The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt//tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-145.02

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-145.02
Last-Modified: 2000/03/29

THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me sufficient if you give us a
group and then tell us what it deals with.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. That is from 50 to 59, omitting Document
56. The questions of wages and charts are included here. One
will have to look at these more carefully if these questions
become important. Therefore, I shall not make any further
specific statements about that now.

Document Book 3 is a group of documents containing legal
orders; Nos. 60-68 refer to medical care. I believe here
also I do not have to go through the documents because they
are of interest only if one studies the subject.

THE PRESIDENT: Give us a group and tell us what it is about
and then we can look at it.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. It deals with medical care and, as I
said, the details are of interest only if the question
becomes important. There is no point in presenting them now.

The next group are speeches made by Sauckel about labour
employment and are contained in the manual. I should like to
refer to one in particular, a speech of 6th January, 1943,
which was made after the conference between Sauckel and
Rosenberg. It says there at the beginning: The
Plenipotentiary for Labour Employment on 5th and 6th

THE PRESIDENT: Which page?

DR. SERVATIUS: It is 204 in my book and in the English text
it should also be 204.

THE PRESIDENT: Probably that 8,000 should be 800.

DR: SERVATIUS: Yes, it should be Boo. I have also mentioned
that document already and read the main parts.

Documents 82 and 83 have also been mentioned already in
their essential parts.

Document 84 is a manifesto which has already been presented
in detail.

Document 85 shows the generally valid and binding principles
pursued by Sauckel, all of them well-known principles. The
main fact is that after 1943 they showed the same tendency
as they had before.

Document 86 is a later speech, a speech of 24th August,
1943, to the presidents of the Gau labour offices. Here
again Sauckel stresses in his speech to the Gau labour
presidents his basic attitude as he has often stated it
here. He adheres to the same attitude on 17th January, 1944.
That is Document 88 - when he again speaks to these
presidents, and stresses:

                                                  [Page 260]

  "The foreign workers have to be treated better and
  better. The reception camps are not to be primitive; they
  must be our invitation card to the workers."

And at the end:

  "The more I do for the foreign labourers working in
  Germany, the better I treat them, the more I influence
  them inwardly, the greater the extent to which their
  production capacity is at my disposal."

And that was shortly - two months - before he succeeded in
putting the remaining foreign workers on an equal footing
with the German workers.

THE PRESIDENT: We have heard the defendant Sauckel explain


THE PRESIDENT: ... that the work was carried on. And will
you tell us where the group of speeches  -how far does the
group go?

DR. SERVATIUS: It is Document 89.

Document 94 I have read already. Documents 95, 96, 97, I
have already read as far as it is necessary. And that brings
me to the end of the presentation of documents.

Now, I should have to mention an affidavit of the witness
Karl Gotz, which is attached to the document book. I submit
it as Exhibit 10, an affidavit by Karl Gotz. This is an
interrogatory which was submitted very early, and therefore
was not very concise, since the details had not become
apparent at this time. Therefore, the witness could not say
anything specific to a number of questions.

Where he did answer the questions, he refers to an
introduction which he wrote, and also in answering the
questions raised by the prosecution, he refers to that
introduction. Therefore, I believe that I can also read this
introduction in so far as necessary. The affidavit is of
20th March, 1946. From the introduction, I should like to
emphasize, on the second page, a conference in Paris. This
witness Gotz was a bank expert in Weimar. He had known
Sauckel before and had worked on his staff of experts. He
had been with him in Paris and had taken part in the
negotiations with Laval. He says here:

  "The negotiations led to an extensive conversation which
  was carried on properly and politely as far as I could
  see. Laval took notice of Sauckel's proposals and agreed
  to accede to his request. But he made counterproposals."

I do not think I have to go into detail, because what was
then negotiated is of minor significance. He said on the
third page:

  "During a later conference in Paris the proceedings were
  similar. Laval had assumed a stiffer attitude, and he
  pointed out the great difficulties which would confront
  the recruitment of additional workers. He emphasized in
  particular that the French labour market should not be
  stripped of its best forces."

I believe I can turn on to Page 4. The witness says there
under 5:

  "My last mission for Sauckel was to determine whether it
  was possible, by means of using all our banking
  connections, to purchase an additional amount of grain in
  Roumania and Hungary (about 50,000 to 100,000 tons was
  the figure given). This grain was to be used as
  additional food for foreign labourers in the form of an
  afternoon snack."

Then he says that that project failed due to circumstances.
He gives a general impression of Sauckel and says briefly:

  "Sauckel approached that task with the energy and vigour
  peculiar to him. He pointed out repeatedly what
  conditions were necessary for the success of the task;
  that it was the major duty of the various offices to see
  to the correct treatment of workers at their place of

Then he described the details:

                                                  [Page 261]

  "Above all, he demanded that foreign workers should not
  have the feeling of being imprisoned in their camps. He
  ordered the removal of all barbed wire fences." He
  continues by saying: "Sauckel said that the workers would
  have to return to their native countries as propaganda

Then the witness gives an important statement about
knowledge of atrocities and bad conditions. I should like to
read from page 6 in order to show what kind of person this
Gotz is. He says:

THE PRESIDENT: What page is your excerpt from?

DR. SERVATIUS: Page 6, or Page 266 of the Document Book, at
the top of the page.



  "I feel also that I should mention that following my
  arrest by the Gestapo after the affair of 20th July,
  1944, Sauckel spoke on my behalf with RSHA
  (Kaltenbrunner?). I cannot say to what extent my release
  from the concentration camp Ravensbruck was brought about
  by this.
  I wish to state further that I did not receive from
  Sauckel any material remuneration, awards or decorations.
  I found it expedient to conceal from him my own inner
  political convictions and my connections with Goerdeler
  and Popitz. In his blind obedience to Hitler, and in
  spite of our old friendship, he would no doubt have
  handed me over to that Gestapo, from which he endeavoured
  to free me in November, 1944."

I have read this in advance and I return now to Page 265,
because the witness, who was then active on Sauckel's staff,
states his position on a question which is of great interest
to all of us. He says:

  "Now that the extent of atrocities in concentration camps
  has become known to me from publications, I try to figure
  out how, from the picture drawn above, conditions can be
  made to tally with the events now brought to light.
  Although I have pondered for weeks I can find no
  explanation for this."

THE PRESIDENT: What page is this? Page 265?

DR. SERVATIUS: Page 265. It is near the top of the page.
Where it is in the English text, I cannot say; but it should
be Page 265.



  "On one side I see the foreign workers, men and women,
  who move freely about in great numbers and associate with
  the German people. (Frenchmen and Belgians, with whom I
  had a personal interest in speaking, were usually happy
  to hear their native tongue and spoke freely, hoped the
  war would soon end and criticized their work, but rarely
  with bitterness.) On the other side appears the wholly
  unbearable picture of the recently revealed mass
  atrocities. One heard that foreign workers were tried and
  sentenced (they were certainly subject to the same
  lawlessness and the same methods of punishment as were
  the natives) but not that mass sentences were imposed.
  But that really had nothing to do with the employment of
  labour. I find it impossible to reconcile what I heard
  and what I saw in those days with the present
  revelations. Either this was a development which took
  place in the last year and a half, when I was not able to
  observe the situation because of my arrest and my
  retirement to the country or else there existed, besides
  the regular pool of foreign workers, a vast concentration
  camp pool. It is also possible that Sauckel was not able
  to view the whole system clearly and was not informed or
  that he deceived himself with his over-all orders and
  oral statements, which I cannot understand."

                                                  [Page 262]

I considered these statements of particular importance,
because the witness supported the men of 20th July, 1944,
and certainly observed carefully, and great importance has
to be attached to his judgement.

As to the questions themselves, Question 1 and Answer 1 I
consider irrelevant; also 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. All of these are
answers which are of minor importance. To question 10 Page

  "Who was responsible for billeting, treatment and messing
  of foreign workers after they had arrived at the place of
  work?", the answer was: " I heard merely that, from the
  moment work was started, the responsibility rested with
  the factory managers (and in most cases with special
  employees under them)."

Question 11 is:

  "What kind of orders did Sauckel issue for the treatment
  of these workers in the factories?"

The witness in his answer refers to the introduction which I
have read. The next questions, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are

Question 18 is:

  "Did Sauckel receive reports about irregular conditions?
  What measures did he take? Do you know of any individual


  "I remember only one case. Sauckel was informed that the
  workers of a certain factory were still housed in a camp
  surrounded by barbed wire. I cannot recollect the name of
  the place or the factory concerned. I heard that he
  ordered the immediate removal of the fence."

Then we come to the questions which are put by the
prosecution. I believe that Question I is not relevant,
because it deals with personal, not official relations to
Sauckel, and how he became acquainted with him as a prisoner
of war.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal thinks that the
prosecution ought to be asked to read anything it wishes to
out of those interrogatories.

M. HERZOG: The prosecution, Mr. President, does not wish to
read any excerpts from this interrogatory.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you know that the witness
Jager is present, do you not?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, he is present.

THE PRESIDENT: You know he is present.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then, with the permission of the Tribunal, I
will call the witness Jager.

DR. WILHELM JAGER, a witness, took the stand and testified
as follows:


Q. Will you state your full name, please?

A. Dr. Wilhelm Jager.

Q. Will you repeat this oath after me:

I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will
speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath.)

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.



Q. Witness, during the war you worked with the firm of Krupp
in Essen in charge of the health of the camps of foreign
workers as a doctor? Is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. Who put you in charge?

                                                  [Page 263]

A. I was appointed by the firm of Krupp which employed me,
when a change in the care of foreign workers was brought
about by the fact that the National Health Insurance Service
had to take it over.

Q. Were you not also appointed by the German Labour Front?

A. No. The contract which the firm of Krupp made with me was
made through the German Labour Front.

Q. If I understand you correctly, you did not conclude the
contract directly with the Labour Front, but you were under
obligations to the German Labour Front, were you not?

A. I have never felt that I had anything to do with the
Labour Front in that respect.

Q. Witness, did you not continuously send reports to the
German Labour Front about the conditions in the camps?

A. That happened only in a few cases as far as I can
remember. I generally sent these reports to the National
Health Insurance Service and to the firm of Krupp.

Q. Did you not also report to the State Industrial
Inspection office?

A. Not always. I reported just a few cases to the health
office of the city of Essen, but only when it appeared
important to me to have the health office informed.

Q. Do you know of the office "Health and National

A. Yes.

Q. With what office was that connected?

A. That was in Essen ....

Q. Not as far as the locality is concerned, but with what
office was it connected? Was it not with the German Labour

A. I cannot say that precisely. I know only that it was a
sub-department of the National Health Insurance Service in

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.