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-Fourth Day: Saturday, 1st June, 1946
(Part 3 of 7)

[M. HERZOG continues his cross examination of MAX TIMM]

[DR. SERVATIUS continues his examination of MAX TIMM]

[Page 236]

Q. What was the result of these conferences, these unification conferences.

A. These conferences led to agreements which, as far as I recall, were several times taken down in writing and, in my opinion, led to an increasingly strong influence by the Armament Ministry on the questions concerning the employment of labour.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other counsel want to ask any more questions?

DR. FLAECHSNER: Dr. Hans Flaechsner, Counsel for Speer.


Q. Witness, in connection with your last statement, I should like to ask one question. You have testified to tension between the defendants Sauckel and Speer because Speer claimed the right to give instructions. Do I understand you correctly, if I assume that the tension arose from the fact that Sauckel energetically disputed this right to issue instructions?

A. As I wanted to express in my last answer, the difference consisted in the fact that Speer, as General Plenipotentiary for Armaments said: "I must have control of all the things which belong to actual manufacture. So it is essential for me as regards the direction of labour assignments - "

Q. I understand that, witness, my question is only, did this tension arise from the fact that Sauckel emphatically refused to recognize this right to issue instructions which you say was claimed by Speer?

A. As General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour, Sauckel felt himself competent and responsible for all questions concerning the employment of labour.

Q. With regard to the demands of the Armament Ministry which he did not feel he could consider justified, did Sauckel not hold the point of view that he was responsible only to the Fuehrer?

A. I do not remember anything so definite. He was General Plenipotentiary for -

THE PRESIDENT: Surely this is very far removed from anything we have to deal with. He says that the tension was cleared up by conferences. What more is there to discuss?


Q. Witness, you spoke of conferences which are supposed to have taken place with Minister Lammers. In the minutes of the session of 11th July, 1944, and of 4th January, 1944, which have been previously submitted here, there is no mention at all of such differences. I would be grateful to you, if you could tell me what sessions with Lammers you have in mind?

[Page 237]

A. Unfortunately, I cannot give the dates of the sessions exactly. I know only that the General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour several times wished to report these conditions to the Fuehrer and that the two men, as far as I can remember, agreed that these questions should be discussed with the Fuehrer, but then, in order to avoid always taking things to the Fuehrer, they agreed to have matters talked over with Reich Minister Lammers.

Q. You cannot give any details about that?

A. Only if . . . I recall, for example, that the question of "blocked industries" in France was discussed.

DR. FLAECHSNER: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution wish to cross-examine the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION of witness Max Timm:


Q. Witness, were you a member of the National Socialist Party?

A. Yes.

Q. From what date on?

A. In 1933 I applied for admission. First, my application was refused and, as far as I can remember, in 1934 or 1935 it was approved. .

Q. Were you a member of the SA organization?

A. I was a member of the SA for a short time. Then I left the SA when proceedings for my expulsion were instituted against me, and I resigned.

Q. Were you a member of the SS?

A. No.

Q. What were your functions up to the time you entered Sauckel's office?

A. I was employed in that branch of the Reich Ministry of Labour where they had the Employment Agency, the office for vocational guidance and the agency for apprenticeship.

Q. When did you first meet Sauckel?

A. As far as I can remember, I saw him for the first time when he visited State Secretary Syrup in the Reich Labour Ministry and the individual officials were introduced to him.

Q. At what time did this take place?

A. I cannot give the date exactly. I believe it was about a few weeks after the appointment of Sauckel as Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour.

Q. What was your position at the time when Sauckel was appointed General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour?

A. I was in the Department of the Employment Service and Unemployment Compensation - the department of the Employment Service -

Q. And at the end, what was your position?

A. At that time I was a Ministerial Counsellor in the Reich Labour Ministry

Q. Will you tell me where Sauckel's offices were in Berlin.

A. I did not understand the question.

Q. Will you tell me where Sauckel's offices were in Berlin?

A. In Berlin Sauckel himself worked in Thuringia House, while the Experts Section, made available by the Reich Labour Ministry, were in the building of the Reich Labour Ministry in Saarland Strasse 96, and some, after part of the building had been destroyed, were in alternative quarters near Berlin.

Q. Thank you. The offices at Saarland Strasse 96, therefore, came under Sauckel's administration? Is that right?

A. The office Saarland Strasse 96 was not a new office. It was the Reich Labour Ministry. The two sections had been made available by a Fuehrer decree to carry out the tasks of the GBA.

Q. A document entitled "General Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Plan, General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour, Berlin SW 1I, Saarland Strasse 96" therefore comes from Sauckel's offices?

[Page 238]

A. I did not quite understand.

Q. A document which has the following heading: "General Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Plan, General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour - "

THE PRESIDENT: Why not show him the document?


Q. I show you Document L-21, which was submitted to the Tribunal in the course of the last few sessions. This document bears, as you see, the following heading: At the top on the left, "The Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Plan. The General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour". On the top in the right hand corner, "Berlin SW11, Saarland Strasse 96 ". It is dated 26th November, 1942, and comes, therefore, from Sauckel's offices. Is that right?

A. This document comes from the General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour, that is, from Sauckel's office.

Q. Thank you. Did you represent Sauckel at the conferences of the Central Planning Board for the Four-Year Plan?

A. I represented him, or I went with the Plenipotentiary to take part in the sessions. Not always, but frequently.

Q. When you represented him there, you received instructions before going there, did you not?

A. When we had to go to larger and more important conferences, we heard through Thuringia House that there were sessions and we received directives as to how we were to represent the General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour at the session.

Q. And when you came back from these meetings, you gave Sauckel a report on them, did you not?

A. After the sessions, we either reported the results of the conference to him personally, or through his personal representatives.

Q. Sauckel then had to take the responsibility for the declarations you made at the various meetings? Is that right?

A. As an official, it was always my duty to make sure when I made reports in a session and to ascertain -

Q. That is not what I asked. Will you answer my question? You received instructions before the conferences began; you reported to Sauckel afterwards what happened at these conferences, so Sauckel was responsible for what was discussed there, was he not?

A. If I might be allowed to explain about this -

THE PRESIDENT: Is not that really a matter of law, not a matter of evidence?

M. HERZOG: Yes, of course, Mr. President.


Q. You declared a short while ago that the conversations at which you had been present in Paris were of a friendly nature. Do you remember taking part in the conference of 12th January, 1943?

A. At the moment I cannot remember just from the date whether I took part, but I could tell from the subject of the discussion whether I was present or not.

Q. I submitted Document Bog to the Tribunal the day before yesterday; it contains the minutes of this conference. In the course of the conference, Laval, amongst other things, said to Sauckel:

"It is no longer a question of a policy of collaboration, it is rather on the French side, a policy of sacrifice, and on the German side, a policy of constraint. We can take no political measures without everywhere coming up against German authority which has substituted ours. I cannot guarantee measures which I have not taken. It is not possible for me simply to be the advocate for the German measures of constraint".
Do you think that those are friendly remarks?

[Page 239]

A. I did not understand the words -

Q. - "of a friendly nature." You said that these conversations were friendly. I have given you an extract from the contents of these conversations. Do you still say that they were friendly?

A. I can only confirm the spirit of the negotiations I took part in. I do not recognize these statements in the form you give them to me.

Q. If you had known them, would you still have said that they were friendly conversations?

THE PRESIDENT: He was not there. He just said that he did not know about it. We can judge for ourselves whether the tone of it is friendly.


Q. You stated earlier that you had no knowledge of forced deportations.

A. I said that I knew of no forced deportations under the authority of the GBA, and I do not know of any.

Q. Do you remember a conference held on 15th and 16th July, 1944, at the Wartburg, which you attended, and at which Sauckel and a number of other chiefs of Gau Labour Offices and people who worked with Sauckel were also gathered together?

A. At the Wartburg there was a conference of the presidents of the Gau Labour Offices. I was there for this conference.

Q. Do you remember having spoken there?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember the statements you made about recruiting methods?

A. I do not recall that so well, no.

Q. I will now show you Document 810 which I submitted to the Tribunal yesterday as Exhibit RF-1507. The Tribunal will find the extract I want to submit to the witness on Page 10.

You were speaking of the conferences which the General Plenipotentiary for Labour was having with the Army about its co-operation in compulsory recruiting, and you said:

"The Fuehrer has approved the use of measures of coercion to the fullest extent."
Do you deny that you knew that workers were being recruited for forced deportations?

A. I ask for a moment's time. I have not yet found the place. It was not shown me before.

These are notes made by someone present, presumably the military commander of Paris. I do not have my statements on this question at hand, but I imagine that the General Plenipotentiary in view of the difficult

Q. Will you please look at Page 8, paragraph 4?

A. Page 8, yes.

Q. Under paragraph 4, on Page 8:

"As regards the Employment of European Labour and the problems, methods, and means for the same, Timm made the following remarks:

(1) Northern Europe. (2) South-East. (3) Italy. (4) France."

Then we come to the passage about which I am asking you for an explanation, because you made this statement. Will you answer that? Do you still deny your knowledge of the fact these deportations were forced?

A. I have no intention of denying anything. I can only say that Sauckel probably had authority from the Fuehrer to use all reasonable means of stimulating the influx 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.

[ 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.