Download the full version of the ebook now at ebookgrade.

com

Geometric computation foundations for design

Wei Zhi

https://ebookgrade.com/product/geometric-
computation-foundations-for-design-wei-zhi/

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookgrade.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing for Mechanical

Design 3E

https://ebookgrade.com/product/geometric-dimensioning-and-tolerancing-
for-mechanical-design-3e/

ebookgrade.com

Bayesian Computation with R Wei Zhi

https://ebookgrade.com/product/bayesian-computation-with-r-wei-zhi/

ebookgrade.com

Foundations of Art and Design 2nd ed. Wei Zhi

https://ebookgrade.com/product/foundations-of-art-and-design-2nd-ed-
wei-zhi/

ebookgrade.com

Foundations of Art and Design 2nd ed. Wei Zhi

https://ebookgrade.com/product/foundations-of-art-and-design-2nd-ed-
wei-zhi-2/

ebookgrade.com
Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing for Mechanical
Design Answer Guide 2e

https://ebookgrade.com/product/geometric-dimensioning-and-tolerancing-
for-mechanical-design-answer-guide-2e/

ebookgrade.com

Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing Applications

Analysis & Measurement Wei Zhi

https://ebookgrade.com/product/geometric-dimensioning-and-tolerancing-
applications-analysis-measurement-wei-zhi/

ebookgrade.com

(Solution Manual) Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing

for Mechanical Design 2nd Edition

https://ebookgrade.com/product/solution-manual-geometric-dimensioning-
and-tolerancing-for-mechanical-design-2nd-edition/

ebookgrade.com

Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing for Mechanical

Design 3E Gene R. Cogorno

https://ebookgrade.com/product/geometric-dimensioning-and-tolerancing-
for-mechanical-design-3e-gene-r-cogorno/

ebookgrade.com
Other documents randomly have
different content
 SAUCKEL: No, I had no branch offices. Two departments of the
Ministry of Labor, 5 and 6, were put at my disposal for the carrying
out of my tasks of an administrative and technical nature.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right. That is enough.
SAUCKEL: There business matters of an administrative nature
were carried on. I ask...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. Now, were the
recruitment offices in the Ministry of Labor?
SAUCKEL: No. In the Ministry of Labor there were...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Never mind. That is all you have
to say.
Where were they, where were the recruitment offices?
SAUCKEL: The recruitment offices were in the occupied
territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I understand that. But under what
office? What administration? What department?
SAUCKEL: The departments for labor were themselves
incorporated in the administration of these territories. That can be
seen very clearly from my Decree 4, for that had been done in the
same manner before I came into office. They were integral parts of
the local administration.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Of the local administration? When
you mentioned the 1,500 district offices, were those the recruitment
offices?
SAUCKEL: Those were the offices in all the various territories
which represented these various administrations on the lowest level,
as I have just mentioned.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You do not answer the question. I
asked you whether they were recruiting offices. Were they recruiting
offices?
SAUCKEL: They were not only recruiting offices, they were the
offices of the territorial labor administration on the lowest level.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So they did administration and
recruiting?
 [There was no response.]
They did recruiting, did they not?
SAUCKEL: I understand that that was one and the same thing.
The recruitment was carried on according to German principles as
part of the administration. Outside the administration recruitment
could not be carried on.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): They were recruiting offices, then?
The answer is “yes,” is it not? They were recruiting offices?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. You should have said that in
the beginning. That is what I wanted to know. Now, I want to know
the relation of your offices to the Party offices. The Gaue and the
Gauleiter worked in co-operation with you as plenipotentiaries,
working with you, did they not?
SAUCKEL: No, Your Honor, that is a mistake. The Gauleiter had
nothing to do with recruiting, that was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait. I said nothing about
recruiting. I asked you the relation of your offices to the Gauleiter.
The Gauleiter co-operated with you in the general program, did they
not?
SAUCKEL: Not in the general program, Your Honor; only in the
program of caring for German and foreign workers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. The Gauleiter, then, had
nothing to do with recruiting; is that right?
SAUCKEL: No; that is right.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right? They looked after
the care and comfort of the men who were recruited, is that right?
SAUCKEL: If they were working in the Reich, yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In the Reich?
SAUCKEL: In the Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did the Gaue outside the Reich in
the occupied territories also work for you, or do you consider that
they were part of the Reich?
[There was no response.]
 Let me ask the question again. I do not think it is very clear.
Certain of the occupied territories had been incorporated into the
Reich, had they not?
SAUCKEL: In the East only the territories Wartheland and West
Prussia were incorporated into the Reich...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now again I am not asking you the
number that was incorporated; I just said certain of the occupied
territories, certain parts of them, were incorporated into the Reich. Is
that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, and when you say the
Gauleiter in the Reich, that includes, does it not, the Gauleiter in
those territories which had been incorporated into the Reich; is that
right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but in this case they could not function in their
capacity as Gauleiter, but only if they were Reichsstatthalter, that is,
only if they had a state administration under them. These were two
entirely separate institutions with different personnel.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did each Gauleiter have a labor
office connected with his Gau, in his Gau?
SAUCKEL: May I ask if you mean all German Gaue, or only
those Gaue of which we have just spoken, Your Honor?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I mean only the Gaue of which we
have spoken. They each had a labor office, had they not?
SAUCKEL: They had a labor administration at the head of which
there was a Gau labor president.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That’s right. That is enough. Now,
do you know the organization of the Gau in the labor administration?
Did they also have a Kreisleiter who attended to the labor work?
SAUCKEL: No, they did not have that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I take it there were no
Ortsgruppenleiter that worked on the labor program, then?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not the case; rather that was a strictly
separate administrative concept...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all right.
 SAUCKEL: But that was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, that is all right.
Now I would like to know a little bit about what you call this
private recruitment. Who appointed the agents who were to do
private recruiting? Who appointed them? Did the employers hire
agents to get workmen for them?
[There was no response.]
Do you know what I mean by private recruiting?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That was done by agents, was it
not?
SAUCKEL: Only in one case: In the year 1944 in France and in
part in Belgium, by way of exception, I permitted agents to act on the
basis of agreements with these French organizations.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Again, Witness, I did not ask you
that at all. You do not listen. I said: Who appointed these agents that
worked as private recruiting agents? Who appointed them?
SAUCKEL: In those countries, the commissioner for labor
allocation appointed them—I myself could not appoint them—
together with the French organizations. That was an understanding,
not a set appointment...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. And they would be paid on, I
think you said, a commission basis; is that right? They would be
paid, in other words, so much per workman? Every workman they
brought in, they would get a fee for that; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes. I do not know the details myself any more, but
for the most part that is correct.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, I take it when you used the
word shanghai, which you referred to and explained, that simply
means private recruiting with force. That is all it means, is it not?
[There was no response.]
That is all it means, is it not? Private recruiting with force?
SAUCKEL: No...
 THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait a minute. Can you
shanghai a man without using force? You do not mean that you
shanghaied them by persuasion? Did you?
SAUCKEL: Yes, for I wanted to recruit these French
associations in just this voluntary, friendly way, over a glass of beer
or wine in a café, and not in the official offices. I don’t mean
shanghai in the bad sense as I recall its being used from my sailor
days. This was a rather drastic expression, but not a concrete
representation of the actual procedure. Never, Your Honor, in France
or anywhere else, did I order men to be shanghaied, but rather...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Oh, I know you did not order it.
That was not my question. You mean that “shanghai” just meant that
you had a friendly glass of wine with a workman and then he joined
up? Was that what you meant?
SAUCKEL: I understood it in that way. I described it to the
Central Planning Board in a somewhat drastic form in order to
answer the demands made of me with some plausible
counterarguments as to the efforts I was making.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why did you object to this private
recruitment? What was the objection to it?
SAUCKEL: In this case I did not object, but it was contrary to
German ideas concerning the procurement of labor. According to
German principles and...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was it contrary to German law?
SAUCKEL: It was against my convictions and contrary to
German laws.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you that. I am not
interested for the moment in your convictions. I said: Was it contrary
to German law? It was, wasn’t it, against law?
SAUCKEL: It was in general contrary to the German labor laws.
As far as possible no private recruitment was to take place. But may
I say as an explanation, Your Honor, that after the workman had
been won over, he nevertheless entered into an obligation on the
basis of a state contract. Thus it must not be understood to mean
that the worker in question came into the Reich without a contract
approved by the state; a contract was granted to him just as it was to
all others.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean, a laborer that was
shanghaied by private agents had the same rights, once he was in
the employment, as anyone else; is that what you mean?
SAUCKEL: The same rights and assurances that everyone else
had.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. Now I am going to
come to another subject for a moment. I simply want to understand
your defense and what your point of view is. Now see if this is
correct. You did no recruiting yourself. The Police did no recruiting.
Your main job was, in the first place, to see that everything was done
lawfully and legally. Was not that right, that was your important
function?
SAUCKEL: That was my endeavor.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In order to do that you had to
arrange to have the proper laws passed so as to have the recruiting
done under the law; that is right, isn’t it? That was your job?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes. And very often those laws—
by the way, those laws were simply decrees, of course. They were
just orders that were signed by the Führer, or by you, or by some of
the ministers. When you say laws, you mean, of course, decrees?
SAUCKEL: The laws in the occupied territories for the
recruitment of manpower had to be decreed by the Führer and
issued by the chiefs in the territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What I mean is, in order to make
this use of foreign labor lawful, you simply had to get certain decrees
signed; that was part of your duty, to get them signed? Now...
SAUCKEL: I did not sign these decrees...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I understand that. I did not say you
signed them. I understand that. You have explained that in great
detail. Now let us see where the Police came in. They had nothing to
do with the recruiting. Once a decree was signed, it became law, did
it not? When a decree was signed, it was law?
 SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And if any man resisted being
brought in as a workman, or did not register, or did not live up to his
contract, he became a criminal. That is right, isn’t it?
SAUCKEL: In this case he violated the law. We did not call it a
crime, but rather an offense.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But he broke the law?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean he did not commit a
crime? Did he or did he not commit a crime? Supposing a man failed
to register when he was told to register for work, was that a crime?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not a crime. We called that an offense
in Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And then when he committed this,
he was then turned over to the Police. Is that right?
SAUCKEL: Not immediately; in the preliminary proceedings he
was told by the local labor office to appear and to report and...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, you explained all that. He
got 3 or 4 days, and then if he did not finally register, for the offense
he was turned over to the Police? Is that right?
SAUCKEL: How that was actually handled in the various
territories I cannot say. It differed greatly, and was in part very lax.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You told us already in your cross-
examination that if a man broke the law that was when the Police
came in. The Police were there simply to see that the law was not
broken. That is right, isn’t it? That was their function?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not my task; that was the task of the
service authorities.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, why do you always say, “it
was not my task”? I did not ask you if it was your task. I am just
talking about the Police; I am not talking about you. Now when those
labor decrees were violated, then it was, at a certain time, that the
Police began to function. Isn’t that right?
SAUCKEL: That would have been the normal way, the correct
way.
 THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Good. Or after the men—let us
say in Paris—were rounded up, if they offered physical resistance,
then the Police had to be called in, had they not? If there was
physical resistance you had to call in the Police, had you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I can say that that was hardly ever reported
to me. In most cases the men were then released. It can be clearly
seen from the lists of the workers’ transports—for instance, in the
year 1944—that of a large program not even 10 percent came to
Germany. Then there was nothing else for us to do but to shanghai.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Please don’t go on. You have
given all that evidence before. I just want to get a picture of the
whole system. Now the Army. I think you said the role the Army
played was where there had been sabotage or resistance in the
occupied territories the Army would have to clean that out, so that
the labor administration could work. That would be right, wouldn’t it?
SAUCKEL: In so-called resistance areas in which the
administration was handicapped by resistance movements, not only
in the field of labor allocation but also in other directions, and the
public safety of German troops could no longer be guaranteed.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I am not interested in other
functions. I am interested particularly in the field of manpower at this
time. So that, for instance, in Poland or Russia, where it was
impossible to recruit people on account of the resistance to the
recruiting or the resistance to the Army, the Army would go in and
help with the recruiting. It would not be unfair to say that, would it?
SAUCKEL: One can say that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. Now, by the way, did
any of these workmen who resisted or who broke the law or who did
not register after 3 days, were they ever tried by a court, or were
they simply handled by the Police if necessary? They were never
tried by court, were they?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you in detail or in general.
Probably there were various ways of handling that. I do not know the
details.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, let us get that in particular.
Did any of your decrees provide for trial by a court of such persons?
 SAUCKEL: No, my decrees did not do that. I was not authorized
to issue such decrees within the territories with regard to court
proceedings, because I was not the competent regional authority.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right. I am not very clear on this
picture of camps. Let us look at that for a moment. There were what
you called, I think, distribution or transition camps, were there not?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you from memory.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, of course not; but do you think
there were more than a hundred?
SAUCKEL: No, I do not think so.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Hardly. But perhaps nearly a
hundred?
SAUCKEL: No, I do not think that is quite correct either.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You could give no figure on that?
SAUCKEL: I assume that perhaps in the Reich there were 30 or
40 transition camps.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In the Reich?
SAUCKEL: In the Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And were those transition camps
also in the occupied territories, or in France?
SAUCKEL: In the occupied territories? Whether there were any
transition camps in France and, if so, how many, that I cannot say. In
the West, along the border, there were reception stations; and in the
East, along the border, there were transition camps which had as
their purpose an additional physical examination, delousing of
clothing, and...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think that is enough. I think you
have answered that enough. Now there were also what you called
the labor training camps. Do you remember, you said there were
also labor training camps?
SAUCKEL: These training camps...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Can’t you say “yes” or “no”?
 SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many?
SAUCKEL: Of that I have no idea...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you have no idea of that?
Maybe 50 or 100?
SAUCKEL: No. I cannot tell you even approximately how many
because I have never received a list. They were not under me.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): To whom were they subordinate?
SAUCKEL: They were subordinate exclusively to the Police, that
is, as far as I know, to Gruppenführer Müller.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I presume that they were
staffed and officered by the SS, as were the other concentration
camps?
SAUCKEL: I have to assume that also, but I cannot say
definitely because I have never seen any such camps.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But that would not be improbable,
would it?
SAUCKEL: No. These camps were subordinate exclusively to
the Police.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): To the Police. Now who went to
the labor training camps? Who was sent to them?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know—I heard very little about that—
people were sent there who in a number of cases had committed
violations of the labor regulations, or of discipline in the factories,
and so on.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. That is fine. Thank
you very much. That is all I want to know about that point. In other
words, people who did not turn up for registration, or who broke their
contracts, were sent for training. Now what was the training? What
does that mean, “training”? How are you trained?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you. I assume that they had to
work. A period of time was provided of from about 8 days to 56 days,
I believe; I cannot say exactly. I also heard about that in this
courtroom for the first time.
 THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, let us get a little more light
on that subject. You see, you were after all, were you not,
Plenipotentiary, so you must have known something about these
matters. There were labor camps as well as labor training camps,
were there not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, and I want to distinguish between them...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I will distinguish. Let me ask you
the question. The labor camps were camps where workmen were
sent and housed who were working in industry; isn’t that right? They
were simply camps where workmen were housed and lived. Is that
right?
SAUCKEL: They were camps where workers were billeted;
where they lived.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right; and labor training
camps were different from the labor camps, weren’t they?
SAUCKEL: They were basically different. The labor training
camps were an institution of the Reichsführer SS; the labor camps,
in which they lived, were set up by the factory or group of factories
where the workers were employed.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So when a man was sent to a
labor training camp, he was not sent simply to labor; he was being
punished, wasn’t he, for having broken the law? That must be right,
is it not?
SAUCKEL: To my knowledge, he came to a labor training camp
in order to be trained to be punctual at work, and at the same time it
was a punishment for his offenses at the factory.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Were there any decrees with
respect to the labor training camps, any regulations?
SAUCKEL: I know of no regulations. They had to be issued by
the Reichsführer SS, by the Chief of Police. I issued no regulations.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So, although part of your duty was
to look after the foreign laborers who were brought over here, that
stopped after they were turned over to the Police, and you had no
more jurisdiction; is that right?
 SAUCKEL: That is right; but in one respect I have to correct
that. I did not have the task of looking after the workers; I merely had
the task of getting workers for the industries. The supervision of the
camps and the care of the workers was in no way my task. I have...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Stop, Defendant, we clearly
understand that. You had practically no executive functions, but you
repeatedly said that you passed decrees—by the hundreds, you said
—for improving the condition of the men. Now, we know that you
didn’t have the job to feed them or to house them; but you did have
one of your main jobs—one of your main jobs was to try to keep
them in as good condition as possible, and that was the reason you
were interested in any complaints. We all understand that, don’t we?
That is correct? One of your functions was to do that, wasn’t it?
SAUCKEL: I had taken over this task; it was not one of the
duties with which I had been entrusted. The complaints with which I
was confronted every day were to the effect that there were not
enough workers available. My task was the direction and the
acquisition of workers, but in my own interest I pointed out the
necessity of caring for the workers and keeping them in good
condition.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see, that was a voluntary job on
your part. It was not part of your duty, but nevertheless you did it.
But, now, let me come a little bit to the workers themselves. I think
we are very clear, or comparatively so, as to the numbers that were
brought in. I want to know how many were voluntary and how many
were involuntary. Now, before you answer that, I mean those
workers who were brought in, not under law, but simply who
volunteered for work of their own accord. There were not very many
of those, I suppose, were there?
SAUCKEL: Yes, there were a great many workers who
volunteered without legal compulsion, as the result of propaganda
and recruitment and because of the fact that in Germany wages and
such things were comparatively high and regulated. There were a
great many workers...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, let us take a look at that.
There came a time when the laws applying to German workers were
applied to workers for foreign countries; is that not true?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I mean, every German had to
work, had he not, under the law? Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is right.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And that law was finally applied to
foreign workers as well, as you just said. Right?
SAUCKEL: That law was also introduced into the occupied
territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. For everyone alike. So that
after that law was introduced, there was no such thing as voluntary
work because after that law was introduced everyone had to work,
had they not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, as far as demands were made for them in the
occupied territories and elsewhere, according to need.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So when you were talking about
involuntary work, that must have applied to the time before that law
was passed? Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, however...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): When was the law passed?
SAUCKEL: That law was introduced at various dates in the late
autumn of 1942. I cannot tell the exact dates in the various
territories, but I should like to say that under this law, as well,
voluntary workers still came voluntarily, to Germany. They...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You are right. If they had not, they
would have gone involuntarily, wouldn’t they?
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why not?
SAUCKEL: Only certain quotas were raised but not all the
workers were demanded for Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then those certain quotas
that were requested would have to have gone involuntarily; right?
SAUCKEL: No. There was also voluntary recruitment carried
out, and that means that among the workers...
 THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait, wait, Defendant. Don’t let us
fool over this. It is quite simple. If there was a law which made it
necessary for men to work when their quotas had been called up,
they had to work, had they not? Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they had to work, in their own countries first of
all, but they also could volunteer to work in Germany instead of
working in their own country. And we attached great importance to
this.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In other words, a man had a
choice of forced labor in an industry in France or in Germany, so in
that sense it was voluntary; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, just two or three more
questions. You have answered clearly, I think. I just want to ask you
about three documents. I think that is all. I am not going into detail.
Do you remember the document known as R-124, which was the
conference on March 1st of 1944? You remember that conference?
Would someone show him the German notes of that, please, if
you have them?
[Turning to the defendant.] Do you remember the conference?
Have you looked at the notes?
SAUCKEL: That was the conference about the Central Planning
Board.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, that is right. Did you look over
those notes?
SAUCKEL: Now?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do they tell about what took place
in substance? In substance, there was an account of the conference,
wasn’t there?
SAUCKEL: Yes, at this moment—I beg to be excused—I cannot
remember the concrete topic of discussion at that conference.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, did you find anything in the
notes, as you read them, over, which you thought in substance was
a great mistake?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell now what subject is meant.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Have you read the notes? Have
you read them?
SAUCKEL: I did not read all the notes about the Central
Planning Board. At that time the notes about the Central Planning
Board were not available to me. Therefore I did not know that notes
were taken about the Central Planning Board.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Don’t go on with all this talk. I
simply asked whether you read them and you said you had not read
them all. That is all we need.
SAUCKEL: No, I have not read them all.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Of the portion that you read, did
you find any mistakes?
SAUCKEL: I found inexact passages, yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Inexact passages?
SAUCKEL: Inaccuracies. For instance, the report of my
interpolation “200,000 to 5,000,000”; that is an utterly impossible
proportion.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Quite. Now, you used one
expression in those notes which I did not understand; and I am going
to ask you what you meant by it. You spoke of your special labor
supply executives. Was that the committee for social peace that you
spoke about yesterday—about a thousand people in it? Do you
remember?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is the same thing? That was
the committee that you said had to be specially trained by the SS, I
think, and by the police in France, or wherever they were used?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By the way, you spoke of them
being armed. Why were they armed? Why did they carry arms?
SAUCKEL: For their own protection and for the protection of
those whom they recruited; they had to have some means of
defense against attacks.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not usually have anything
to do with the Police, did you? Why did you organize this police
corps? Why did you help organize this police corps, an armed police
corps? Why did you do it?
SAUCKEL: That was not an armed police corps in the usual
sense, rather it was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Never mind describing it. We
know what it was. Why did you organize it? I thought you kept away
from police measures.
SAUCKEL: In order to have protection for these people and for
these places which frequently were raided, demolished, or harassed
by the resistance movement.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see what you mean. This was an
organization to protect the recruiting that was going on; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. Now, I just want to ask one
question about another manuscript, 016-PS, dated 20 April 1944,
which was the labor mobilization program. That is the program which
you issued and signed, is it not? You look at it. That is the program
you signed?
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): It is not? I do not know what you
mean.
SAUCKEL: I have not understood you correctly, I believe. I
understood 1944. It was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, no, on 20 April 1942. You
issued the labor mobilization program. Is that the program signed by
you, shown in the Document 016-PS? That is the program, is it not?
SAUCKEL: The program—may I say the following in this
connection: It was a program which did not become effective
immediately...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, please answer the
question. All I want to know is, first, you did issue a mobilization
program, did you not?
 SAUCKEL: That I did, but...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. And that is the one shown
in that exhibit, is it not? I am simply identifying it.
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. I wanted to ask you a little
bit about bringing the youths of the occupied territories into the
Reich. Certain of the youths were brought in, were they not?
SAUCKEL: Youths were brought in, but against my...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Against your desire, you said.
How many were brought in?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot possibly say from my own knowledge.
I do not know. There were youths...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, what were the ages? How
young were they?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot say either—what age the youths were
—because they were with their families who came into the Reich as
a result of refugee measures or the evacuation of other localities.
Then another time, in connection with the so-called “Hay Action” in
1944, youths came to the Reich, but without my having anything to
do with it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You know there were young
adolescents, of course, young adolescent children, do you not? You
know that, do you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What was the purpose of bringing
them in? Were they recruited for labor, or were they to be trained in
the Reich and educated?
SAUCKEL: There are various explanations for the fact that
youths were brought into the Reich. Some of these youths were not
recruited or brought in by agents; rather they came with their
families, at the latter’s wish, when refugee and evacuation measures
were carried out. Others came...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. We will leave out
the ones that came with the families. Some were recruited for labor,
were they not? Some for work, were they not?
 SAUCKEL: Youths under the legal age of 14 years could not be
brought in for work. By agreements, such as can be found in the
documents, other offices brought youths in to train and care for
them.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You just do not answer the
questions. I asked you whether some were brought in for work.
Children over 14, who were still under 20, were brought in for work,
were they not—recruited for work?
SAUCKEL: But only volunteers were brought in.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Only volunteers were brought in?
SAUCKEL: Youths were supposed to be brought in only as
volunteers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not recruit any youth
involuntarily; you mean that?
SAUCKEL: I did not.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I do not mean you personally; I
mean the administration.
SAUCKEL: No, the labor administration was not supposed to
bring in any youths, especially girls, by compulsion; only voluntarily.
Domestic servants were only volunteers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Some were brought in to be
educated in Germany and to become German citizens, were they
not?
SAUCKEL: That I found out from the documents; but I was not
responsible for that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not know about that
before? Did anyone advise you that it was in accordance with
international law to force people in occupied countries to come to
Germany to work?
SAUCKEL: I was expressly urged by the Führer to take that
measure, and it was described to me as admissible. No office raised
any objections to or had any misgivings about this measure; rather it
met with the requirements of all offices.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you that. I asked you
whether anybody advised you that it was in accordance with
international law.
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You knew, did you not, that the
Foreign Office had to consider such matters?
SAUCKEL: I spoke with the Foreign Office on various occasions
and this was found to be in order, because we were convinced that
in these territories, on the basis of the terms of surrender, the
introduction of German regulations was permissible and possible
under the conditions prevailing and in view of existing agreements.
That was my belief.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you say that you were advised
by the Foreign Office that you were entitled under international law to
force people to come from Russia to work in Germany?
SAUCKEL: The Foreign Office never told me anything to the
contrary; but the Foreign Office, I believe, was not competent for
questions concerning the East: I do not know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Whom did you ask for advice on
the subject?
SAUCKEL: I found these regulations in existence before I took
office. These regulations had already been issued. The Führer
expressly charged me to carry them out.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then, the answer is that you
asked nobody? Is that right?
SAUCKEL: I did not ask anybody. I could not ask anybody,
because all offices wanted these measures and accepted them.
There was never any discussion to the contrary.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And did you say that it was not the
task of the Police to enforce recruiting for labor?
SAUCKEL: It was not the task of the Police to carry out
recruitment.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, why did you say at the
conference on 4 January 1944, which is reported in the Document
1292-PS, that you would do everything in your power to furnish the
requested manpower in 1944; but whether it would succeed
depended primarily on what German enforcement agents would be
made available, and that your project could not be carried out with
domestic enforcement agents? Does that not mean that the Police
would have to enforce your recruitment programs?
SAUCKEL: No, it means—the reproduction of these minutes is
not very exact—I explained to the Führer that I probably would not
be able to carry out his program because there were very large
partisan areas; and as long as these partisan areas were not cleared
up, so that a regular administration could be established there, no
recruitment could take place there either. First of all, therefore,
normal administrative conditions would have to be established again.
That could be done only by those organs whose task it was.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you mean by German
enforcement agents?
SAUCKEL: By German enforcement agencies I meant the
normal administration as such, but in some territories that was too
weak.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then, why was it that the
Reichsführer SS explained that the enforcement agents put at his
disposal were extremely few, if those enforcement agents were not
police agents?
SAUCKEL: I did not understand the question correctly in the first
place. The Reichsführer, I believe, said—according to my
recollection—that for the pacification of these areas he did not have
troops enough because they were all at the front. That did not refer
to the recruitment and management of compulsory labor, but to the
re-establishment of normal conditions in these areas.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well then, are you saying that it
was not the task of the Police to help you in recruitment, but that it
was the task of the military?
SAUCKEL: That differed greatly depending on the various
regulations in the territories. There were areas in which the military
commanders had the sole executive power, and there were areas in
which civilian authorities had the executive power on the German
side. There was a third kind of area, military operational zones with
rear areas, in which the commanders of the armies had the
executive power.