Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-144.02
Last-Modified: 2000/03/28

Q. Are those the only things which happened daily in a
normal administration, or were there other catastrophic
things reported?

A. Such things as you call catastrophic, Doctor, did not
come to my knowledge, because if they had, I should still
remember them now.

Q. Who supervised the execution of the orders, and how did
that come to your knowledge or how should that have come to
your knowledge?

A. Various agencies were concerned with supervising the
occupations of foreign workers. There were five or six
different agencies, especially the German Labour Front,
which, on the basis of a so-called Fuehrer decision, claimed
for itself the question of the treatment and care of foreign
worker's. And I may mention in this connection that it
repeatedly said this assignment was given to it by means of
an order through the General Plenipotentiary for the
Employment of Labour to the German Labour Front, so that to
a certain extent it was bound by a higher authority to carry
out this task of caring for and controlling the treatment.
On this fundamental question, there were repeated
conversations between the office of the GBA and the German
Labour Front. And these later led to an agreement according
to which all these questions were entrusted by the GBA to
the German Labour Front. To settle these matters, the German
Labour Front established a Central Inspection which had the
task of looking after foreign workers throughout the whole
Reich. In addition to this Central Inspection, there was
also the Office for the Employment of Labour within the
German Labour Front.

Q. We will come to that in a minute.

                                                  [Page 233]

A. Yes.

Q. What connection was there, then, between Sauckel's office
and this Central Inspection of the Labour Front? How was the
connection established?

A. In the first place, a man from the German Labour Front
worked as liaison man in Sauckel's technical staff.

Q. Who was that?

A. That was Herr Hoffman. And in the second place, the
Central Inspection for the German Labour Front constantly
had conferences on their inspection activities to which an
official of the GBA was invited.

Q. This liaison man, Hoffman, presumably reported on what he
heard from the Labour Front?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he report?

A. The things which he reported covered the same ground as I
told you about previously.

Q. The German Labour Front already had this task before
Sauckel's office was set up?

A. The German Labour Front was of the opinion, and, as I,
for several -

Q. (Interposing.) Witness, you must answer me. The German
Labour Front had this task before Sauckel came?

A. Yes.

Q. Did it consider that its authority was restricted by the
fact that Sauckel was appointed?

A. I was just about to explain that it considered its
assignment a general, comprehensive one; and when the newly
appointed Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour
occupied himself so intensively with these matters, it did
see in this a certain encroachment on its task.

Q. And was this agreed upon between Ley and Sauckel?

A. Yes.

Q. At whose instigation was this agreement reached?

A. As far as I can recall, the suggestion can be traced to a
wish of the German Labour Front.

Q. And what was the aim?

A. Of course, I can only give my personal opinion. I believe
that the aim was in any case to express the general
competency of the German Labour Front in these questions.

Q. Who presented the agreement, Sauckel - ?

THE PRESIDENT: Have we not the agreement between Sauckel and
Ley?

DR. SERVATIUS: It was submitted by the prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: If we have it, we do not want to have his
personal recollection of it, do we?

DR. SERVATIUS: The witness goes back too far. I would like
to know who suggested it and drew it up, and when it was
signed. There are two dates at the foot of this document as
far as I remember to-day.

M. HERZOG: Mr. President, the document which is being
mentioned now was handed in to the Tribunal. It is No.
1913-PS.

DR. SERVATIUS: It is in my Document Book, in the first
Document Book, Page 79. In the English Book it is Page 74.
It can be found here in the first text -

THE PRESIDENT: What are you after? There is no use in
getting the evidence of a witness who said he does not
remember in detail about it, about a document which we have
got before us. It does not seem to me to be in the least
useful to know who suggested that the agreement should be
entered into.

                                                  [Page 234]

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q. There were still other inspections. For example, the
Gauleiter was an authorized agent for the Employment of
Labour. To what extent did the Gauleiter report things which
occurred in their Gaue to the office for the Employment of
Labour.

A. The Gauleiter were appointed by the General
Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour, by virtue of
his Regulation No. 1, to be his authorized agents, with the
task of applying themselves precisely to this question.

Q. What did they report?

A. I do not know of any written reports from the Gauleiter
on this question; at least, not to any extent worth
mentioning. Hardly any written reports from the Gauleiter
came in on this question; at least, not to our agency.

Q. On this occasion, I should like to clear up the question
of the position the Gauleiter held as authorized agents for
the Employment of Labour in relation to the Gau Labour
Offices. Was the Gauleiter chairman of the Gau Labour
Directorate, and what relation did they have to each other?

A. In administration and matters of personnel, the president
of the Gau Labour Office was undoubtedly subordinate to the
General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour, or to
the Reich Labour Minister. But the General Plenipotentiary
had made it the duty of the presidents of the Gau Labour
Offices to keep close contact with the Gauleiter and to make
constant reports on the things which occurred in their
sphere of work, especially if there should be any tension or
difficulties in the Gau, and to turn to the Gauleiter for
aid.

Q. If I understand you correctly, the Party as such had
nothing to do with the actual utilization of labour itself?

A. I believe so. If the question is to be considered in that
way, I would say that the appointment of a General
Plenipotentiary emphasized the political aspect of the
Employment of Labour and that the Gauleiter, who changed
from time to time, concerned himself, to a greater or lesser
extent, with the questions of the employment of labour.

Q. As an organ for care and control?

A. Yes, for all questions concerning the employment of
labour.

Q. Witness, you will understand that your testimony
concerning your knowledge of the events submitted by the
prosecution is received with great scepticism. Did you not
unofficially hear and see things which, if they did not come
to your attention officially, certainly should have given
you cause to investigate them more thoroughly?

A. Of course, one heard here and there of cases where
foreign workers were allegedly ill-treated in some way, As
far as such things came to my attention, I always considered
them official matters and made out a report accordingly or
had them attended to. In such cases, the necessary
investigations were made immediately and everything
necessary was done to clear up the matter.

Q. Were these individual cases not symptoms of conditions as
a whole?

A. I do not believe so. At any rate, events which one might
call catastrophic never came to my attention. As I have
already said, they were nearly always only things which were
connected with the question of treatment, that is to say,
housing, clothing, and so forth.

Q. What was the production and the morale of the workers?

A. The production of foreign workers varied. The production
of the Eastern workers was especially good. In general,
because of this production, the demand for Eastern workers
was great. The production of the French workers was very
good too, especially the skilled workers -

Q. That is enough. Now, I must come back again to your
connections with the Occupied Territories. Did you take part
in negotiations with agencies in occupied territories?

                                                  [Page 235]

A. Not in the East; a few times I went on trips in the West
with the General Plenipotentiary and took part in the
negotiations.

Q. Were you with him once when he visited General
Falkenhausen?

A. Yes, I was present at the negotiations.

Q. Of what nature were these negotiations as far as the
atmosphere was concerned? Were they tense, were they
friendly, or what were they like?

A. The conferences with General Falkenhausen at which I was
present were, in general, comparatively short. I had the
feeling that the two gentlemen did not care for each other -

THE PRESIDENT: What does it matter whether they were tense
or friendly or short?

DR. SERVATIUS: General Falkenhausen made an affidavit which
was submitted here in which he said that Sauckel gave him
orders and dealt with him in a manner which induced him to
offer strong opposition.

THE PRESIDENT: If you want to contradict Falkenhausen's
affidavit, you can put it to the witness, if that's what you
are trying to do.

DR. SERVATIUS: I do not have it here at the moment. I will
pass that question.

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q. You were in France?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you present at negotiations with the French
authorities?

A. I was present at negotiations with Laval, who was Premier
at that time.

Q. Of what nature were these negotiations?

A. One can really say that the negotiations were carried on
in a very friendly manner.

Q. Did the French not offer any complaints?

A. Individual complaints were brought up. I recall that the
complaints were especially about the question of wages.

Q. I should like to ask you whether complaints about
treatment, the methods of recruitment, coercive measures,
and such - like - whether complaints were ever made about
these things?

A. No, I do not remember any complaints of this sort. I
should certainly be able to call them to mind if there had
been any.

Q. I have a few more questions concerning Sauckel's relation
to the Central Planning Board and to Speer. You yourself
repeatedly represented Sauckel at the Central Planning
Board. Is that correct?

A. Yes, several times.

Q. What was the attitude of the Central Planning Board
towards Sauckel?

A. The Central Planning Board was a department of the
Four-Year Plan. Its task, as far as the GBA was concerned,
was to collect the demands for workers made by the big
employers and to adjust these demands at regular sessions.
Since the General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of
Labour could not judge the importance of the supply of
workers needed by the various industries, this question was
decided in the Central Planning Board. An attempt was made,
for certain periods of time, for as long a time as possible,
to work out a balance of workers.

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Sauckel has told us all about this
already, has he not?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Then there is no need to go into it with
another witness.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President.

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q. Do you know Speer's position?

A. Yes.

                                                  [Page 236]

Q. What was Speer's position in regard to Sauckel and vice
versa? Could Speer give Sauckel, in particular, orders?

A. Speer was General Plenipotentiary for Armaments while
Sauckel was General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of
Labour, and Speer held the point of view that he, as
Armament Minister, should have authority in all matters
pertaining to the production of munitions, that is, raw
materials, coal, and thereby also pertaining to the
employment of labour.

Q. Could Speer give Sauckel orders and instructions, or did
he, in fact, give them?

A. Yes, formally. As I just said, the question was not quite
clear, and the two conceptions were always opposed. In
reality, there was always a certain tension between the two
men because the Armament Ministry more or less wanted to
claim the power to issue instructions. The tension was,
generally, cleared up through talks or the exchange of
letters between the two men. Sometimes it led to what one
might call "unification" conferences headed by Lammers, who
was Reich Minister at that time.

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