZOG:

  Q. "I had moreover two counsellors who acted as
  intermediaries between Minister Speer and the armaments
  industry.
  
  Question: Did this liaison officer establish a connection
  between your Ministry, Minister Speer and the Ministry of
  Labour?
  
  Answer: Between my ministry and the Ministry of Labour -
  "

A. Will you please tell me the page?

Q. Pages 4 and 5. Have you found it?

A. Yes.

Q. "Between my ministry, Minister Speer and the Ministry of
Labour - "

THE PRESIDENT: That is surely Page 6, is it not? You said
Pages 4 and 5. It is Page 6, is it not?

M. HERZOG: Of the German extract, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.

                                                  [Page 139]

BY M. HERZOG:

  Q. "Between myself and Minister Speer and the Ministry of
  Labour there were two counsellors, Dr. Stothfang and
  Landrat Berk. They were jurists and experts in national
  economy. Dr. Stothfang was particularly charged to act as
  liaison officer with the Ministry of Labour."

Why did you tell me a few minutes ago that you had no
liaison officer with the Ministry of Labour?

A. I made it quite clear that there were two divisions or
branches in the Ministry of Labour, divisions 3 and 5; this
Ministerial Director, Dr. Stothfang, was formerly the
personal expert to State Secretary Syrup and in a few
isolated cases he had discussions with State Secretary Syrup
at my request. But these were insignificant. In general the
departments themselves were in touch with the Ministry of
Labour.

Q. You confirm, then, that you had a liaison officer at the
Ministry of Labour and another in Minister Speer's office?

A. I am confirming that for occasional conferences. But
these gentlemen had a fixed post in these departments or
they were with me as my personal experts. They were not in
this Ministry. I cannot say either whether in this case the
translation is correct. I do not remember exactly, but in
principle it is correct.

But these gentlemen were with me and not constantly with the
Labour Ministry.

Q. And will you please tell the Tribunal what was the
"Stabsbesprechung"?

A. "Stabsbesprechung" was a conference of experts on special
matters in which the various ministries which demanded
workers participated, and at this conference these questions
which had to be considered were discussed. I could not act
independently, of course, as you have heard.

Q. Who instituted these conferences, this new set-up, these
"Stabsbesprechungen"? Who took the initiative in instituting
them?

A. These staff conferences were instituted by me in order to
obtain a clear conception of all important questions,
because in no regime or government in the world can anything
be done vaguely.

Q. You confirm then that these various kinds of liaison
imply a common responsibility as to decisions taken by each
one of you in the matter of manpower?

A. This question is not clear to me technically or
administratively, for I could not do anything with the
workers. I had to hand them over to other people and I had
to discuss the way this was to be done, but these
conferences did not take place with the idea of a conspiracy
or of a criminal act. These conferences were held in the
same way as formerly. I have been present at conferences
under a parliamentary system and matters were dealt with in
exactly the same way.

Q. That is not what I was asking you. I was asking you
whether you confirmed that the existence of these liaison
officers to Minister Speer and the Minister of Labour on the
one hand, and the existence of this new organization that
you created on the other hand, implied a common
responsibility in the decisions regarding manpower taken by
Minister Speer, the Minister of Labour and by yourself?

A. I cannot answer this question with a definite "no," since
demands were put to me, and as a German official I had to
fulfil them, and in order to fulfil them I had to hold
conferences. It was not possible to do otherwise, for not I
personally, but the German economy demanded and used these
workers. This matter had to be settled, regardless of
whether German or other workers were concerned, and the same
situation applied in normal times.

Q. Is it a fact that after the decree appointed you, you
were authorized to be represented by special representatives
in the military and civil departments of the occupied areas?

A. After 30th October - I cannot state the exact date - at
the behest of the Fuehrer, representatives were appointed by
me to serve in the Governments in the occupied countries. I
mentioned this yesterday through my counsel.

                                                  [Page 140]

Q. The 30th October? I think you mean the decree of 30th
September. It is a mistake on your part.

A. I am sorry, I do not know the exact date.

Q. Is it right that these representatives, appointed by that
decree, were directly subordinate to you?

A. In so far as they were my delegates, they were
subordinate to me for passing on orders.

Q. Is it true that they were authorized to give directives
to the civilian and military authorities in the occupied
territories?

A. That is correct as far as orders are concerned but it is
not true generally. It was a technical matter.

Q. Who was your delegate with the occupational authorities
in France?

A. The delegate with the occupational authorities in France
was, first of all, President Ritter; he was murdered in
Paris. And after him, President Glatzel.

Q. Did you have a representative in Belgium?

A. In Belgium I had a delegate by the name of Schulze; he
was with the Military Commander.

Q. And in Holland?

A. In Holland there were various men; first of all, Herr
Schmidt, and there was another man. I believe his name was
Ritterbusch or something like that; but I do not recall the
exact name.

Q. This system of representatives with the occupational
authorities, was that approved of by defendant Speer?

A. This happened at the request of the Fuehrer and I assume
that Speer agreed. I believe he did, as far as I know.

Q. To your knowledge, did he take any initiative in the
decree issued by the Fuehrer concerning this matter?

A. Yes. He was present and he recommended it.

Q. In your interrogatory, you said when speaking about these
representatives, that Speer instituted these agents for
manpower in 1941 or 1942. The Tribunal will find this
statement on Page 9 of the excerpts from the interrogatory.
What do you think of that phrase?

A. I did not quite understand you.

Q. I shall read an extract of your interrogation of 8th
October, 1945:

  "Question: What was the mission entrusted to your
  representatives in the Labour Offices of the Military
  Governor and of the Civil Governor? Did they merely give
  technical advice, which could be rejected by the
  Commander, or did they have authority to give directives
  to the military commanders on technical questions?"

THE PRESIDENT: On what page is that?

M. HERZOG: Page 9, Mr. President.

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