Chapter XXX: Book 4: , Page 28 of the English book, and just look at Captain (21)

MR. DODD: Yes, but you were, I suppose, a young man and you were in touch with the Reich Youth organization in 1939 when you joined the General SS. Is that not a fact? Were you not a part of the Youth organization in 1939?

WIESHOFER: No. I was not taken into the Youth Officers Corps until April 1944 when I became Bannführer. Before that I had nothing to do with it.

MR. DODD: Well, I do not think you understand me. It is not too important, but how old were you in 1939? You were 24, approximately, were you not?

WIESHOFER: Yes.

MR. DODD: And were you not then in some way affiliated with the Hitler Youth or the Youth organization in Germany, either as a member, or having something to do with it?

WIESHOFER: No. Neither as a member nor in any other way. Of course I knew Youth Leaders in Carinthia, yes.

MR. DODD: You were quite a speech maker for the Party, were you not, during your lifetime?

WIESHOFER: I spoke at several meetings in Carinthia between April 1938 and May 1940.

MR. DODD: At about how many meetings would you say you spoke in that period of 2 years?

WIESHOFER: During that time I spoke at about 80 meetings.

MR. DODD: Before an average of about, say, 3,000 persons per meeting?

WIESHOFER: I also spoke in very small villages. I would say that the average attendance would be about 200.

MR. DODD: That is all I have.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to re-examine?

DR. THOMA: What were the subjects you talked about at these meetings?

WIESHOFER: Our subject was given to us by the Reich Propaganda Ministry. The meetings were conducted in such a way that every speaker was able to talk on general matters. For instance the subject might have been “With the Führer to Final Victory,” or “Why Welfare for the Nation?” or “Why Winter Relief?” Such subjects were always given.

DR. THOMA: Did you spread Rosenberg’s _Myth of the 20th Century_?

WIESHOFER: No.

DR. THOMA: Did you speak about such subjects?

WIESHOFER: Never; in view of my education I would not have been in a position to do so.

DR. THOMA: Have you ever read this _Myth_?

WIESHOFER: I have not read the _Myth_.

DR. THOMA: Did you speak to youth at these meetings?

WIESHOFER: I did not speak to youth—that is, not particularly to youth.

DR. THOMA: Thank you.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I do not wish to put any questions to the witness; thank you very much.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Witness, did Schirach have any authority to intervene in case of Jews who were being deported from Vienna?

WIESHOFER: He had no authority to do so, but he did it.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many times did he intervene?

WIESHOFER: I cannot recollect a single case where Von Schirach did not intervene when he received a petition.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask that; I asked how many times he intervened.

WIESHOFER: I cannot give you any figure without being inaccurate. It is difficult to say.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did he intervene many times, or a few?

WIESHOFER: No. He intervened often.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you see the order to the Police not to protect aviators? You said it was in writing, did you not?

WIESHOFER: Yes.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Who signed it?

WIESHOFER: The order was signed by Bormann.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And was it distributed to the Police in Vienna?

WIESHOFER: By the Police? If I have understood you rightly, you were talking about the order that Gauleiter must not intervene on behalf of Jews.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No. This was the order about not protecting aviators who had crashed. You said you saw that order, did you not?

WIESHOFER: I did see the order, yes. I can no longer remember whom it came from and to whom it was addressed. It was merely sent to our office for our information. We were not called upon to take any action.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you not know whether or not the Police had a copy of it?

WIESHOFER: Please, will you be good enough to repeat the question?

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you know whether or not the Police in Vienna had copies of the order?

WIESHOFER: That I do not know.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you ever know Himmler?

WIESHOFER: I have seen him.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did he give you any instructions?

WIESHOFER: No.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you get any instructions from the SS?

WIESHOFER: In which way do you mean?

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Any instructions from the SS directly when you were in Von Schirach’s office?

WIESHOFER: No.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): None at all?

WIESHOFER: None at all. I cannot recollect any.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think you said once that Schirach sent a command to save American aviators from the crowd, did you not? Do you not understand?

WIESHOFER: Yes, I understand, and I did say that.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what other efforts did Von Schirach make to protect aviators from the crowd? Did he make any other efforts?

WIESHOFER: Yes.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did he issue any orders to the Police or take it up with the Police?

WIESHOFER: Von Schirach’s opinion was known. In the circles...

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you the opinion. Did he issue any orders to the Police or talk to the Police?

WIESHOFER: I have no recollection of that.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, you would know if he had, would you not?

WIESHOFER: If I had been present when he gave the orders then I would know it, but it is possible that he talked when I was not there.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you say you had access to the secret files?

WIESHOFER: Yes.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What was kept in the secret files?

WIESHOFER: I did not understand the question.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I asked you what was kept, what was put in the secret files, what sort of papers?

WIESHOFER: There were secret files which came from the Supreme Party Headquarters, secret files which came from the Minister of the Interior; there were things which made one wonder why they were called “secret.” But as far as details of these files are concerned, I cannot, of course, today remember them.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I suppose any documents, any reports, that were marked “secret” would be put in those secret files, would they not?

WIESHOFER: Reports from us to higher departments, or do you mean from the top downwards?

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Reports coming in to you.

WIESHOFER: They would then have been filed in the secret archives.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And SS secret reports would go in the secret files, would they not?

WIESHOFER: SS reports did not come to us, because we were not a service department of the SS.

THE PRESIDENT: If you have no questions yourself, Dr. Sauter, then the witness may retire.

DR. SAUTER: No.

[_The witness Wieshofer left the stand._]

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in Schirach’s document book there are still a few documents which, up to now, have not been expressly presented; but I believe it is not necessary to read these documents to you. To save time, I should like, if I may, to refer to the documents and ask you to take judicial notice of them; for instance, of the affidavit of Frau Hoepken, which is incorporated in the document book under Number 3 and which has already been submitted somewhere else.

There is only one document, Mr. President, about which I want to give a very brief explanation. In the Schirach document book, under Number 118(a), there is the farewell letter of the explorer Dr. Colin Ross. With reference to this Dr. Colin Ross, when the documents were dealt with, the Prosecutor said that the body of Dr. Ross had not been discovered. My first reaction was of course surprise, and I made inquiries as to what actually had been done with these bodies and I discovered that in fact on 30 April 1945, the day before the arrival of American troops, the bodies of Dr. Colin Ross and his wife were found in the house of Defendant Von Schirach at Urfeld, on Lake Walchen. They had both first taken poison and then, to be quite sure, Dr. Ross shot his wife and then himself. German soldiers who were still at Urfeld on Lake Walchen as patients at the time then buried the bodies quite close to the house of the Defendant Von Schirach.

In the autumn the American Governor ordered that the bodies were to be transferred to the cemetery, but eventually he rescinded that order and permitted the bodies to remain where they had originally been buried.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, can you indicate in what way you will submit this document has any relevance at all? We have read the document. It does not appear to have any striking relevance.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, we have submitted this document because it is to prove, or at least indicate, that the Defendant Von Schirach, together with this Dr. Colin Ross, continuously worked to maintain peace, and later on to limit the war. Therefore it is submitted only to show that the Defendant Von Schirach worked for peace.

THE PRESIDENT: The document does not mention Von Schirach or in any way indicate that he had worked for peace.

DR. SAUTER: But it says in the document, “We have done everything in our power to prevent this war, or...”

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the word “We” must mean the people who “leave this world by our own will,” namely Dr. Colin Ross and his wife. It does not refer to Von Schirach.

DR. SAUTER: We do not know that. Why should it not also refer to Von Schirach?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, because there is such a thing as grammar. The document begins “We leave this world by our own will.”

DR. SAUTER: As to that, Mr. President, may I remind you that this name, Dr. Colin Ross, has been mentioned very often during this trial in connection with the peace efforts of the Defendant Von Schirach, and that Dr. Colin Ross, together with his wife, was living in Schirach’s apartment when they committed suicide.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, very well, Dr. Sauter, if you wish to draw our attention to it, you may do so.

DR. SAUTER: Thank you. Mr. President, this letter was not really meant for the public; the original of the letter was left behind by Dr. Ross, and a number of carbon copies were sent to personal friends. In this way we found this letter of Dr. Colin Ross. I do not think there is anything else I have to say.

THE PRESIDENT: I have not said anything critical of the letter. If you want to read some sentences of it, read them; if you do not we will take judicial notice of it. As I tell you, we have already read this letter.

DR. SAUTER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I am not stopping your reading a sentence of it, if you want to read a sentence of it.

DR. SAUTER: It is of course not necessary, Mr. President, if you have taken cognizance of it. I have nothing else to say, and at this point I can end my case for the Defendant Von Schirach.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, have you offered in evidence all the documents which are in these books?

DR. SAUTER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Then they will be numbered with the numbers which are in the books.

DR. SAUTER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then we will take judicial notice of them all.

MR. DODD: Well, Mr. President, there is one here which the Tribunal expressly ruled on—the affidavit of Uiberreither. The Defendant Von Schirach was told he would have to present Uiberreither if he were to use this affidavit. He has not been presented here and now the affidavit is being offered. We expressly asked that he be called here if this affidavit was to be submitted to the Tribunal.

DR. SAUTER: I am not making any reference to Uiberreither’s affidavit, and I will forego calling the witness Uiberreither.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Sauter.

MR. DODD: Then the affidavit is not offered?

THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not being offered.

MR. DODD: That is Page 135.

THE PRESIDENT: Then it will not be admitted, and we will adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

MR. DODD: Mr. President, during the presentation of the case involving the Defendant Funk, there was a number of documents that we did not submit in evidence at the time; and I asked the Tribunal’s permission to do so at a later time. I am prepared to do so now if the Tribunal would care to have me.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think it would be quite convenient now.

MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.

The first one is a matter of clarifying the record with respect to it. It is Document 2828-PS. It has already been offered in evidence as Exhibit USA-654. But the excerpt, or the extract, which was read will be found on Page 105 of the document. We cited another page, which was in error. Reference to this Document USA-654 will be found on Page 9071 (Volume XIII, Page 141) of the record.

We also offered our Document EC-440, which consisted of a statement made by the Defendant Funk, and we quoted a sentence from Page 4 of that document. I wish to offer that as Exhibit USA-874.

Then Document 3952-PS was an interrogation of the Defendant Funk dated 19 October 1945. We wish to offer that as USA-875.

I might remind the Tribunal that the excerpt quoted from that interrogation had to do with the statement made by Funk that the Defendant Hess had notified him of the impending attack on the Soviet Union. That excerpt has been translated into the four languages, and therefore will be readily available to the Tribunal.

Then there is also another interrogation dated 22 October 1945. We read from Pages 15 and 16 of that interrogation, as it appears in the record at Page 9169 for 7 May (Volume XIII, Page 214). The document is Number 3953-PS; we offer it as Exhibit USA-876.

We next referred to Document Number 3894-PS, the interrogation of one Hans Posse. We offered it as Exhibit USA-843 at the time, as appears on Page 9093 of the record for 6 May (Volume XIII, Page 158). At that time I stated to the Tribunal that we would submit the whole interrogation in French, Russian, German, and English. We are now prepared to do that, and do so.

Then we have Document 3954-PS. This is an affidavit by one Franz B. Wolf, one of the editors of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_. Reference to it will be found at Page 9082 of the transcript, where we stated that we would have more to say about the reason for the retention of the editorial staff of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_ (Volume XIII, Page 150). That Document, 3954-PS, is also now available to the Tribunal in French, Russian, German, and English; and we offer it as Exhibit USA-877.

Then, Mr. President, a motion picture film was shown during this cross-examination of the Defendant Funk; and the Tribunal inquired as to whether or not we would be prepared to submit affidavits giving its source, and so on. We are now prepared to do so; and we offer first an affidavit by Captain Sam Harris who arranged to have the pictures taken, which becomes Exhibit USA-878. The second affidavit is by the photographer who actually took the picture. We offer that as Exhibit USA-879.

Finally, I should also like to clear up one other matter. On March 25, during the cross-examination of the witness Bohle, witness for the Defendant Hess, Colonel Amen quoted from the interrogation of Von Strempel, as appears in the record beginning at Page 6482 (Volume X, Page 40). We have had the pertinent portions translated into the operating languages of the Tribunal, and we ask that this interrogation, which bears our Document Number 3800-PS, be admitted in evidence as Exhibit USA-880.

I believe, Mr. President, that clears up all of the documents that we have not offered formally, up to this date.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, counsel for the Defendant Sauckel.

DR. SERVATIUS: With the permission of the Tribunal, I will now call Defendant Sauckel to the witness stand.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

[_The Defendant Sauckel took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?

FRITZ SAUCKEL (Defendant): Ernst Friedrich Christoph Sauckel.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[_The defendant repeated the oath._]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, please describe your career to the Tribunal.

SAUCKEL: I was the only child of the postman Friedrich Sauckel, and was born at Hassfurt on the Main near Bamberg. I attended the elementary school at Schweinfurt and the secondary school.

DR. SERVATIUS: How long were you at the secondary school?

SAUCKEL: For 5 years. As my father held only a very humble position, it was my mother, a seamstress, who made it possible for me to go to that school. When she became very ill with heart trouble, I saw that it would be impossible for my parents to provide for my studies, and I obtained their permission to go to sea to make a career for myself there.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you join the merchant marine, or where did you go?

SAUCKEL: First of all I joined the Norwegian and Swedish merchant marine so that I could be thoroughly trained in seamanship on the big sailing vessels and clippers.

DR. SERVATIUS: How old were you at the time?

SAUCKEL: At that time I was 15½.

DR. SERVATIUS: What were you earning?

SAUCKEL: As a cabin boy on a Norwegian sailing ship I earned 5 kronen in addition to my keep.

DR. SERVATIUS: And then, in the course of your career at sea, where did you go next?

SAUCKEL: In the course of my career as a sailor, and during my training which I continued afterwards on German sailing vessels, I sailed on every sea and went to every part of the world.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you come into contact with foreign families?

SAUCKEL: Through the Young Men’s Christian Association, principally in Australia and North America, as well as in South America, I came into contact with families of these countries.

DR. SERVATIUS: Where were you when the first World War started?

SAUCKEL: It so happened that I was on a German sailing vessel on the way to Australia when the ship was captured, and on the high seas I was made prisoner by the French.

DR. SERVATIUS: How long did you remain prisoner?

SAUCKEL: Five years, until November 1919.

DR. SERVATIUS: And did you return home then?

SAUCKEL: Yes, I returned home then.

DR. SERVATIUS: And then what did you do?

SAUCKEL: Although I had finished my training and studies in seamanship required of me, I could not go to sea again and take my examination, since my savings made during those years at sea had become worthless because of the German inflation. There were also few German ships and very many unemployed German seamen, so I decided to take up work in a factory in my home town of Schweinfurt.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you remain in your home town?

SAUCKEL: At first I remained in my home town. I learned to be a turner and engineer in the Fischer ball-bearing factory in order to save money so that I later could attend a technical school, an engineering college.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were you already interested in politics at that time?

SAUCKEL: Although as a sailor I despised politics—for I loved my sailor’s life and still love it today—conditions forced me to take up a definite attitude towards political problems. No one in Germany at that time could do otherwise. Many years before I had left a beautiful country and a rich nation and I returned to that country 6 years later to find it fundamentally changed and in a state of upheaval, and in great spiritual and material need.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you join any party?

SAUCKEL: No. I worked in a factory which people in my home town described as “ultra-Red.” I worked in the tool shop, and right and left of me Social Democrats, Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists were working—among others my present father-in-law—and during all the rest periods discussions went on, so that whether one wanted to or not one became involved in the social problems of the time.

DR. SERVATIUS: You mention your father-in-law. Did you marry then?

SAUCKEL: In 1923 I married the daughter of a German workman I had met at that time. I am still happily married to her today and we have 10 children.

DR. SERVATIUS: When did you join the Party?

SAUCKEL: I joined the Party definitely in 1923 after having already been in sympathy with it before.

DR. SERVATIUS: What made you do it?

SAUCKEL: One of those days I heard a speech of Hitler’s. In this speech he said that the German factory worker and the German laborer must make common cause with the German brain worker. The controversies between the proletariat and the middle class must be smoothed out and bridged over by each getting to know and understand the other. Through this a new community of people would grow up, and only such a community, not bound to middle class or proletariat, could overcome the dire needs of those days and the splitting up of the German nation into parties and creeds. This statement took such hold of me and struck me so forcibly, that I dedicated my life to the idea of adjusting what seemed to be almost irreconcilable contrasts. I did that all the more, if I may say so, because I was aware of the fact that there is an inclination to go to extremes in German people, and in the German character generally. I had to examine myself very thoroughly to find the right path for me personally. As I have already said, I had hardly taken any interest in political questions. My good parents, who are no longer alive, brought me up in a strictly Christian but also in a very patriotic way. However, when I went to sea, I lived a sailor’s life. I loaded saltpeter in Chile. I did heavy lumber work in Canada, in Quebec. I trimmed coal on the equator, and I sailed around Cape Horn several times. All of this was hard work; I ask...

DR. SERVATIUS: Please, come back to the question of the Party.

SAUCKEL: This has to do with the question of the Party, for we must all give some reasons as to how we got there. I myself...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I stated at the beginning of the defendant’s case that we had heard this account from the Defendant Göring and that we did not propose to hear it again from 20 defendants. It seems to me that we are having it inflicted upon us by nearly every one of the defendants.

DR. SERVATIUS: I believe, Mr. President, that we are interested in getting some sort of an impression of the defendant himself. Seen from various points of view, the facts look different. I will now briefly...

THE PRESIDENT: It is quite true, Dr. Servatius, but we have had half an hour, almost, of it now.

DR. SERVATIUS: I shall limit it now.

The Party was dissolved in 1923, and refounded in 1925. Did you join it again?

SAUCKEL: Yes.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you take an active part in the Party or were you just a member?

SAUCKEL: From 1925 on I took an active part in it.

DR. SERVATIUS: And what position did you hold?

SAUCKEL: I was then Gauleiter in Thuringia.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you do that to get work, to earn your living, or for what reason?

SAUCKEL: As Gauleiter in Thuringia I earned 150 marks. In any other profession I would have had accommodations and earned more money.

DR. SERVATIUS: When did you make Hitler’s acquaintance?

SAUCKEL: I met him briefly in 1925.

DR. SERVATIUS: When did you become Gauleiter?

SAUCKEL: I became Gauleiter in 1927.

DR. SERVATIUS: And how were you appointed?

SAUCKEL: I was appointed by letter.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive any special instructions which pointed to secret intentions of the Party?

SAUCKEL: At that time we were very definitely told that under no circumstances should there be any secret chapters or any other secrecy in the life of the Party, but that everything should be done publicly.

DR. SERVATIUS: Who was your predecessor?

SAUCKEL: Dr. Dinter.

DR. SERVATIUS: Why was he relieved of his post?

SAUCKEL: Dr. Dinter was dismissed because he wanted to found a new religious movement within the Party.

DR. SERVATIUS: In 1929 you became a member of the Thuringian Diet?

SAUCKEL: Yes.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were you elected to that?

SAUCKEL: I was elected to the Diet in the same way as at every parliamentary election.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was dictatorship in power there already at the time?

SAUCKEL: That was not possible; the province was governed in accordance with the Thuringian constitution.

DR. SERVATIUS: How long were you a member of the Diet?

SAUCKEL: I was a member of the Diet as long as it existed, until May 1933.

DR. SERVATIUS: How was it dissolved?

SAUCKEL: The Diet was dissolved by a Reich Government decree.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then in 1932, you were a member of the Provincial Government of Thuringia. How did you get into that position?

SAUCKEL: In 1932, in the month of June, new elections took place for the Thuringian Diet, and the NSDAP obtained 26 out of 60 seats.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was any mention made of a dictatorship which was to be aimed at?

SAUCKEL: No, a government was elected according to parliamentary principles.

DR. SERVATIUS: Well, you had a majority in the Thuringian Government, had you not, and you could use your influence?

SAUCKEL: Together with the bourgeois parties, by an absolute majority, a National Socialist government was elected.

DR. SERVATIUS: What happened to the old officials? Were they dismissed?

SAUCKEL: I myself became the President and Minister of the Interior in that government; the old officials, without exception, remained in their offices.

DR. SERVATIUS: And with what did that first National Socialist government concern itself in the field of domestic politics?

SAUCKEL: In the field of domestic politics there was only one question at that time, and that was the alleviation of an indescribable distress which is only exceeded by that of today.

DR. SERVATIUS: In this connection, Mr. President, may I submit two government reports from which I only wish to draw your attention briefly to two passages. One is the report contained in Document Number 96, which shows the activity of the government and its fight against social distress. What is particularly important when you run through it, is what is not mentioned, that is, there is no mention of the question of war or other such matters, but again and again the alleviation of distress is mentioned. And important, too, is the work that was carried out. That is in Document Number 97. In this book, on Page 45, there is a statement of the work undertaken by the government—bridge-building, road-making, and so on—and in no way had this work anything to do with war.

Then I am submitting Document Number 95 from the same period. It is a book called _Sauckel’s Fighting Speeches_. Here, too, the book is remarkable for what does not appear in it, namely preparations for war. Instead it emphasizes the distress which must be alleviated. It becomes clear from the individual articles that these are speeches made during a number of years, which show in a similar way what the preoccupations were of the Defendant Sauckel. It begins in 1932 with a speech dealing with the misery of the time, and ends with the final questions where reference is made once again to the alleviation of social need and the preservation of peace. The Tribunal will be able to read these articles in the document book.

In 1933 you also became Reich Regent of Thuringia. How did you manage to get to that position?

SAUCKEL: I was appointed Reich Regent of Thuringia by Field Marshal Von Hindenburg, who was Reich President at that time.

DR. SERVATIUS: What were the instructions you received when you took up your offices?

SAUCKEL: When I took over my office as Reich Regent I received instructions to form a new Thuringian Government, as the Reich Regent was to keep out of the administrative affairs of a German state...

DR. SERVATIUS: You need not tell us these technical details. I mean what political task were you given?

SAUCKEL: I was given the political task of administering Thuringia as Reich Regent within the existing Reich law and prevailing Constitution, and of guaranteeing the unity of the Reich.

DR. SERVATIUS: And did the words “guarantee the unity of the Reich” mean the overpowering of others, in particular the authorities in Thuringia?

SAUCKEL: No, the authorities remained.

DR. SERVATIUS: Now, you held both the position of Gauleiter and that of Reich Regent. What was the aim of that?

SAUCKEL: Both positions were entirely separate in their organizations. Under the Regent were officials in office, and under the Gauleiter were employees of the Party. Both positions were administered absolutely separately, as is the case in any other state where members of a party are at the same time party officials or leaders and exercise both these functions simultaneously.

DR. SERVATIUS: So you received no order that one position should absorb the other?

SAUCKEL: No, I had no such orders. The tasks were entirely different.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were you a member of the SA?

SAUCKEL: I myself was never an SA man. I was an honorary Obergruppenführer in the SA.

DR. SERVATIUS: How did you receive that appointment?

SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you. It was honorary.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were you appointed SS Obergruppenführer by Himmler?

SAUCKEL: No, the Führer made me honorary SS Obergruppenführer for no special reason and without functions.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were you a member of the Reichstag?

SAUCKEL: Yes, from 1933 on.

DR. SERVATIUS: As a member of the Reichstag, did you know anything in advance about the beginning of the war? Were you informed?

SAUCKEL: I was never informed in advance about the start of the war or about foreign political developments. I merely remember that quite suddenly—it may have been during the days between 24 August and the end of August—we were called to a session of the Reichstag in Berlin. This session was canceled at the time, and we were later ordered to go to the Führer, that is, the Gauleiter and Reichsleiter. But a number had already left so that the circle was not complete. The conference, or Hitler’s speech, only lasted a short time. He said, roughly, that the meeting of the Reichstag could not take place as things were still in the course of development. He was convinced that there would not be a war. He said he hoped there would be some settlement in a small way and meant by that, as I had to conclude, a solution without the parts of Upper Silesia lost in 1921. He said—and that I remember exactly—that Danzig would become German, and apart from that Germany would be given a railway line with several tracks, like a Reichsautobahn, with a strip of ground to the right and left of it. He told us to go home and prepare for the Reich Party Rally, where we would meet again.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any close connections with the Führer?

SAUCKEL: I personally, as far as I know the Führer, had a great deal of admiration for him. But I had no close connection with him that one could describe as personal. I had a number of discussions with him about the administration of my Gau and in particular about the care he wished to be given to cultural buildings in Thuringia—in Weimar, Eisenach, and Meiningen; and later on there were more frequent meetings because of my position as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.

DR. SERVATIUS: We shall come to that later. What connections did you have with the Reichsleiter?

SAUCKEL: My connections with the Reichsleiter were no different from my connections with the Führer. They were of an official and Party nature. As regards personal relationships I cannot say that I had any particularly personal intercourse with anyone.

DR. SERVATIUS: What about your connection with the Reich Ministers?

SAUCKEL: My connection with the Reich Ministers was of a purely official nature and was very infrequent.

DR. SERVATIUS: What about the Wehrmacht?

SAUCKEL: I could not have the honor of being a German soldier because of my imprisonment in the first World War. And in this World War the Führer refused to allow me to serve as a soldier.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have held a number of high positions and offices. You knew the Reich Ministers and Reichsleiter. Will you please explain why you went aboard the submarine at that time?

SAUCKEL: I had repeatedly made written requests to the Führer that I might be allowed to join the Wehrmacht as an ordinary soldier. He refused to give me this permission. So I arranged in secret for someone to take my place and went aboard Captain Salmann’s submarine with his agreement. As a former sailor and now a politician in a high position I wanted to give these brave submarine men a proof of my comradeship and understanding and of my sense of duty. Apart from that I had 10 children for whom, as their father, I had to do something too.

DR. SERVATIUS: I should like now, in a number of questions, to refer to your activities. Were you a member of a trade union?

SAUCKEL: No.

DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know what the aims of German trade unions were?

SAUCKEL: Yes, I do.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were they economic or political?

SAUCKEL: As I, as a worker, came to know them, the aims of German trade unions were political, and there were a number of different trade unions with varied political views. I considered that a great misfortune. As workman in the workshop I had had experience of the arguments among the trade unionists—between the Christian Socialist trade unions and the Red trade unions, between the syndicalist, the anarchist and the communist trade unions.

DR. SERVATIUS: The trade unions in your Gau were then dissolved. Were the leaders arrested at the time?

SAUCKEL: No.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you approve of the dissolution of the trade unions?

SAUCKEL: The dissolution of the trade unions was in the air then. The question was discussed in the Party for a long time and there was no agreement at all as to the position trade unions should hold, nor as to their necessity, their usefulness and their nature. But a solution had to be found because the trade unions which we, or the Führer, or Dr. Ley, dissolved all held different political views. From that time on, however, there was only one party in Germany and it was necessary, I fully realize, to come to a definite decision as to the actual duties of the trade unions, the necessary duties indispensable to every calling and to workers everywhere.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was not the purpose of removing the trade unions to remove any opposition which might stand in the way of an aggressive war?

SAUCKEL: I can say in all good conscience that during those years not one of us ever thought about a war at all. We had to overcome such terrible need that we should have been only too glad if German economic life could have been started again in peace and if the German worker, who had suffered the most during that frightful depression, could have had work and food once more.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did members of trade unions suffer economically through the dissolution?

SAUCKEL: In no way. My own father-in-law, who was a member of a trade union and still is today, and whom I repeatedly asked for information, whom I never persuaded to join the Party—he was a Social Democrat and never joined the Party—confirmed the fact that even when he was getting old and could no longer work, the German Labor Front never denied him the rights due to him as an old trade unionist and by virtue of his long trade-union membership, but allowed him full benefits. On the other hand, the German State—since in Germany old age and disability insurance and the accident insurance, _et cetera_, were paid and organized by the State—the National Socialist State guaranteed him all these rights and made full payment.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were all Communist leaders arrested in your Gau after the Party came to power?

SAUCKEL: No. In my Gau, as far as I know, only Communists who had actually worked against the State were arrested.

DR. SERVATIUS: And what happened to them?

SAUCKEL: The State Police arrested and interrogated them and detained them according to the findings.

DR.. SERVATIUS: Did you have Kreisleiter in your Gau who had been members of a former opposition party?

SAUCKEL: The Party’s activity was recruiting. Our most intensive work was the winning over of political opponents. I am very proud of the fact that many workers in my Gau, numerous former Communists and Social Democrats, were won over by us and became local group leaders and Party functionaries.

DR. SERVATIUS: But were there not two Kreisleiter from the extreme left appointed by you?

SAUCKEL: One Kreisleiter from the extreme left was appointed. Also, besides a number of other leaders, the Gau sectional manager of the German Labor Front had belonged to the extreme left for a long time.

DR. SERVATIUS: How did you personally deal with your political opponents?

SAUCKEL: Political opponents who did not work against the State were neither bothered nor harmed in my Gau.

DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know the Socialist Deputy Fröhlich?

SAUCKEL: The Socialist Deputy August Fröhlich was my strongest and most important opponent. He was the leader of the Thuringian Social Democrats and was for many years the Social Democrat Prime Minister of Thuringia. 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.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you treat other opponents similarly?

SAUCKEL: I also had a politician of the Center Party I knew in my home town of Schweinfurt released from detention.

DR. SERVATIUS: The Concentration Camp of Buchenwald was in your Gau. Did you establish it?

SAUCKEL: The Buchenwald Camp originated in the following manner: The Führer, who came to Weimar quite often because of the theater there, suggested that a battalion of his SS Leibstandarte should be stationed at Weimar. As the Leibstandarte was considered a picked regiment I not only agreed to this but was very pleased, because in a city like Weimar people are glad to have a garrison. So the State of Thuringia, the Thuringian Government, at the request of the Führer, prepared a site in the Ettersburg Forest, north of the incline outside the town.

After some time Himmler informed me, however, that he could not bring a battalion of the SS Leibstandarte to Weimar, as he could not divide up the regiment, but that it would be a newly established Death’s-Head unit, and Himmler said it would amount to the same thing. It was only some time later, when the site had already been placed at the disposal of the Reich, that Himmler declared that he now had to accommodate a kind of concentration camp with the Death’s-Head units on this very suitable site. I opposed this to begin with, because I did not consider a concentration camp at all the right kind of thing for the town of Weimar and its traditions. However, he—I mean Himmler—making use of his position, refused to have any discussion about it. And so the camp was set up neither to my satisfaction nor to that of the population of Weimar.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the administration of the camp later on?

SAUCKEL: I never had anything to do with the administration of the camp. The Thuringian Government made an attempt at the time to influence the planning of the building by saying that the building police in Thuringia wished to give the orders for the sanitary arrangements in the camp. Himmler rejected this on the grounds of his position, saying that he had a construction office of his own and the site now belonged to the Reich.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you visit the camp at any time?

SAUCKEL: As far as I can remember, on one single occasion at the end of 1937 or at the beginning of 1938, I visited and inspected the camp with an Italian commission.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you find anything wrong there?

SAUCKEL: I did not find anything wrong. I inspected the accommodations—I myself had been a prisoner for 5 years, and so it interested me. I must admit that at that time there was no cause for any complaint as such. The accommodations had been divided into day and night rooms. The beds were covered with blue and white sheets; the kitchens, washrooms, and latrines were beyond reproach, so that the Italian officer or officers who were inspecting the camp with me said that in Italy they would not accommodate their own soldiers any better.

DR. SERVATIUS: Later on did you hear about the events in that camp which have been alleged here?

SAUCKEL: I heard nothing about such events as have been alleged here.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the evacuation of the camp at the end of the war, before the American Army approached?

SAUCKEL: 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 Führer’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 Führer 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.

DR. SERVATIUS: The witness Dr. Blaha has stated that you had also been to the concentration camp at Dachau on the occasion of an inspection.

SAUCKEL: No, I did not go to the Dachau Concentration Camp and, as far as I recollect, I did not take part in the visit of the Gauleiter to Dachau in 1935 either. In no circumstances did I take part in an inspection in Dachau such as Dr. Blaha has described here; and consequently, above all, I did not inspect workshops or anything of the sort.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not, as Gauleiter, receive official reports regarding the events in the concentration camp, that is to say, orders which passed through the Gau administrative offices both from and to the camp?

SAUCKEL: No. I neither received instructions for the Buchenwald Camp, nor reports. It was not only my personal opinion but it was the opinion of old experienced Gauleiter that it was the greatest misfortune, from the administrative point of view, when Himmler as early as 1934-35 proceeded to separate the executive from the general internal administration. There were continual complaints from many Gauleiter and German provincial administrations. They were unsuccessful, however, because in the end Himmler incorporated even the communal fire brigades into the Reich organization of his Police.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any personal relations with the Police and the SS at Weimar?

SAUCKEL: I had no personal relations with the SS and the Police at all. I had official relations inasmuch as the trade police and the local police of small boroughs still remained under the internal administration of the State of Thuringia.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did not the Police have their headquarters near you, at Weimar?

SAUCKEL: No, it was the ridiculous part of the development at that time that, as I once explained to the Führer, we had been changed from a Party state, and a state made up of provinces, into a departmental state. The Reich ministries had greatly developed, their departments being fairly well defined, and the individual district departments of the various administrations did not agree among one another. Until 1934 Thuringia had its own independent police administration in its Ministry for Home Affairs. But from that time the headquarters of the Higher SS and the Police Leader were transferred to Kassel, so that Himmler, in contrast to the rest of the State and Party organizations, obtained new spheres for his Police. He demonstrated this in Central Germany where for example the Higher SS and Police Leader for Weimar and the State of Thuringia was stationed in Kassel, whereas for the Prussian part of the Gau of Thuringia—that is to say the town of Erfurt which is 20 kilometers away from Weimar—the Higher SS and Police Leader and the provincial administration had their seat in Magdeburg. It is obvious that we, as Gau authorities, did not in any way agree with such a development and that there was great indignation among the experienced administrators.

DR. SERVATIUS: The question is: Did you co-operate with these offices and did you have a friendly association with the officials in the regime and therefore know what was going on in Buchenwald?

SAUCKEL: On the contrary, it was a continual battle. Each separate organization shut itself off from the others. At such a period of world development this was most unfortunate. For the people it was disadvantageous and it made things impossible for any administration.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was there persecution of the Jews in your Gau?

SAUCKEL: No.

DR. SERVATIUS: What about the laws concerning the Jews and the execution of those laws?

SAUCKEL: These Jewish laws were proclaimed in Nuremberg. There were actually very few Jews in Thuringia.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were there no violations in connection with the well-known events, following the murder of the Envoy Vom Rath in Paris, which have repeatedly become the subject of discussion in this Trial?

SAUCKEL: I cannot recollect in detail the events in Thuringia. As I told you, there were only a few Jews in Thuringia. The Gauleiter were in Munich at the time, and had no influence at all on that development, for it happened during the night, when all the Gauleiter were in Munich.

DR. SERVATIUS: My question is this: What happened in your Gau of Thuringia, and what instructions did you give as a result?

SAUCKEL: There may have been a few towns in Thuringia where a window was smashed or something of that sort. I cannot tell you in detail. I cannot even tell you where or whether there were synagogues in Thuringia.

DR. SERVATIUS: Now one question regarding your financial position.

On the occasion of your fiftieth birthday the Führer made you a donation. How much was it?

SAUCKEL: 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 PRESIDENT: I think it is enough if we know whether he ultimately accepted it or not.

DR. SERVATIUS: Let us drop that question. What happened to the money?

SAUCKEL: Through the president of the State Bank in question the money was placed into an account in the State Bank of Thuringia.

DR. SERVATIUS: What other income did you receive from your official positions?

SAUCKEL: The only income I had from my official positions was the salary of a Reich Regent.

DR. SERVATIUS: How much was that?

SAUCKEL: 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.

DR. SERVATIUS: And what means have you today apart from the donation in that bank account?

SAUCKEL: I have not saved any money and I never had any property.

DR. SERVATIUS: That, Mr. President, brings me to the end of those general questions and I am now coming to the questions relating to the Allocation of Labor.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn.

[_A recess was taken._]

DR. SERVATIUS: To aid the Court I have prepared a plan showing how the direction of labor was managed, which should help to explain how the individual authorities co-operated and how the operation was put into motion.

I will concern myself mainly with the problem of meeting the demand, that is with the question of how the labor was obtained. I shall not concern myself much with the question of the use made of the labor and the needs of industry. That is more a matter for Speer’s defense, which does not quite fit in with my presentation of things. But those are details which occurred in error because I did not go into such matters thoroughly when the plan was being prepared. Fundamentally there are no differences.

If I may explain the plan briefly: At the top there is the Führer, in red; under him is the Four Year Plan; and under that, as part of the Four Year Plan, there is the office of Sauckel, who was Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor and came directly under the Four Year Plan. He received his instructions and orders from the Führer through the Four Year Plan, or, as was the Führer’s way, from him direct.

Sauckel’s headquarters were at the Reich Ministry of Labor. It is the big space outlined in yellow to the left, below Sauckel’s office which is in brown. Sauckel only became included in the Reich Labor Ministry by having a few offices put at his disposal. The Reich Minister of Labor and the whole of the Labor Ministry remained.

In the course of time Sauckel’s position became somewhat stronger, individual departments being necessarily incorporated into his, over which, to a certain extent, he obtained personal power; but the Reich Ministry of Labor remained until the end.

I should now like to explain how the “Arbeitseinsatz” was put into operation. Owing to operations in Russia and the great losses in the winter, there arose a need for 2 million soldiers. The Wehrmacht, OKW, marked in green at the top next to the Führer, demands soldiers from the industries. It is marked here in the green spaces which run downwards below the OKW. The line then turns left downwards to the industries which are marked as having 30 million workers. The Wehrmacht withdraws 2 million workers but can only do so when new labor is there. It was at that moment that Sauckel was put into office in order to obtain this labor.

The number of men needed was determined by the higher authorities through the so-called “Requirements Board,” marked at the top in yellow, which represented the highest offices: the Armaments and Production Ministries, the Ministry of Air, Agriculture, Shipping, Traffic, and so on. They reported their requests to the Führer and he decided what was needed.