The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)
Nuremberg, war crimes, crimes against humanity

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
27th May to 6th June, 1946

One Hundred and Forty-Second Day: Thursday, 30th May, 1946
(Part 2 of 10)

[M. HERZOG continues his cross examination of Ernst Friedrich Christoph Sauckel]

[Page 136]

Q. Yesterday your Counsel submitted a chart showing the general organization of your services and how they were connected with the other organizations of the Reich. You declared that this chart was correct. I would ask you to confirm by saying yes or no, if you think that this chart is correct.

A. According to my own personal recollection, yes.

Q. Have you that chart in front of you?

A. No, I have not.

Q. It is the document which was handed up yesterday by your counsel showing the different -

THE PRESIDENT: Which number chart is it?

M. HERZOG: It is Chart No. 1, indicating how Sauckel's department dovetailed with the other ministerial services.

Q. Will you look at column 6 starting from the left, the column above which there is the name of the defendant Funk? Have you found it?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you go down that column, the third square, representing the armaments inspectors? Is it correct that the armaments inspectors were under the defendant Funk?

[Page 137]

A. Under Funk? Which department do you mean, which division? That is not quite correct. It should be moved a bit to the side. Later it was under Speer. It says Reichsautobahn and Highway Inspectors. Matters like those did not come under Funk. That is a mistake.

Q. Do you see the square beside that one, which connects the General Commission for the Employment of Labour with the direction of the Autobahnen Service. Should it be connected with the Reichsautobahnen? Should it not be with the square above, Inspector of Armaments?

A. Yes; I cannot understand how this mistake could happen in this chart. I did not see this diagram before this. This is the first time I have seen it. I did not know.

Q. And you mentioned it was accurate without having examined it beforehand, is that so?

A. I assumed it to be the same chart as the one which was put before me as complete.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, when I presented this chart yesterday, I mentioned that there might be a few discrepancies. These discrepancies came in when it was being mimeographed. But I did not see the final -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you can ask any questions if you want to in re-examination, but there is no ground for objection to questions which have been put. The questions are perfectly proper.


Q. Defendant, you did take part in the conferences of the Central Office for the Four-Year Plan?

A. Only in part, only when labour problems were being discussed.

Q. Will you please tell the Tribunal what associates of yours accompanied you or represented you at such conferences?

A. That varied - Dr. Timm, Dr. Hildebrandt, Dr. Stothfang, but it varied.

Q. Who among the other defendants were the people who also assisted at those conferences? Can you tell us?

A. I recall with certainty only Herr Speer, who participated in these conferences. That is, of the defendants who are here. Whether Herr Funk actually participated, I really cannot recall any particular meeting. Maybe he did and perhaps not. I am sorry I cannot say.

Q. And the defendant Goering?

A. At the meetings of the Central Planning Board I personally never saw the Reichsmarschall. I do not know whether certain conferences which were held at his place had strictly to do with the Central Planning Board. Some conferences in which he participated took place at Karinhall, but whether they dealt with the Central Planning Board I cannot say. It was not always clear.

Q. But when the defendant Goering and Funk did not take part in these meetings were they not represented there?

A. The Reichsmarschall was represented by Field-Marshal Milch, but whether Reich Minister Funk was represented I cannot remember exactly. He might have been represented by Herr Kehrl or someone else. There were many gentlemen but I did not know all of them personally.

Q. Is it not correct to say that at these conferences of the Central Office of the Four-Year Plan the general decisions about the utilization of manpower were taken by all the people who were present or were represented?

A. In the Central Planning Board no general decisions were made. The demands were voiced there, and since there was nearly always a dispute, the higher levels had to decide. Mostly they were cleared up by the Fuehrer. That happened frequently.

Q. The Central Office of the Four-Year Plan had established a collaboration between you and the people who were present or represented, is that not so?

[Page 138]

A. That collaboration did not originate there, as those questions had been discussed before the formation of this Central Planning Board. The questions had been discussed there, and the demands put in and discussed.

Q. Will you please take Document R-124. It has already been handed to the Tribunal under Exhibit USA 179. You will see therein a declaration which you made at the meeting of 1st March, 1944.

I read:

"My duty towards the Fuehrer - "
A. Will you please tell me the page from which you are reading?

Q. Page 1780. The place is no doubt marked.

"My duty towards the Fuehrer the Reichsmarschall, Minister Speer and you, gentlemen, is clear and I shall fulfil it. A first step has been taken. Already 262,000 new workers have arrived and I hope and I am convinced that I shall obtain most of what has been asked. We will have to decide in which manner the work will have to be distributed according to the needs of German industry, as a whole, and I shall always be prepared to remain in contact with you, gentlemen, to assist the Labour Exchanges and collaborate with you. If there is such a collaboration all will go well."
Therefore, you do not contest the fact that the Central Planning Board did establish collaboration amongst the various services which recruited manpower, because you yourself asked for this collaboration.

A. I did not dispute a collaboration. Collaboration is necessary in every regime and in every system. We were not concerned with foreign labour only but chiefly with German labour, even at that period. I did not dispute the fact that work was being carried on, but final decisions were not always made there.

Q. Is it correct that you appointed delegates to represent you in the various German administrative departments?

A. I did not have representatives in the various administrative departments. I had liaison men in the administrative departments.

Q. Did you .not have such a liaison officer with the defendant Speer, Minister for Armaments and Munitions?

A. The man who was constantly with Speer was not a liaison officer. He talked over with the Minister questions of demands, etc. As far as I remember it was a Herr Berk.

Q. And did you have a liaison officer with the Reich Minister of Labour?

A. I had no liaison officer with the Reich Minister of Labour. There were two branches in the Reich Ministry of Labour which concerned themselves with these problems in an administrative capacity.

Q. In your interrogatory of 12th September, 1945, you said as follows:

M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will find it on Pages 6 and 7 of the interrogation that I have handed to you.


Q. "I had moreover two counsellors who acted as intermediaries between Minister Speer and the armaments industry.

Question: Did this liaison officer establish a connection between your Ministry, Minister Speer and the Ministry of Labour?

Answer: Between my ministry and the Ministry of Labour - "

A. Will you please tell me the page?

Q. Pages 4 and 5. Have you found it?

A. Yes.

Q. "Between my ministry, Minister Speer and the Ministry of Labour - "

THE PRESIDENT: That is surely Page 6, is it not? You said Pages 4 and 5. It is Page 6, is it not?

M. HERZOG: Of the German extract, my Lord.


[Page 139]

Q. "Between myself and Minister Speer and the Ministry of Labour there were two counsellors, Dr. Stothfang and Landrat Berk. They were jurists and experts in national economy. Dr. Stothfang was particularly charged to act as liaison officer with the Ministry of Labour."
Why did you tell me a few minutes ago that you had no liaison officer with the Ministry of Labour?

A. I made it quite clear that there were two divisions or branches in the Ministry of Labour, divisions 3 and 5; this Ministerial Director, Dr. Stothfang, was formerly the personal expert to State Secretary Syrup and in a few isolated cases he had discussions with State Secretary Syrup at my request. But these were insignificant. In general the departments themselves were in touch with the Ministry of Labour.

Q. You confirm, then, that you had a liaison officer at the Ministry of Labour and another in Minister Speer's office?

A. I am confirming that for occasional conferences. But these gentlemen had a fixed post in these departments or they were with me as my personal experts. They were not in this Ministry. I cannot say either whether in this case the translation is correct. I do not remember exactly, but in principle it is correct.

But these gentlemen were with me and not constantly with the Labour Ministry.

Q. And will you please tell the Tribunal what was the "Stabsbesprechung"?

A. "Stabsbesprechung" was a conference of experts on special matters in which the various ministries which demanded workers participated, and at this conference these questions which had to be considered were discussed. I could not act independently, of course, as you have heard.

Q. Who instituted these conferences, this new set-up, these "Stabsbesprechungen"? Who took the initiative in instituting them?

A. These staff conferences were instituted by me in order to obtain a clear conception of all important questions, because in no regime or government in the world can anything be done vaguely.

Q. You confirm then that these various kinds of liaison imply a common responsibility as to decisions taken by each one of you in the matter of manpower?

A. This question is not clear to me technically or administratively, for I could not do anything with the workers. I had to hand them over to other people and I had to discuss the way this was to be done, but these conferences did not take place with the idea of a conspiracy or of a criminal act. These conferences were held in the same way as formerly. I have been present at conferences under a parliamentary system and matters were dealt with in exactly the same way.

Q. That is not what I was asking you. I was asking you whether you confirmed that the existence of these liaison officers to Minister Speer and the Minister of Labour on the one hand, and the existence of this new organization that you created on the other hand, implied a common responsibility in the decisions regarding manpower taken by Minister Speer, the Minister of Labour and by yourself?

A. I cannot answer this question with a definite "no," since demands were put to me, and as a German official I had to fulfil them, and in order to fulfil them I had to hold conferences. It was not possible to do otherwise, for not I personally, but the German economy demanded and used these workers. This matter had to be settled, regardless of whether German or other workers were concerned, and the same situation applied in normal times.

Q. Is it a fact that after the decree appointed you, you were authorized to be represented by special representatives in the military and civil departments of the occupied areas?

A. After 30th October - I cannot state the exact date - at the behest of the Fuehrer, representatives were appointed by me to serve in the Governments in the occupied countries. I mentioned this yesterday through my counsel.

[Page 140]

Q. The 30th October? I think you mean the decree of 30th September. It is a mistake on your part.

A. I am sorry, I do not know the exact date.

Q. Is it right that these representatives, appointed by that decree, were directly subordinate to you?

A. In so far as they were my delegates, they were subordinate to me for passing on orders.

Q. Is it true that they were authorized to give directives to the civilian and military authorities in the occupied territories?

A. That is correct as far as orders are concerned but it is not true generally. It was a technical matter.

Q. Who was your delegate with the occupational authorities in France?

A. The delegate with the occupational authorities in France was, first of all, President Ritter; he was murdered in Paris. And after him, President Glatzel.

Q. Did you have a representative in Belgium?

A. In Belgium I had a delegate by the name of Schulze; he was with the Military Commander.

Q. And in Holland?

A. In Holland there were various men; first of all, Herr Schmidt, and there was another man. I believe his name was Ritterbusch or something like that; but I do not recall the exact name.

Q. This system of representatives with the occupational authorities, was that approved of by defendant Speer?

A. This happened at the request of the Fuehrer and I assume that Speer agreed. I believe he did, as far as I know.

Q. To your knowledge, did he take any initiative in the decree issued by the Fuehrer concerning this matter?

A. Yes. He was present and he recommended it.

Q. In your interrogatory, you said when speaking about these representatives, that Speer instituted these agents for manpower in 1941 or 1942. The Tribunal will find this statement on Page 9 of the excerpts from the interrogatory. What do you think of that phrase?

A. I did not quite understand you.

Q. I shall read an extract of your interrogation of 8th October, 1945:

"Question: What was the mission entrusted to your representatives in the Labour Offices of the Military Governor and of the Civil Governor? Did they merely give technical advice, which could be rejected by the Commander, or did they have authority to give directives to the military commanders on technical questions?"
THE PRESIDENT: On what page is that?

M. HERZOG: Page 9, Mr. President.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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.