Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-143.09
Last-Modified: 2000/03/27

O. Well, your answer to all of this is, then, that you do
not remember what you said there; this does not help you at
all to remember.

A. You cannot possibly expect me to remember exactly events
of brief duration which took place so long ago.

Q. I am perfectly willing to leave it there. There is the
written record against your failure of memory, and I will
leave that with the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I think you should put to him -

THE WITNESS (Interposing): ... with which I was not,
however, familiar before this.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you should put to him the next
paragraph. "Thirdly..." which follows after the sentence
about handling them so roughly,

MR. DODD: Yes, sir.

BY MR. DODD:

Q. Now, if you will keep your finger on that place that you
have there, you will not lose it, and you will find the next
sentence is - begins:

   "Thirdly, he has termed the wage rates previously
   decreed by the Reichsmarschall intolerable and has
   persuaded the Reichsmarschall that Russians should have
   the possibility of earning up to one-half of the wages
   of German workers".

With reference to that statement, what had the
Reichsmarschall suggested, by the way?

A. Before I took up my office - and I have talked about that
at length with my defence counsel - there existed decrees of
the Ministerial Council regarding wage regulations and I
continuously improved those wages; four times, in fact, as
far as I could manage to during my term in office.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not an answer to the question. The
question you were asked was: What had the Reichsmarschall
suggested as wages for these workers? You can answer that.

A. The Reichsmarschall did not make any suggestions to me.
When I came into office I found regulations in existence
which I considered inadequate.

Q. Well, tell us a little more about it. What do you mean by
inadequate? You used the word here, "intolerable". What was
the situation when you came into the office with respect to
wages?

A. I have already explained that yesterday during the
examination by my defence counsel and I gave as an example
the fact that an Eastern worker, when I came into office,
received wages of about 60 pfennig per hour, which, after
deductions for food and lodging, would leave him about four
and a half marks in cash. I altered that after I came into
office and doubled the cash payments. The purpose of the
instructions which existed before my appointment was
probably to prevent too great a circulation of money for
reasons connected with the currency. I do not know the
details.

MR. DODD: This, Mr. President, becomes Exhibit USA 887.

I have no further questions.

DR. BALLAS (replacing Dr. Horn for defendant von
Ribbentrop):

                                                  [Page 210]

RE-EXAMINATION - Continued.

BY DR. BALLAS:

Q. I have a few questions to put to the witness.

Yesterday in cross-examination you spoke about a French
diplomatic organization established under the French
Ambassador Scapini, which was organized for Frenchmen in
Germany. Is it true that it was at defendant Ribbentrop's
wish that this organization was formed?

A. By our mutual wish and agreement. We both had the same
interests. That is correct.

Q. Can you tell me the reasons which caused von Ribbentrop
to create this organization?

A. The reason for this was, in my opinion, to create
understanding between the French and German population by
giving assurance that particular care would be taken of
Frenchmen working in Germany.

Q. This diplomatic organization was also responsible for the
treatment of French prisoners-of-war? Just one minute. Can
you tell me for what reasons the German Foreign Office
decided on so unusual an arrangement at a time when a state
of wax still existed between France and Germany?

A. There were conferences between the French Government of
Marshal Petain and the German Government, and both nations
carefully tried to bring about an understanding.

Q. Thus these unusual measures referring to prisoners of
war?

A. Not only because of that; I considered it a particular
necessity and I might mention in this connection that this
organization was later divided or supplemented. In addition
to M. Scapini, who took care of French prisoners of war in
particular, a M. Brohne took particular charge of French
civilian workers.

Q. It is true that defendant von Ribbentrop in the Foreign
Office created an organization to care for foreign workers
and bring into Germany artists, lecturers, newspapers,
books, etc., from occupied countries so that these workers
would return home positively inclined toward an
understanding with Germany?

A. It was the purpose of an agreement established by the
Reich Foreign Minister in consultation with the Reich
Propaganda Ministry, the German Labour Front and my office,
to improve the leisure time of the foreign workers by means
of foreign artists and lecturers. Many Russian artists were
in Germany for this purpose. It also had the purpose of
bringing libraries and periodicals to these people from
their home countries.

DR. BALLAS: Thank you, I have no further questions.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, in order to rectify an error
in a table in Document I, I want to have the witness'
confirmation.

(Witness handed document.)

Q. Under the agencies having quotas you have mentioned
Minister Funk's offices.

A. Yes.

Q. And going down you find written in the third square, "
armament inspectorate", and under that, "Reichsautobahn".
These two places have been incorrectly filled in. They do
not belong there. Is it true that these two places should be
crossed out?

A. Yes, that is correct.

DR. SERVATIUS: I ask, therefore, that the chart be rectified
by having these two squares crossed out. They belong to
Speer's ministry but I have not paid any close attention to
that side and I do not wish to discuss it.

Then, from the Buchenwald photograph album there were a
number of pictures submitted, which show the defendant
together with Himmler.

                                                  [Page 211]

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q. Witness, can you tell from the picture the approximate
time of that meeting? There are certain indications which
you have discussed with me yesterday. Will you briefly
describe these?

A. Yes. The left-hand top picture shows that construction is
still going on; I see unfinished road-beds and the like.
This appears therefore to be during the construction period.

Q. And what can you say about the time from the dress of the
various people?

A. The dress shows quite clearly that this is a time before
the war, for Himmler is wearing a black uniform, which he
never wore during the war. Apart from that he is wearing a
sword, which was forbidden during the war. It is quite clear
that this meeting took place before the war.

Q. Are these people wearing decorations?

A. I cannot see whether they are wearing decorations.

Q. And so I can conclude that this picture was taken some
time before the war?

A. Quite definitely some time before the war, because I
myself did not wear a SS uniform during the war.

Q. Document 810 was submitted yesterday. That is a report
about the meeting in the Wartburg. Beginning on Page 25 of
the German text there is a report by Dr. Sturm, which was
shown you and in which is said, among other things, that
there had been collaboration with the Gestapo and the
concentration camps and that that was the right road to
take. You were asked whether that was your view, too, and
whether such collaboration was correct.

What did you understand by that? Do you mean to say that you
agreed to the methods used in concentration camps, as
practised by Himmler?

A. Under no circumstances. I wanted to indicate that it was
correct, as the document shows, that workers' discipline
should be enforced step by step, as provided for in cases of
disobedience: first reprimand, then small factory fines, as
provided for, in fact, in my decree No. 13, which I want to
submit as documentary evidence, and only then, after
reprimands and small disciplinary penalties in the factory
had proved inadequate, should there be further treatment of
these cases, as is mentioned in the document, by having them
brought to trial by the prosecuting authority. I called for
a correct penal procedure. By no means did I want thereby to
characterise methods in concentration camps as correct. I
was not at all familiar with these methods at that time.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have a document, 1764-PS,
before me. I have not been able to ascertain when and if it
has already been submitted. I have just received it in the
form of a photostatic copy. It is the so-called Hemmen
report, a report which Ambassador Hemmen made about a sector
of the labour mobilization programme in France. I want to
read a short passage to the defendant which deals with the
number of Frenchmen employed in Germany, and I want him to
confirm it.

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q. Witness, I shall read you a passage and ask you to -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, it is not usual to allow
documents to be put in re-examination. Why was this not used
in the examination-in-chief?

DR. SERVATIUS: The figures were questioned during the
cross-examination, not before. I attach no great importance
to finding out in detail how many hundred thousands came or
went. I can omit this question and come back to it in the
final pleadings.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was not saying you could not use
it now. As it arose out of the cross-examination, I think
you may be able to use it.

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q. Witness, I should like briefly to read to you the
important passage, and I want you to tell me whether the
views presented there are correct.

                                                  [Page 212]

Ambassador Hemmen reports here in a letter received at the
Foreign Office on 6th February, 1944, under (III) as
follows:

  "Regarding labour employment in Germany:
  
  It started with voluntary recruitment of workers which,
  up to the end of 1942, produced 400,000 men. During the
  first half of 1943 two further voluntary recruitments for
  250,000 men each were carried out. The first, which
  allowed for the release of prisoners of war at a ratio of
  one prisoner to three recruits or the granting of worker
  status, produced some 200,000, whereas the second could
  be carried out only by using the new compulsory service
  law, that is to say, coercion, and produced only 122,000
  men."

I omit the end of the page and read from Page 8:

  "As the total result of the Sauckel action 818,000
  persons, mostly men, went to Germany; 168,000 of them
  came because of the compulsory service law. Of all these,
  at the end of January 1944, there were only 428,000 still
  there."

These statements, as far as you can recollect, are they
generally correct?

A. May I remark in this connection that Ambassador Hemmen at
the embassy in Paris dealt with these questions, and that
this is correctly stated. Finally, you meant to say 428,000
and not 428, did you not?

Q. Thousand.

A. That is the decisive point, that because of the short
duration of the contracts, the Frenchmen were changed every
six months, and thus only one half could be there at that
time.

Q. Yes, you have already said that.

A. As an explanation I should like permission to tell the
Tribunal that while there was a ratio of one to three -
meaning that Germany gave back one prisoner of war in return
for three workers - both the prisoners of war as well as the
French civilian workers who had replaced them for the most
part had returned to their own country after six months, as
they stayed for only that period.

It was very hard to win the Fuehrer over to this regulation.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

(A recess was taken.)

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear some supplementary
applications for witnesses and documents at 2 o'clock on
Monday.

M. HERZOG: Mr. President, I would like to come back briefly
to Document D-655, that is to say, to the photographs
showing the defendant Sauckel at the concentration camp of
Buchenwald.

The prosecution has never pretended, and does not pretend
now, that these photographs belong to a period during the
war. Quite to the contrary, the original, which has been
shown to you, has the date of these photographs and the year
is 1938.

The defendant, when he was examined by his Counsel, told us
that he visited Buchenwald in the company of Italian
officers. I do not see a single Italian officer on these
photographs; I simply see the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler.

However, I do not dispute and I never claimed that these
photographs belonged to a year other than 1938.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have one last question in
connection with Document 82 from the Document Book Sauckel
III, Page 206 and following. On Page 207 we find a statement
under Number 3 which I should like to put to the defendant
again, because the Prosecutor for the Soviet Union has
stated that Sauckel declared here that he gave no protection
against crime. I should like to read the sentence to the
defendant again and ask him for an explanation.

                                                  [Page 213]

I myself quoted it once before; apparently there is a
misunderstanding. It is a very short sentence; it reads:

  "You can demand of me every protection in your labour
  employment area but no protection for crimes".

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q. Does that mean, witness, that you did not grant
protection against crimes?

A. On the contrary, it can be seen very clearly from that
document that I did not tolerate any crime. I did not
protect those people who were subordinate to me when they
committed crimes there. They were not to do that; that was
what I prohibited

DR. SERVATIUS: I believe that German usage shows very
clearly that this explanation, as the defendant has just
given it, is correct.

I have no further questions to put to the witness.

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