Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-143.06
Last-Modified: 2000/03/27

THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the PS number?

GENERAL ALEXANDROV: No, Sir, that is a USSR document.

BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:

Q. There is an addendum, No. 2, to your directive, dated the
8th September, 1942. This addendum is entitled,
"Instructions to housewives on the employment of domestic
workers from the East in urban and rural households". Do you
know this document? This memorandum?

                                                  [Page 197]

A. Yes.

I shall now quote a few excerpts in order to describe the
conditions which you imposed on those Ukrainian women and
girls who had been sent to work on agricultural tasks in
Germany. Please find Section B, "Registration with the
Police, Identification Marks and Supervision". Have you
found that section?

A. No, not yet.

Q. Section B. Have you found it?

A. Page 4?

Q. Section B, dealing with "Registration with the Police,
Identification Marks and Supervision" contains the following
instructions:

  "The Eastern woman worker is obliged to carry the
  identification mark, "Ost", on the right breast of each
  of her outer garments".

A. I have not found it.

Q. You will find it later, that order is included there.

A. Yes, please, but I must be able to follow you.

Q. Have you found it?

A. Yes.

Q. Now paragraph 4. It is entitled "Labour Conditions". It
is written there that "Domestic women workers from the East
employed in the Reich are to work under specific labour
conditions".

We shall see later what these specific German labour
conditions were. Please find paragraph 9, sentence 1, "Time
off". The opening sentence states:

  "No claim to time off exists".

A. Yes, but I must ask you to read on. It says exactly the
same as applies to the German household staff, who also -

Q. I shall now read the whole of paragraph 9 into the
record.

THE PRESIDENT: General, I do not think you should interrupt
him when he is making a legitimate explanation. You should
wait until he has made his explanation, and then draw
attention to anything in the rest of the document that you
wish to. Now, what did you wish to say, defendant?

THE WITNESS: I asked for a further part to be read. There is
a sentence in which it is stated a weekly outing can
nevertheless be granted. May I read the sentence once
more:-.

  "Domestic women workers from the East may, as a matter of
  principle, only move outside confines of the household
  when attending to household matters. However, on a
  probationary basis the opportunity can be granted them
  once a week to remain outside of the household for three
  hours, without employment."

The same also held good for German domestic workers at that
time. "Time off" amounts to the same thing.

Q. Not "a day off". It is written differently here.
"However, if the conduct is good".

A. Yes, in their free time - it is the same thing.

Q. Not in their free time. It is said there: A possibility
may arise, once a week, for three hours to be granted free
from all work, to be spent beyond the confines of the
household. The outing must end before darkness falls, 2000
hours at the latest. So that we are not dealing with a "day
off", but with three hours off. Now find Section 10.

A. But I did not say that. Because of the blackout, this
curfew also applied to German employees during the war.

Q, Now find paragraph 10: "Leave and return to one's native
land". That is the heading of this particular passage. Have
you found it? It is written:

  "Above all, no leave shall be granted. Domestic women
  workers from the East are recruited for an indefinite
  period".

A. I should like to add, in this connection -

                                                  [Page 198]

THE PRESIDENT: General, I think you can pass on from this.
You know - this is not a matter of very great importance.

GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, I should like defendant
Sauckel to explain the discrepancies which have arisen in
his testimony in regard to Document ETs-68, and in regard to
what was written in his directive, issued in 1942, on the
employment of Ukrainian women for domestic service in
Germany. I wish to receive this reply in order to eliminate
the discrepancies which have arisen.

THE WITNESS: I am in a position to answer that question very
precisely.

Q. Yes?

A. This memorandum was not composed by me alone. Quite a
large number of points were introduced at that time by the
Reichsfuehrer SS. Already as far back as the spring of 1943
I succeeded in having these paragraphs altered: the
indefinite period of employment for the women workers from
the East was limited to two years. Furthermore, in a
document which - I believe - my Defence Counsel will also
submit to the Tribunal, it is proved that the revocation of
the restricting conditions, as applied to the Eastern
workers, was the result of my endeavours. I wished to revoke
these conditions in the very beginning, as I correctly
stated in my first answer, so that they became equal to
conditions for other foreign workers and to those for the
German workers.

This was my aim and my conception of my duty, as I performed
it. I was particularly glad to do so for the Eastern
workers, since they were the best workers we had in Germany.

Q. I now go on to the next question. On 18th August, 1942,
you had a meeting with defendant Frank in Cracow. I shall
read out what has been written about this meeting in Frank's
diary. That would be Exhibit USSR 223. It is stated - the
document is bound in calico - under the heading, "Diary,
1942, Vol. III, page 918":

  "I am happy to be able to inform you officially Party
  Member Sauckel, that we have, so far, transported more
  than 8,000 workers into the Reich.
  
  A short time ago you applied for 140,000 more workers.
  Over and above this current figure of 140,000 you can,
  next year, count on a further number of workers from the
  Governor General, for we shall employ the Police for
  recruiting purposes."

Does that tally with the actual facts? Did such a
conversation between you and Frank take place. Has it been
correctly entered in his diary?

A. I cannot possibly confirm an entry which I have never
seen before, and details of which I cannot possibly
recollect. I, therefore, cannot say that all of it is
correct. Those are future possibilities visualised by Herr
Frank. I can, however, on the strength of the documents
before me, say that the employment of Polish civilian
workers

THE PRESIDENT: If you do not remember, why do you not say so
and stop?

BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:

Q. But did he speak to you about resorting to police methods
in the recruitment of manpower, or did he not mention it? Do
you remember this or do you not?

A. I cannot possibly remember this communication which took
place in 1942. Conditions at that time were so utterly
different.

Q. In his activities, where the recruiting of manpower was
concerned, did defendant Funk resort to police measures or
not? Do you know about it?

A. I cannot, from my own knowledge, tell you to what extent
the Governor General solved this problem by the employment
of police forces. Please ask him yourself.

                                                  [Page 199]

GENERAL ALEXANDROV: I am submitting a document to the
Tribunal, Exhibit USSR 469, which describes the methods of
labour recruitment as applied in the territory of Poland.
This document is an official directive, printed by the
"Kreishauptmann" of the Minsk and Warsaw district. It is
dated 2nd February, 1943. This directive was handed to
Kazimir Navak, who was born on 6th May, 1926, and domiciled
in Dyzin, in the Kolbey community. It is written in this
connection that:

  "Pursuant to a compulsory decree governing the
  recruitment of manpower, dated 13th May, 1942
  (Verordnungsblatt GG, Page 22), I direct you to work in
  the Reich."

The following stands at the bottom of this directive page:

  "In case of insubordination..."

THE PRESIDENT: Is this a document you are putting in
evidence now for the first time?

GENERAL ALEXANDROV: This document is being presented for the
first time.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have not got the document - have you
got any copies of it?

GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Yes, it should have been handed to you.
The document, Mr. President, is not included in the Document
Book.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering it now for the first time,
or is it already in evidence?

Did you not hear that?

GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Yes, I hear you, Mr. President. This
document is being presented for the first time.

THE PRESIDENT: We do not seem to have it, anyhow. I mean, I
have not a copy of it.

GENERAL ALEXANDROV: The original document has just been
handed to the defendant, and he has got it. The copies in
German were handed to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: I have it now in German.

BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:

Q. It is stated at the bottom of this directive:

  "Should you disobey this compulsory work order, the
  members of your family (parents, wife, brothers and
  sisters, children) will be placed in a punitive police
  camp and will only be released after you have reported
  for duty. Moreover, I reserve the right to confiscate
  your personal and real property as well as the personal
  and real property of the members of your family. Moreover
  you, in accordance with paragraph 5 of the above-
  mentioned directive, will be punished with confinement in
  prison, or with penal servitude or with internment in a
  concentration camp."

Did you know anything about the application of such methods
for the recruitment of manpower in the territory of Poland
and of the existence of defendant Frank's directives?

A. I can openly and clearly answer that the threat of such
penalties in this form was completely unknown to me and that
I would never have sanctioned it. If I had learned of it, I
would have stopped it immediately. I must, however, beg
permission to tell the Tribunal that this appendix at the
end of the document, regarded as coming from my office, is
incorrect and was not sanctioned by me. The first paragraph
of this document reads correctly and I request permission to
quote it; it is in harmony with German Labour Legislation
and reads:

  "Pursuant to the compulsory service decree, dated 13th
  May, 1942, I engage you for labour in the Reich.

                                                  [Page 200]

  "Your employment in the Reich will fall within the
  framework of properly regulated working conditions, and
  your wages paid according to a regular scale. Wage
  savings can be transmitted regularly by you to your home.
  Close relatives, to whose support you have hitherto been
  contributing substantially, may apply to the labour
  office for special allowances."

GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Was that written at the bottom of the
directive?

THE PRESIDENT: We need not have the details.

BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:

Q. I want to remind you now of certain directives which were
issued in regard to the so-called recruitment of manpower,
directives which were issued by your government
organizations in Germany, and personally by yourself in your
own famous programme. The document is Exhibit USSR 365, and
you wrote the following -

A. I have not got it here.

Q. You will be helped to find it.

Have you been shown the passage which I am now going to read
into the record?

A. Yes.

Q. It is written there:

  "It is therefore unavoidably necessary to exhaust
  completely the man-power reserves now available in the
  conquered Soviet territories. If it is not possible to
  obtain the required number of workers on a voluntary
  basis then steps must be taken immediately to conscript
  them, that is, compulsory engagement."

Did you issue these instructions?

A. I have not found these passages so far. They have not
been pointed out to me properly.

Q. You will at once be shown the passage. Did you ever issue
these instructions?

A. I myself was not able to issue service contracts in the
occupied territories, that had to be done by the territorial
authorities. But by compulsion I did not understand there to
be such penalties threatened to the extent as has been
stated in that one document signed by Bittrich, but
according to the rule and example of German regulations, the
difference is a very substantial one.

Q. Was that what I have just read out to you included in
your programme or not?

A. It says so in my programme... but I have definitely
mentioned that
I was enjoined to do so by the Fuehrer.

Q. Let us proceed. In the letter of 3rd October, 1942,
addressed to Gauleiter Meyer you wrote (this document, No.
017 -PS, will be handed to you in a moment. Please follow me
when I read):

  "I do not underestimate the difficulties connected with
  the execution of the new task, but I am convinced that
  with the ruthless employment of all means - "

(I should like to underline that "all means".)

  "and with the absolute devotion to their task of all the
  participants the new quota can be filled by the date
  fixed."

Did you write that?

A. I wrote that, yes. But I want you to let me give you an
explicit explanation: In all my directives I invariably
demanded the most considerate treatment for the workers;
that has already been proved in the trial. If I now refer to
the ruthless use of all possible means, by this I only mean
the ruthless use of all technical and propagandistic means,
it is because I was told from different sources that such
means were not available there to a sufficient degree. This
is an explanation of the background of this letter.

                                                  [Page 201]

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