Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-144.03
Last-Modified: 2000/03/28

Q. What was the result of these conferences, these
unification conferences.

A. These conferences led to agreements which, as far as I
recall, were several times taken down in writing and, in my
opinion, led to an increasingly strong influence by the
Armament Ministry on the questions concerning the employment
of labour.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to this
witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other counsel want to ask any more
questions?

DR. FLAECHSNER: Dr. Hans Flaechsner, Counsel for Speer.

BY DR. FLAECHSNER:

Q. Witness, in connection with your last statement, I should
like to ask one question. You have testified to tension
between the defendants Sauckel and Speer because Speer
claimed the right to give instructions. Do I understand you
correctly, if I assume that the tension arose from the fact
that Sauckel energetically disputed this right to issue
instructions?

A. As I wanted to express in my last answer, the difference
consisted in the fact that Speer, as General Plenipotentiary
for Armaments said: "I must have control of all the things
which belong to actual manufacture. So it is essential for
me as regards the direction of labour assignments - "

Q. I understand that, witness, my question is only, did this
tension arise from the fact that Sauckel emphatically
refused to recognize this right to issue instructions which
you say was claimed by Speer?

A. As General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour,
Sauckel felt himself competent and responsible for all
questions concerning the employment of labour.

Q. With regard to the demands of the Armament Ministry which
he did not feel he could consider justified, did Sauckel not
hold the point of view that he was responsible only to the
Fuehrer?

A. I do not remember anything so definite. He was General
Plenipotentiary for -

THE PRESIDENT: Surely this is very far removed from anything
we have to deal with. He says that the tension was cleared
up by conferences. What more is there to discuss?

BY DR. FLAECHSNER:

Q. Witness, you spoke of conferences which are supposed to
have taken place with Minister Lammers. In the minutes of
the session of 11th July, 1944, and of 4th January, 1944,
which have been previously submitted here, there is no
mention at all of such differences. I would be grateful to
you, if you could tell me what sessions with Lammers you
have in mind?

                                                  [Page 237]

A. Unfortunately, I cannot give the dates of the sessions
exactly. I know only that the General Plenipotentiary for
the Employment of Labour several times wished to report
these conditions to the Fuehrer and that the two men, as far
as I can remember, agreed that these questions should be
discussed with the Fuehrer, but then, in order to avoid
always taking things to the Fuehrer, they agreed to have
matters talked over with Reich Minister Lammers.

Q. You cannot give any details about that?

A. Only if . . . I recall, for example, that the question of
"blocked industries" in France was discussed.

DR. FLAECHSNER: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution wish to cross-examine
the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION of witness Max Timm:

BY M. HERZOG:

Q. Witness, were you a member of the National Socialist
Party?

A. Yes.

Q. From what date on?

A. In 1933 I applied for admission. First, my application
was refused and, as far as I can remember, in 1934 or 1935
it was approved. .

Q. Were you a member of the SA organization?

A. I was a member of the SA for a short time. Then I left
the SA when proceedings for my expulsion were instituted
against me, and I resigned.

Q. Were you a member of the SS?

A. No.

Q. What were your functions up to the time you entered
Sauckel's office?

A. I was employed in that branch of the Reich Ministry of
Labour where they had the Employment Agency, the office for
vocational guidance and the agency for apprenticeship.

Q. When did you first meet Sauckel?

A. As far as I can remember, I saw him for the first time
when he visited State Secretary Syrup in the Reich Labour
Ministry and the individual officials were introduced to
him.

Q. At what time did this take place?

A. I cannot give the date exactly. I believe it was about a
few weeks after the appointment of Sauckel as
Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour.

Q. What was your position at the time when Sauckel was
appointed General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of
Labour?

A. I was in the Department of the Employment Service and
Unemployment Compensation - the department of the Employment
Service -

Q. And at the end, what was your position?

A. At that time I was a Ministerial Counsellor in the Reich
Labour Ministry

Q. Will you tell me where Sauckel's offices were in Berlin.

A. I did not understand the question.

Q. Will you tell me where Sauckel's offices were in Berlin?

A. In Berlin Sauckel himself worked in Thuringia House,
while the Experts Section, made available by the Reich
Labour Ministry, were in the building of the Reich Labour
Ministry in Saarland Strasse 96, and some, after part of the
building had been destroyed, were in alternative quarters
near Berlin.

Q. Thank you. The offices at Saarland Strasse 96, therefore,
came under Sauckel's administration? Is that right?

A. The office Saarland Strasse 96 was not a new office. It
was the Reich Labour Ministry. The two sections had been
made available by a Fuehrer decree to carry out the tasks of
the GBA.

Q. A document entitled "General Plenipotentiary for the
Four-Year Plan, General Plenipotentiary for the Employment
of Labour, Berlin SW 1I, Saarland Strasse 96" therefore
comes from Sauckel's offices?

                                                  [Page 238]

A. I did not quite understand.

Q. A document which has the following heading: "General
Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Plan, General
Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour - "

THE PRESIDENT: Why not show him the document?

BY M. HERZOG:

Q. I show you Document L-21, which was submitted to the
Tribunal in the course of the last few sessions. This
document bears, as you see, the following heading: At the
top on the left, "The Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year
Plan. The General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of
Labour". On the top in the right hand corner, "Berlin SW11,
Saarland Strasse 96 ". It is dated 26th November, 1942, and
comes, therefore, from Sauckel's offices. Is that right?

A. This document comes from the General Plenipotentiary for
the Employment of Labour, that is, from Sauckel's office.

Q. Thank you. Did you represent Sauckel at the conferences
of the Central Planning Board for the Four-Year Plan?

A. I represented him, or I went with the Plenipotentiary to
take part in the sessions. Not always, but frequently.

Q. When you represented him there, you received instructions
before going there, did you not?

A. When we had to go to larger and more important
conferences, we heard through Thuringia House that there
were sessions and we received directives as to how we were
to represent the General Plenipotentiary for the Employment
of Labour at the session.

Q. And when you came back from these meetings, you gave
Sauckel a report on them, did you not?

A. After the sessions, we either reported the results of the
conference to him personally, or through his personal
representatives.

Q. Sauckel then had to take the responsibility for the
declarations you made at the various meetings? Is that
right?

A. As an official, it was always my duty to make sure when I
made reports in a session and to ascertain -

Q. That is not what I asked. Will you answer my question?
You received instructions before the conferences began; you
reported to Sauckel afterwards what happened at these
conferences, so Sauckel was responsible for what was
discussed there, was he not?

A. If I might be allowed to explain about this -

THE PRESIDENT: Is not that really a matter of law, not a
matter of evidence?

M. HERZOG: Yes, of course, Mr. President.

BY M. HERZOG:

Q. You declared a short while ago that the conversations at
which you had been present in Paris were of a friendly
nature. Do you remember taking part in the conference of
12th January, 1943?

A. At the moment I cannot remember just from the date
whether I took part, but I could tell from the subject of
the discussion whether I was present or not.

Q. I submitted Document Bog to the Tribunal the day before
yesterday; it contains the minutes of this conference. In
the course of the conference, Laval, amongst other things,
said to Sauckel:

  "It is no longer a question of a policy of collaboration,
  it is rather on the French side, a policy of sacrifice,
  and on the German side, a policy of constraint. We can
  take no political measures without everywhere coming up
  against German authority which has substituted ours. I
  cannot guarantee measures which I have not taken. It is
  not possible for me simply to be the advocate for the
  German measures of constraint".

Do you think that those are friendly remarks?

                                                  [Page 239]

A. I did not understand the words -

Q.  - "of a friendly nature." You said that these
conversations were friendly. I have given you an extract
from the contents of these conversations. Do you still say
that they were friendly?

A. I can only confirm the spirit of the negotiations I took
part in. I do not recognize these statements in the form you
give them to me.

Q. If you had known them, would you still have said that
they were friendly conversations?

THE PRESIDENT: He was not there. He just said that he did
not know about it. We can judge for ourselves whether the
tone of it is friendly.

BY M. HERZOG:

Q. You stated earlier that you had no knowledge of forced
deportations.

A. I said that I knew of no forced deportations under the
authority of the GBA, and I do not know of any.

Q. Do you remember a conference held on 15th and 16th July,
1944, at the Wartburg, which you attended, and at which
Sauckel and a number of other chiefs of Gau Labour Offices
and people who worked with Sauckel were also gathered
together?

A. At the Wartburg there was a conference of the presidents
of the Gau Labour Offices. I was there for this conference.

Q. Do you remember having spoken there?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember the statements you made about recruiting
methods?

A. I do not recall that so well, no.

Q. I will now show you Document 810 which I submitted to the
Tribunal yesterday as Exhibit RF-1507. The Tribunal will
find the extract I want to submit to the witness on Page 10.

You were speaking of the conferences which the General
Plenipotentiary for Labour was having with the Army about
its co-operation in compulsory recruiting, and you said:

  "The Fuehrer has approved the use of measures of coercion
  to the fullest extent."

Do you deny that you knew that workers were being recruited
for forced deportations?

A. I ask for a moment's time. I have not yet found the
place. It was not shown me before.

These are notes made by someone present, presumably the
military commander of Paris. I do not have my statements on
this question at hand, but I imagine that the General
Plenipotentiary in view of the difficult

Q. Will you please look at Page 8, paragraph 4?

A. Page 8, yes.

Q. Under paragraph 4, on Page 8:

  "As regards the Employment of European Labour and the
  problems, methods, and means for the same, Timm made the
  following remarks:
  
  (1) Northern Europe. (2) South-East. (3) Italy. (4)
  France."

Then we come to the passage about which I am asking you for
an explanation, because you made this statement. Will you
answer that? Do you still deny your knowledge of the fact
these deportations were forced?

A. I have no intention of denying anything. I can only say
that Sauckel probably had authority from the Fuehrer to use
all reasonable means of stimulating the influx of workers.

Measures were introduced and carried out in France which,
even if they were approved by Laval, the Premier at the
time, might, nevertheless, be termed compulsory.

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