Fritz Sauckel 2

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: May I remark in this connection that the Envoy Hemmen at the Embassy in Paris dealt with these questions there and they are given correctly. The decisive point is that because of the short term of the contracts, the French workers were changed every 6 months, thus only one half could be here at a time. As an explanation I should like permission to tell the Tribunal that while there was a ratio of 1 to 3—meaning that Germany gave back 1 prisoner of war in return for 3 workers—both the prisoner of war and the French civilian workers who had replaced him for the most part had returned to their own country after 11/ years, as each stayed for only 6 months. It was very hard to win the Führer over to this regulation.

From Max Timm’s IMT Testimony: The Central Planning Board was a branch 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. As the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor could not judge himself the importance of the use made of workers 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.I cannot give the dates of the sessions exactly.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: That is, as I can see, the report or record of a meeting of the Central Planning Board of the spring of 1944. During that year it had become extremely difficult for me to meet the demands of the various employers of labor represented in the Central Planning Board. At no time did I issue directives or even recommendations to "shanghai." In this conference I merely used that word as reminiscent of my days as a seaman, in order to defend myself against those who demanded workers of me, and in order to make it clear to the gentlemen how difficult my task had become, particularly in 1944. Actually, a very simple situation is at the root of this. According to German labor laws and according to my own convictions, the Arbeitsvermittlung (procurement of labor)—the old word for Arbeitseinsatz (allocation of labor)—was a right of the State; and we, myself included, scorned private methods of recruitment. In 1944 Premier Laval, the head of the French government, told me that he was also having great difficulties in carrying out the labor laws where his own workers were concerned.

In view of that, and in agreement with one of my collaborators, Dr. Didier, conferences were held in the German Embassy—the witness Hildebrandt, I believe, is better able to give information about that-with the head of the collaborationist associations, that is to say, associations among the French population which advocated collaboration with Germany. During these conferences at the German Embassy these associations stated that in their opinion official recruitment in France had become very difficult. They said that they would like to take charge of that and would like to provide recruiting agents from their own ranks and also provide people from among their members who would go to Germany voluntarily. Recruitment was not to take place through official agencies but in cafes. In these cafes, of course, certain expenses would be necessary which would have to be met; and the recruiting agents would have to be paid a bonus, or be compensated by a glass of wine or some gin. That way of doing things, naturally, did not appeal to me personally; but I was in such difficulties in view of the demands put to me that I agreed, without intending, of course, that the idea of "shanghai" with its overseas suggestions and so forth should be seriously considered. ... the suggestion was made by the French leaders of these associations.

At that time there had been many attacks on German offices and mixed German-French labor offices. The Director of the Department for the Allocation of Labor in the office of the military commander in France.

President Dr. Ritter, had been murdered. A number of recruiting offices had been raided and destroyed. For that reason these associations who were in favor of collaboration had suggested, for the protection of their own members, that a sort of bodyguard for the recruiting organization should be set up. Of course I could not do that myself because I had neither the authority nor the machinery for it. In accordance with the orders of the military commander, it had to be done by the Higher SS and Police Leader; that is, under his supervision. This was carried out in conjunction with the French Minister of the Interior at that time, Darnand; so as to be able to stand my ground against the censure of the Central Planning Board, I used an example in this drastic form. As far as I know, these hypothetical suggestions were not put into practice.

The actual recruitment of foreign workers was the task of the German offices established in the various regions, the offices of the military commanders or similar civilian German institutions. Several million foreign workers came to Germany voluntarily, as voluntary recruitment was the underlying principle.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: I see that this is another interruption which I made. All I wanted to say by it was that Herr Kehrl's opinion that all workers had come voluntarily was not quite correct. This proportion, which is put down here by the stenographer or the man writing the records, is quite impossible. How that error occurred, I do not know. I never saw the record; but the witness Timm, or others, can give information on that. ...

That is a similarly drastic remark of mine in the Central Planning Board which was never actually followed by an official order and not even by any prompting on my part. It was simply that I had been informed that in several departments in France the prefects or responsible chiefs supported the resistance movement wholeheartedly. Railroad tracks had been blown up; bridges had been blown up; and that remark was a verbal reaction on my part. I believe, however, I was then only thinking of a legal measure, because there did, in fact, exist a French law which made sabotage an offense punishable by death.

I did not deny that there was collaboration. Collaboration is necessary in every regime and in every system. Here we were not concerned with foreign labor only, but chiefly with German labor, even at that period. I did not dispute the fact that work was being carried on; but final decisions were not always made there. That is what I wanted to say.

I did not have representatives in the various administrative departments. I had liaison men, or else the administrative departments had liaison men in my office. The man who was constantly with Speer was not a liaison officer, but the man who talked over with the Minister questions of demand, et cetera, which were pending. As far as I remember it was a Herr Berk. I had no liaison officer with the Reich Minister of Labor. There were two departments in the Reich Ministry of Labor which concerned themselves with these problems in an administrative capacity.

From Speer's IMT testimony: In 1941 I had not yet anything to do with armament; and even later, during the period of Sauckel's activity, I did not appoint these delegates and did not do much to promote their activities. That was a matter for Sauckel to handle; it was in his jurisdiction. In 1943 I demanded in the Central Planning Board that the German labor reserves should be drawn upon, and in 1944 during the conversation of 4 January with Hitler I said the same thing. Sauckel at that time stated—and that can be seen from his speech of 1 March 1944, which has been submitted as a document—that there were no longer any reserves of German workers.

But at the same time he also testified here that he had succeeded in 1944 in mobilizing a further 2 million workers from Germany, whereas at a conference with Hitler on 1 January 1944 he considered that to be completely impossible. Thus he has himself proved here that at a time when I desired the use of internal labor he did not think there was any, although he was later forced by circumstances to mobilize these workers from Germany after all; therefore my statement at the time was right.

From Speer’s IMT Testimony: [I was against such violent measures] because through violent measures of that kind a regular allocation of manpower in the occupied countries would not have been possible in the long run. However, I wanted production to be regulated and orderly in the occupied countries. Measures of violence meant to me a loss of manpower in the occupied countries, because there was the danger that these people would in increasing numbers take to the woods so as not to have to go to Germany, and thus strengthen the lines of the resistance movements. This, in turn, led to increased acts of sabotage and that, in turn, to a decrease of production in the occupied countries.

Therefore, time and again the military commanders, and the commanders of the army groups, as well as myself, protested against large-scale measures of violence as proposed. ...

I was especially interested in labor recruitment from France, Belgium and Holland-that is, countries in the West- and from Italy, because, beginning with the spring of 1943, the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor had decreed that mainly workers from these regions were to be assigned for war production. On the other hand, the workers from the East were mainly to be used for agriculture, for forestry, and for the building of railroads. This decree was repeatedly stressed to me by Sauckel, even as late as 1944.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: I was responsible to the Four Year Plan and to the Führer, and I had instructions from the Führer to meet the requirements of Reich Minister Speer as far as it was possible for me to do so. At all events Speer agreed, or he demanded, that workers should be put at his disposal. Sometimes, however, we did not entirely agree as to how it should be done; for instance, we did not agree about the protected factories in France.

It did happen that, contrary to my instructions, labor transports were stopped, or transferred to other regions or to other factories. But whether the order always emanated from Herr Speer, or from an armament commission, or from another office, I do not know. It was not always from the same quarter. [I previously testified that the original destination of these transports was sometimes changed in order to satisfy the demands of Speer's offices]; but I meant by that something rather different. In that case I was informed about it. There were two kinds of changes, or deviations: those which I did not know about, and those which were agreed upon.

The red ticket system was applied when there was a demand for workers, mostly specialized or skilled workers, which had to take priority over all other demands because the work was necessary. The red ticket system was applied to the armament industry. That was a system which, in my opinion, was always intended to meet emergencies; there were variations, such as lists or red tickets. Originally, there were only lists, and the red ticket was added by decree. I should like to emphasize particularly that this red ticket system did not apply only to foreign workers; it applied especially to German workers too-German fulfilled workers. It applied to foreign workers as welt if they were specialists and declared their willingness. A factory was "blocked" if it was manufacturing articles which were not essential for war, or if it was a question of so-called luxury articles.

Sperrbetriebe were factories which worked for Speer in France, which had been agreed to by the French Minister Bichelonne, and they were blocked as far as labor recruitment was concerned. I asked Speer and I urged him, but I could not succeed in putting an end to the blocking of these factories. I was very insistent with Hitler about it, but I had no success. I did not ask for a general extension of my powers, but I asked that conditions should be allowed to remain as they had been previously, for—I ask to be permitted to explain this to the Tribunal—my task was to bring workers from France to Germany—may I make this statement:

The departments under Speer demanded skilled workers from me. There skilled workers already in the factories which Speer had blocked. Similar industries in Germany would, of course, be worse off if instead of having skilled French workers they were supplied with unskilled French workers, or men without experience in that particular trade. I had to procure workers in any case, but I considered it wiser for German economy to procure for it the right kind of workers and not workers who were unskilled.

In this German text it says: "In this situation, it is absolutely necessary that I should again have a free hand." That means that I should have a free hand once again, as I had had before the blocked industries were instituted. That is correct, for I was interested in a rational use of labor.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: In those areas where the Wehrmacht exercised jurisdiction I passed on to the military commanders or commanders-in-chief, through the Quartermaster General of the Army, the instructions I received from the Führer. I have no recollection of [asking the military authorities for] troops, but there were labor detachments there. It is true that in areas where there were uprisings or partisan fighting I asked that order be restored, so that the administration which had been disturbed or interrupted could be resumed. [I did not ask for troops to be put] my disposal. It was not my task to bring order to those areas. I explained that it was essential for the fulfillment of my own tasks and that I could only carry them out if proper administration were once more made possible by the establishment of order; it was not for recruiting purposes. I personally did not ask for them. This appears to be the administrative office West; this order is not known to me personally.

As far as this question is concerned I cannot answer precisely, for I personally did not receive this letter. Instead it was sent to Paris, to the office there. This letter is not initialed by me. But in order to clarify my position, I should like to emphasize specifically that I did not demand troops in order to recruit workers. I asked for troops when in certain areas the administrative procedure could not be carried through because of resistance activities, et cetera. In that connection there is an error in this letter of Field Marshal von Rundstedt. But I did not receive this reply myself. It is initialed by the office of the military commander in Paris.

From Speer’s IMT Testimony: Up to the spring of 1943 I completely endorsed them. Up to that time no obvious disadvantages had resulted for me. However, beginning with the spring of 1943, workers from the West refused in ever-increasing numbers to go to Germany. That may have had something to do with our defeat at Stalingrad and with the intensified air attacks on Germany. Up to the spring of 1943, to my knowledge, the labor obligations were met with more or less good will. However, beginning with the spring of 1943, frequently only part of the workers who had been called up came to report at the recruiting places.

Therefore, approximately since June 1943, I established the so-called blocked factories through the military commanders in France. Belgium, Holland, and Italy soon followed suit in establishing these blocked industries. It is important to note that every worker employed in one of these blocked factories was automatically excluded from allocation to Germany; and any worker who was recruited for Germany was free to go into a blocked factory in his own country without the labor allocation authorities having the possibility of taking him out of this blocked factory. ...

After the establishment of the blocked factories, the labor allocation from the occupied countries in the West to Germany decreased to a fraction of what it had been. Before that between 80,000 and 100,000 workers came for instance from France to Germany every month. After the establishment of the blocked factories, this figure decreased to the insignificant number of 3,000 or 4,000 a month, as is evident from Document RF-22. It is obvious, and we have to state the facts, that the decrease in these figures was also due to the resistance movement which began to expand in the West at that time.

From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer: "In the eerie mountain air of the Obersalzberg, from which Hitler was now trying to direct the most crucial battle of the war up to this moment—he had been saying for months that Germany's destiny would be decided in the West—this fantastic order seems to have been issued in all seriousness, concurred in by Jodl and Keitel. Even Rommel, who passed it on by telephone shortly before 5 o'clock that afternoon, an hour after his return from Germany, seems to have taken it seriously.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: I meant [by a Jewish plague of corruption] that it was the outward sign of disintegration within the nations. It was my opinion that disintegration had set in among the nations owing to certain Jewish circles. That was my view.

From Speer's IMT testimony: I had no influence on the method by which workers were recruited. If the workers were being brought to Germany against their will that means, as I see it, that they were obliged by law to work for Germany. Whether such laws were justified or not, that was a matter I did not check at the time. Besides, this was no concern of mine. On the other hand, by application of force and terror I understand police measures, such as raids and arrests, and so on. I did not approve of these violent measures, which may be seen from the attitude I took in the discussion I had with Lammers on 11 July 1944. At that time I held the view that neither an increase in police forces, nor raids, nor violent measures were the proper thing. In this document I am, at the same time, referred to as one of those who expressed their objections to the violent measures which had been proposed.

[I was against such violent measures] Because through violent measures of that kind a regular allocation of manpower in the occupied countries would not have been possible in the long run. However, I wanted production to be regulated and orderly in the occupied countries. Measures of violence meant to me a loss of manpower in the occupied countries, because there was the danger that these people would in increasing numbers take to the woods so as not to have to go to Germany, and thus strengthen the lines of the resistance movements. This, in turn, led to increased acts of sabotage and that, in turn, to a decrease of production in the occupied countries.

Therefore, time and again the military commanders, and the commanders of the army groups, as well as myself, protested against large-scale measures of violence as proposed. I was especially interested in labor recruitment from France, Belgium and Holland—that is, countries in the West—and from Italy, because, beginning with the spring of 1943, the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor had decreed that mainly workers from these regions were to be assigned for war production. On the other hand, the workers from the East were mainly to be used for agriculture, for forestry, and for the building of railroads. This decree was repeatedly stressed to me by Sauckel, even as late as 1944.

During this meeting of 11 July I maintained my point of view. Once again I pointed to Germany's reserves, as becomes apparent from the minutes, and I announced that the transport difficulties should not be allowed to influence production, and that the blocked factories were to be kept up in those territories. Both I and the military commanders of the occupied territories were perfectly aware of the fact that with this the well-known consequences for these blocked factories would be the same as before, that is, that the transfer of labor from the occupied western territories to Germany would be stopped. The minutes of the meeting show, as I said before, that I opposed measures of coercion. I did not see Keitel's actual order.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: The Sperrbetriebe were industries which were the result of an agreement between Reich Minister Speer and, I believe, the French Minister of Economics, Bichelonne. They were industries which worked partly for German armaments and partly for German civilian requirements, and did not come under my offices. The number of workers brought from foreign countries to Germany, according to careful estimates and the records of the statistical department of the Reich Ministry of Labor, might be said to be about 5 million. I did not represent the German economy, and I myself could not decide the extent of the German armament and agricultural programs. ... I did not deny that in the combat area, and for the purpose of maintaining order in the rear areas, these measures were proposed, but they were not carried through. I believe Kaltenbrunner attended [the Berlin July 11, 1944] conference. The meeting had been called by Reich Minister Lammers.

In this connection I met the Defendant Kaltenbrunner on one single occasion during [this] conference—the date of which I cannot at present remember—at the Reich Chancellery with Minister Lammers. I believe it was in 1944. Apart from that, I had no interview of any kind with Kaltenbrunner, nor did I reach any agreements with him on questions concerning the employment of labor. I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the recruitment of workers was no concern of the Police. I must ask my defense counsel to submit the relevant regulations, of which there are numerous specimens available. They prove quite clearly and unequivocally and irrefutably the division of tasks between the Police and my department. In my opinion the Police participated only in cases where the execution of administrative duties was rendered impossible in partisan areas. In White Ruthenia alone 1,500 local mayors were murdered by the partisans. This is seen from the document.

I will tell you exactly what I know about it. There were in the occupied territories of Europe about 1,500 districts—here I mean areas or departments, the Feldkommandanturen, which we in German administration would describe as being the size of a Kreis (district)—and these 1,500 districts contained 1,500 administrative centers staffed partly by local and partly by German personnel. In addition to this personnel, in the territories of the Soviet Union alone, 1,000 Russian workers who were previously employed in Germany were acting as recruiting officers. Now if each of these administrative centers, which would correspond to a German Landkreis and have a population of 40,000 to 70,000 inhabitants, selected in a proper way, examined, and tested five persons daily, that alone would amount to 2 million people a year; a perfectly clear method of administration, such as I ordered, organized, and carried out to the best of my administrative possibilities. I am trying to answer as briefly as possible. I regret that a specialized field is always difficult to understand and calls for explanations; I found it very difficult myself.

Defendant Frick, as Reich Minister of the Interior—I do not know how long he remained in office—scarcely participated at all. As far as I can remember I had discussions with his Reich Ministry of the Interior concerning the most necessary laws to be promulgated within Germany for German workers and the validity of those laws. Apart from that, he had no further part in this task; his work was quite different. To my very great personal sorrow Frick was at that time no longer Reich Minister of the Interior, but Himmler, if I remember correctly.It is, I believe only natural that in every form of government the internal and the general administration should be kept informed of events occurring and should participate as well, and so important a sphere as the employment of human beings calls for many ordinances. I could not possibly issue legal decrees, nor had I authority to do so. I had to submit them to the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich. I could only issue technical directions, and that is quite a different thing altogether.

Those two ministers [Funk and Speer] were heads of the various business enterprises inside German economy which came within the jurisdiction of their ministries. They received their workers, and that was the end of my task. These gentlemen [Frank, Seyss-Inquart, and Neurath ], within the framework of their duties inside their own territories, supported me in issuing decrees and laws, and they themselves attached great importance to the proper and humane drafting of these laws and decrees. I only met Dr. Fritzsche in Germany on one occasion—and that a very brief one—in, I believe, 1945, the beginning of 1945. I never spoke to him at all about my work, nor do I know whether he had anything to do with it. I can only state that I made repeated applications to the Reich Ministry for Propaganda to have my instructions and directives-as contained in the document books submitted by my defense counsel-widely circulated, particularly to the industries and other circles which received these workers.

From Funk's IMT testimony: The achievements of the occupied territories for the joint carrying on of the war were without doubt of great significance. I have always regarded the occupied territories synchronized with the total German economy as one great productive organism for carrying on the war, which would lead to a new order in Europe. Usually the same basic economic principles applied in the occupied countries as in Germany. In 1944 I had statistics compiled to show just how much the occupied countries had produced for the war effort in the 3 years of 1941, 1942, and 1943, and we reached the figure of 90,000 million Reichsmark. That is certainly an extraordinarily high figure, but one must not forget that the currencies of the various countries were converted into Reichsmark. That is, the reduced purchasing power of the various currencies is not expressed in these figures In truth, therefore, the production is lower than these Reichsmark figures might show.

At the same time Germany utilized at least two-thirds of her entire production, that is, about 260,000 million marks worth, for the European war effort, in other words, almost three times as much as the occupied countries. Almost up to the time of the invasion I succeeded, in the case of France, in regulating the financial and monetary system and thus also the economic and social order to such an extent that, at the end of the German occupation, French finances were actually much healthier than German finances, and if it had not been for the circumstances resulting from the elementary impact of the war, France would have been able to construct a healthy monetary system on this basis.

My statistics are confirmed to a certain degree by a document which was submitted here. This is Exhibit RF-22 (Document Number F-515), and deals with the French deliveries to Germany. It is an official report to the French Government about forced labor in France. In this report there are tables on Pages 38, 39, and 40 showing the amount of French deliveries to Germany in proportion to the entire French production. These figures show that out of the entire French production with which we are dealing, in these three years an average of 30 to 35 percent was sent to Germany for the joint war effort. In some fields, and especially those which are necessary for the provisioning of the French population, such as textiles, pharmaceutical supplies, gas, electricity, and so forth, these figures are considerably lower and in some cases amount to only 5 or 6 percent. But as an economist I admit without hesitation that if these matters are not regarded from the point of view of the joint carrying on of the war and the joint economic relationship, a deduction of 35 percent means a lot and must naturally have serious repercussions for the entire economy.

I have no specific figures at hand for the Russian territories. The Ministry of Economics itself was entirely excluded from the war economy of these territories; we merely attempted to allow certain firms or companies to operate in these territories as private enterprises there, that is to say, they were to buy and sell at their own risk. I did not participate otherwise in the management of these regions outside of the fact that I was chairman of the supervisory board of the Continental Oil Company, which operated in these regions in conformity with the provisions of the Four Year Plan and the orders of the Wehrmacht. But I personally, as chairman of the supervisory board, had only to manage the financial affairs of this company.

From Funk's pre-trial interrogation:

Q. When did you lose jurisdiction over coal?

A. It was the middle of 1943.

Q. That was at the time when you became a member of the Central Planning Board, was it not?

A. That was the compensation which I was given for taking away from me the production questions.

Q. But up to the end of 1943, when you say you were in charge of consumer industries, you were in charge of coal as well?

A. Yes, until 1943 the coal came under the Minister of Economics.

Q. So that requirements for coal miners, for example, were part of your responsibility?

A. No, I had nothing to do with miners; that was the concern of the Ministry of Work.

Q. Didn't you have to ask for enough miners to keep up the coal production?

A. Well, of course, if the mines were short of workers or had difficulty with the miners they could come to the Minister of Economy and tell him that they were in difficulty and the Minister of Economy then consulted with the Four Year Plan which is turn would settle the matter with the Minister of Labor.

Q. But you had the responsibility then to insure through the Four Year Plan and Ministry of Labor a steady flow of laborers to work the coal mines that were under your jurisdiction?

A. It wasn't my responsibility, but I had to intervene when the coal industry came to me and complained about the shortage of workers. In that connection I would have to take action.

Q. And what kind of workers did you get for this? Were they all German workers or foreign workers or were some prisoners of war or what?

A. What sort of workers eventually arrived in the mines was no concern of mine. That was decided by the Ministry of Labor and later on by Sauckel, and later on Speer claimed additional authority, but I was in no way connected.

Q. When did you first find out that foreign workers were being brought to Germany to work in the coal mines?

A. That is another very difficult question. I assume that when workers became available in Russia some of them were transferred to the German coal industry.

Q. I want to ask you: when did you first find out that the involuntary--that is, that foreign workers who came against their will were first brought to Germany to work in the coal mines?

A. I can't say that at all, because I have never concerned myself with that question.

Q. When did you first find out that foreign workers were being brought to Germany against their will in any industry?

A. I don't know at all that foreign workers were brought to Germany against their will. That wasn't a task for the Minister of Economy.

Q. I didn't ask you whether it was a task for the Minister of Economy; I asked you when you first knew about it. Do you want the record to stand as it is, that you were probably the only man in Germany that didn't know that workers were brought to Germany against their will?

A. That could have only been after Sauckel was nominated. It was his task. Before that I never heard that workers in large numbers were forcibly transferred to Germany.

Q. Were you ever present in any meeting where the task of Sauckel was defined?

A. No, not which were concerned with the nomination of Sauckel.

Q. I don't mean the nomination of Sauckel; I mean the discussions concerning Sauckel's functions and what the general program was going to be about labor.

A. I believe that the first time that I was present at such discussion was when Speer was already in office.

Q. What discussion are you referring to now?

A. Such as referred to the transfer of foreign workers on a large scale to Germany by Sauckel.

Q. You mean against their will?

A. Well that I don't know. Sauckel never said during such conferences that they were brought in against their will.

Q. But you know? I just want to ask you. This is the first question: we will come to something important later. Certainly you knew that such a large number of people—millions—couldn't be brought to Germany voluntarily?

A. Certainly. Well yes, but you are referring to the statement by Sauckel that they were transferred against their will. That they did not come voluntarily was something, certainly, one would have to assume.

Q. When you were asking for labor on behalf of the coal industry for the Four Year Plan form the Minister of Labor, you knew that among those who would be recruited for those mines would be many who were foreign workers brought involuntarily to Germany?

A. That's right; yes. But there is something else I must say n the connection, that is, that such questions on behalf of the coal mines were made directly by Pleiger to Sauckel and had nothing to do with the Minister of Economy.

Q. But you said a little while ago, did you not—I listened to you very carefully, and it is perfectly clear that you said—that first you had jurisdiction over the mines until late in 1943; second, that the coal mine owners came to you for a labor supply which you in turn would have to request from the Four Year Plan and the Ministry of Labor; is that correct?

A. Yes, until Sauckel arrived and until Pleiger became the chief of coal questions. After that it was done by Pleiger independently.

Q. Leave out the coal situation for the moment. You also required workers for the consumer industries which were under your jurisdiction; did you not?

A. The consumer goods industries were restricted more and more every year. In fact, it has to concede workers to more important industries.

Q. As a matter of fact, you were using German workers for security reasons in war production industries and therefore required a substitution of foreign workers n the consumer industries?

A. Yes; but certainly no foreign workers on a large scale were used in the consumer goods industry at the beginning.

Q. But later? What happened later? Didn't you finally use foreign workers in the consumer industry?

A. Yes, but the consumer goods industry was deprived of every worker they could spare. They were deprived of more workers than any other industry. I fought continually against having to lose these workers from the consumer goods industry.

Q. Wait a minute. When you went on to this Central Planning Board in the Fall of 1943 did you receive copies if the minutes after that?

A. Yes.

Q. As a matter of fact, you were present at many of the meetings, were you not?

A. I only joined the meeting of the Central Planning Board when I required something for my own small sector, that is to say, something to do with sport and consumer goods industries, for example, iron, and I had to fight on each occasion to get just a few thousand tons for my consumer goods industry.

Q. Yes, but during these meetings you attended you heard, did you not, discussions concerning foreign labor?

A. Oh, yes I did.

Q. And you knew from those meeting that the policy was to bring in more and more foreign workers to the Reich against their will?

A. Yes, certainly.

Q. And you never objected to that, I take it?

A. No. Why should I have objected? It was somebody else's task to bring those foreign workers in.

Q. Did you believe it was legal to take people against their will from their home and bring them to Germany?

A. Well, many things happen in wartime which aren't strictly legal. I have never racked my brains about hat. But there is another thing, and that is, that I tried my best to prevent the importation of too many workers from France, for instance, to see their industry at home kept going.

Q. Yes, but what about workers from the East, from the Ukraine, for example; you were interested in getting them into Germany to work, were you not?

A. I personally, no.

Q. But you were in agreement with the general policy?

A. Well that foreign workers should be brought into Germany from foreign countries, that I considered perfectly proper so that war production could continue and increase. But it was never aware that this was illegal.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: I have read the passage (above) and my reply is that the letter, to be sure, is addressed to me, but only for my information, and I had nothing to do with those proceedings either in my office or personally. I have—that was—it has been mentioned already in the case of the Defendant Schirach—that was carried out within those offices, and the Allocation of Labor, as an office was not involved in it. I personally do not remember it. The army recruiting staff Mitte is a term completely unknown to me. I do not know what it was, or whether it was a military or a civil office. It had nothing to do with me. I do not know it.

From Keitel's IMT testimony: I am not aware that the Armed Forces have ever received an order mentioning the rounding-up of workers. I would like to say that I know of no such demand and I have not found any confirmation of it. The conference as such is unknown to me and so are the proposals you mentioned. It is new as far as I am concerned. ...But as far as I know it has never happened. I do not know that such an order was given. According to the record, this is a proposal made by General Warlimont, yes. ...I do not recollect that any order was given in this connection. I gather from the statement by Warlimont that discussions took place.

From Speer's IMT testimony: The minutes of the meeting show, as I said before, that I opposed measures of coercion. I did not see Keitel's actual order. I know that the order was not carried out. To understand the situation, it is necessary to become familiar with the atmosphere prevailing about 20 July. At that time not every order from headquarters was carried out. As the investigations after 20 July proved, at that time in his capacity as Commander, West, Kluge was already planning negotiations with the western enemies for a capitulation and probably he made his initial attempts at that time. That, incidentally, was the reason for his suicide after the attempt of 20 July had failed.

It is out of the question that Field Marshal Kluge, in the military situation in which he found himself, and considering his views, should have given orders for raids and measures of coercion at that moment. The release of the Sauckel-Laval agreement, which was mentioned in this document, had no practical significance, since the blocked factories were maintained, and thus this agreement could not become effective. This was well known to the officials in France, and the best proof for the fact that the order was not carried out is Document RF-22 of the French Prosecution, which shows that in July 1944 only 3,000 workers came to Germany from France. If the military authorities had used measures of coercion, it would have been a simple matter to send a very much larger number of workers than these 3,000 from France to Germany. I must state quite frankly that although I did use my influence to reduce the recruitment of labor or to put an end to measures of coercion and raids, I did not use it to stop the allocation of labor completely.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: I must emphasize here again that I did not dispute that these things had been planned and ordered. I did not dispute that fact, and I should like to emphasize that again. But these measures were not carried through, and I would like to emphasize that also. And besides that, I did not send this telegram. How far the Police carried through their measures in detail, I do not know, but I do know that they carried through some measures on their own accord. I considered both the SD and the Police to be regular and justified institutions, and I had to ask for their help when it was necessary. To support me in my tasks only where an orderly participation or the use of the Police was necessary from an administrative point of view-not for the recruitment of workers as such, but only to remove difficulties or disturbances in administration. On occasions when it was necessary to call in police aid; not in order to carry through the task itself.

Sometimes [in the conferences which I held with the French authorities concerning the recruitment of labor] representatives of the Higher SS and Police Leader were present just as in the case of the French, where the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of the Police was present. I neither demanded that nor proposed it. Standartenführer Knochen was in Paris, and on occasions he was present at these conferences. To my recollection they attended various conferences, but that occurred at the proposal of the military commander, under whose direction these conferences took place.

It is possible that during this conference—or conferences—this question [of discipline to be imposed upon the workers] was discussed. I cannot remember exactly; I did not participate in all the sessions. I did not hear [Dr. Sturm's] statement myself. He gave a specialized report on questions of labor legislation, as it says at the beginning. I am seeing the record for the first time in my life. There were several parallel meetings at the same time. I did not hear it myself, but it stands to reason that some sort of ruling regarding penalties had to be made, as is done in all labor legislation. Perhaps I may read to you from the same document, the beginning:

"Measures regulating the employment of labor and wages are only possible on the basis of a healthy working morale. Regulations of a disciplinary and penal character for securing such morale require unified handling, the details of which will be dealt with at a subsequent meeting of experts on penal law."

That is, of course, not one of my offices. I did not know of this statement, as Sturm, I believe, came from some other department. I do not know whether he belonged to the Ministry of Labor itself, or to some other department; that I cannot say. I did not hear these statements.

From Max Timm’s IMT Testimony: At Wartburg there was a conference of the presidents of the Au labor offices. I was there for that conference. I have no intention of denying anything. I can only say that Sauckel probably had powers from the Führer to use all reasonable means to speed up the procurement 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. As far as I can remember, Gauleiter Sauckel always reported the results of his talks in Paris to the Führer. It is possible that he reported to the Führer the question of recruiting methods which he had discussed with Laval; and it was customary for him, as I have already said in my testimony, always to make sure of the Führer's approval, so, that he did not work against the Führer's ideas.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: The Socialist Deputy August Frohlich was my strongest and most important opponent. He was the leader of the Thüringian Social Democrats and was for many years the Social Democrat Prime Minister of Thüringia. I had great respect for him as an opponent. He was an honorable and upright man. On 20 July 1944, through my own personal initiative, I had him released from detention. He had been on the list of the conspirators of 20 July, but I had so much respect for him personally that, in spite of that, I asked for his release and obtained it. I also had a politician of the Center Party I knew in my home town of Schweinfurt released from detention.

From Inside The Third Reich, by Albert Speer: In my work I preferred "uncomfortable associates to compliant tools." The party, on the other hand, had a deep distrust for nonpolitical specialists. Fritz Sauckel, always one of the most radical of the party leaders, once commented that if they had begun by shooting a few factory heads, the others would have reacted with better performances. For two years my position was unassailable. After the generals' putsch of July 20, 1944, Bormann, Goebbels, Ley, and Sauckel prepared to cut me down to size. I quickly appealed to Hitler in a letter stating that I did not feel strong enough to go on with my job if it were going to be subjected to political standards.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: By German Reich law children under 12 years of age are not permitted to work. Children under 14 are only permitted to work a few hours on the land. I issued decrees or confirmed the laws which were already in existence insofar as they applied to this work. I had nothing whatever to do with this action; and in the index of addresses my name is not mentioned. I do not know of this matter. This was a transaction with which I did not concern myself.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: I should like to remark in this connection that I do not dispute what has just been described. At that time the commander-in-chief was under the stress of battle and the evacuation of the population. But I can testify that after the date of 25 July 1944 these things did not apply any longer, for the withdrawal of German troops was much too rapid; so that this decree, which had been issued by the Führer, was no longer in effect. ... There was a case in the East which Field Marshal Kluge reported to me, where motion picture houses were surrounded by recruiting agents. I considered that catastrophic. The second case was the case of the returning transport, where according to the report—it is called the later report, but I do not remember the number of the document—children are said to have died on the way and been placed outside the train. I considered that catastrophic.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: On my fiftieth birthday in October 1944 I was surprised to get a letter from the Führer through one of his adjutants. In that letter there was a check for 250,000 marks. I told the adjutant that I could not possibly accept it; I was very surprised. The Führer's adjutant—it was little Bormann—the old Bormann, not Reichsleiter Bormann—told me that the Führer knew quite well that I had neither money nor any landed property and that this would be a security for my children. He told me not to hurt the Führer's feelings. The adjutant left quickly and I sent for Demme who was both a colleague and a friend of mine and the president of the State Bank of Thuringia. He was unfortunately refused as a witness as being irrelevant.

The only income I had from my official positions was the salary of a Reich Regent.The salary of a Reich Minister; I cannot tell you exactly what it was. I never bothered about it. It was something like 30,000 marks. I have not saved any money and I never had any property.

From Göring's IMT testimony: When, after 12 January 1945, the Russian offensive pushed forward to the Oder and at the same time the Ardennes offensive had not penetrated, it was then that I was forced to realize that defeat would probably set in slowly. Up to that time I had always hoped that, on the one side, the position at the Vistula toward the East and, on the other side, the position at the West Wall towards the West, could be held until the flow of the new mass produced weapons should bring about a slackening of the Anglo-American air war ...

I knew that enemy propaganda emphasized that under no circumstances would there be negotiations with Hitler. That Hitler did not want to negotiate under any circumstances, I also knew, but not in this connection. Hitler wanted to negotiate if there were some prospect of results; but he was absolutely opposed to hopeless and futile negotiations. Because of the declaration of the enemy in the West after the landing in Africa, as far as I remember, that under no circumstances would they negotiate with Germany but would force on her unconditional surrender, Germany's resistance was stiffened to the utmost and measures had to be taken accordingly. If I have no chance of concluding a war through negotiations, then it is useless to negotiate, and I must strain every nerve to bring about a change by a call to arms ... As long as Hitler was the Führer of the German people, he alone decided whether the war was to go on. As long as my enemy threatens me and demands absolutely unconditional surrender, I fight to my last breath.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: The employment of prisoners of war was quite complicated, because it had to take place in agreement with the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization. The so-called technique of transposition caused me difficulties. Allow me to explain this.

There existed the Geneva Convention, or the Hague Convention, according to which prisoners of war could not be used in armament or ammunition industries. When, however, we spoke of prisoners of war being engaged in the armament industry that meant that so-and-so many German women or workers were transferred to industries in which the Geneva Convention prohibited the use of prisoners of war, and that prisoners of war took their place. That was done in agreement with the offices of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization. The general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization and we ourselves, or the "Arbeitseinsatz" administration, adhered to the rules of the Geneva Convention and several times compiled a catalog of the types of work for which prisoners of war could be used. Also during my time, in 1943 and 1944, a special edition of this catalog was published, and it can be found in the so-called Blue Book.

Certain agreements were made with the French Government, as far as volunteers were concerned, and this applied to a certain extent to Eastern Workers. The offices of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization were solely responsible.

From an affidavit of Sauckel's son, Dieter Sauckel (Sauckel-94): Between 4 and 7 April 1945, approximately, I was present when my father, Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, had a conference in his study. On this occasion the question of the Buchenwald Camp was discussed, and the following was decided: A certain number of guards should remain in the camp until the arrival of the enemy in order to hand the camp prisoners over to them.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: When the mayor of Weimar informed me that they intended to evacuate the camp at Buchenwald and to use the camp guards to fight the American troops, I raised the strongest objections. As I had no authority over the camp, and since for various reasons connected with my other office I had had considerable differences with Himmler and did not care to speak to him, I telephoned the Fuehrer's headquarters in Berlin and said that in any case an evacuation or a transfer of prisoners into the territory east of the Saale was impossible and madness, and could not be carried through from the point of view of supplies. I demanded that the camp should be handed over to the American occupation troops in an orderly manner. I received the answer that the Fuehrer would give instructions to Himmler to comply with my request. I briefly reported this to some of my colleagues and the mayor, and then I left Weimar.

From Sauckel’s IMT Testimony: As far as I can tell you without documents, not counting prisoners of war, there were about 5 million foreign workers in Germany at the end of the war. In 1944 a total of 4 million, including Germans, was demanded. But of these 4 million only 3 million were supplied, and of these approximately 2,100,000 were Germans and 900,000 foreigners. As far as I know and remember there were 5 million foreign workers in Germany at the end of the war. Several million workers returned to neutral and allied and western countries during the war, and they had to be replaced again and again, which was the cause of those new programs which were constantly being made. That is the explanation. Those workers who were already there before my time, and those who were brought in, probably might have reached a figure of 7 million, but during the war there were several millions who returned to their home countries. I maintain that at the end of the war there were, according to my statistical department and as far as I can remember, 5 million workers in Germany, because millions of workers continuously returned. The experts can give you a better answer than I. The contracts with the others were only 6 and 9 months, you see.

I would estimate 7 million [foreign workers altogether were employed in Germany], but I cannot give you the exact figures because I am not sure about the figures before my time. At any rate, there must have been millions who returned home. I can say that only with the reservation that I do not know how many were actually there before my time. That may be correct as a guess, and including all prisoners of war who were assigned for work. You have, however, to deduct the prisoners of war from the civilian workers who were brought into the country.

[Next, Part Five.]


[Part One, Click Here.]

[Part Two, Click Here.]

[Part Three, Click Here.]

[Part Four, Click Here.]

[Part Five, Click Here.]



Twitter: @3rdReichStudies



E-MAIL