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.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then, either it was the Police, or it was the military, or it was some other force which was going to carry out your forcible recruiting; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but in these areas as well, the machinery of the civilian administration was available, which was not identical with the military or with the Police, but represented within these Wehrmacht organizations separate branches of the administration under a special administrative chief.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I don’t understand then what you meant by saying that your project could not be carried out with domestic enforcement agents.
That is all I have to ask. Then the defendant can return to the dock.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I am asking the Tribunal to look at Document Sauckel-3, which is a list of Sauckel’s offices, to see the position of the witness whom I am about to call.
Under Sauckel in the Reich Ministry of Labor there were various departments, one of which, the department of the witness Timm, was the so-called Europe Office, which had three subdepartments—one for the West, one for the East, and the third for the South and Southwest.
With the permission of the Court, I call the witness Timm.
[The witness Timm took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
MAX TIMM (Witness): Max Timm.
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 witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you worked in the Reich Labor Ministry in the Allocation of Labor department?
TIMM: Yes, that is correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you already there when Sauckel took office?
TIMM: Yes, and I had been in the labor administration for some years before that.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the impression you had of your new superior when Sauckel took over the office?
TIMM: When Sauckel assumed office, I had the impression of a very energetic, hard-working man, who was inclined to get excited at times, even angry no doubt, and who demanded much of his co-workers, but also made great demands on himself.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was he in carrying out his measures?
TIMM: When he assumed office there was a good deal of confusion in the field of labor allocation. Everybody had something to do with labor allocation.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the reason why that office was created?
TIMM: The previous chiefs had not had enough force to push their program through against the opposition of various offices; and Sauckel was the strong man, and particularly the strong political figure, who was to put things in order.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did Sauckel approach this new task? Did he adhere to the administrative regulations, or did he do it in his own way, in—as one says—an unrestrained new manner?
TIMM: He considered his task very much a political task, but he always did his best to handle administrative matters in an orderly way. He was known generally as a Gauleiter who was friendly to the civil servants. Also, in order to instruct all the offices under his administration, he held so-called staff meetings at regular intervals in which the most important things were discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was your position in that office?
TIMM: In the Allocation of Labor department I had first a subdepartment and later a department.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did that department deal with?
TIMM: That department had to deal with all questions concerning the assignment of labor, particularly the classification of skilled workers, training of workers, vocational advice, and employment agencies for apprentices.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was your office called the Europe Office?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have an over-all view of what went on in the office?
TIMM: Not completely, owing to the fact that Gauleiter Sauckel at the same time remained Gauleiter in Thuringia and he worked in Berlin in Thuringia House, whereas the special departments put at his disposal remained in the Ministry of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: No, you did not understand my question. The question was whether you, from your office, had an over-all view of what went on in the field of labor allocation without regard to Sauckel’s activity.
TIMM: Yes, but not entirely, because we were not informed about all events, due to the separation of the offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the staff meetings? Who took part in them and of what kind of people were they composed?
TIMM: For the most part the liaison men of the various branches were called to staff conferences.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of people were they?
TIMM: There were various kinds of people, civil servants but also economists, and the like.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you should tell us from what offices these people came, or were they people who were in Sauckel’s office?
TIMM: They were mostly people from other branches, as, for instance, a representative of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the representatives of the Ministry for Armament and War Production, of the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, and of other departments.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the so-called specialist labor staff?
TIMM: That was the specialist labor staff.
DR. SERVATIUS: About how many people were in it?
TIMM: In my estimation there were probably about 15 to 20 people.
DR. SERVATIUS: Besides that, Sauckel had a personal labor staff. What kind of people were in that?
TIMM: The personal labor staff consisted mostly of men whom Sauckel had brought with him from Weimar, men of his own immediate circle.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did he also have consultants? Who were these?
TIMM: He had two personal consultants, Landrat Berch and Ministerialrat Dr. Stothfang.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what position did Dr. Didier hold?
TIMM: Dr. Didier, as far as I remember, was the press expert.
DR. SERVATIUS: How were these staff meetings carried on? What was discussed?
TIMM: At those staff meetings all matters of labor allocation, that is the entire German labor allocation program, were discussed; and the sessions were generally opened with a complete report by Herr Sauckel, in which he explained his plans for the future.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were questions of recruitment in occupied territories also discussed; and what is of importance here, the difficulties which existed then, and the methods of which we have heard? What was said about that?
TIMM: Questions of recruitment were generally not discussed there so much but rather questions concerning the Reich.
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked you first about the occupied territories. Was, for instance, that case discussed which has been brought up here, the surrounding of a motion picture house and the seizing of people there, and similar cases?
TIMM: Yes, the case of the motion picture house is known to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: That was discussed?
TIMM: Yes, that was discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was done about it?
TIMM: Sauckel at once instructed several gentlemen—I don’t remember whom—to make all possible investigations in order to clarify the case.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were other cases reported?
TIMM: There were no other cases which could be compared in seriousness with that case which has just been described.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there also discussion about the question of labor conditions in Germany for foreign workers?
TIMM: There were discussions at the staff conferences about labor conditions.
DR. SERVATIUS: And was it not reported there that conditions existed in individual camps or industries which were objectionable?
TIMM: Cases of that kind were discussed. In general they concerned clothing, nutrition, and similar things.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did these reports come to the staff conferences? Who reported them? From what source did one find out about them?
TIMM: Herr Sauckel always attached importance to having these things examined on the spot, and he maintained an extensive system of inspection in order to get an accurate picture of these questions; and these inspection reports were then discussed in detail at the staff conferences.
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.
Upon consideration of the motion of the Prosecution, dated the 21st of May, and the memorandum of the Defense Counsel in reply thereto, dated the 29th of May, the Tribunal makes the following order:
The motion of the Prosecution that arguments as to the guilt or innocence of the individual defendants be heard at the conclusion of the evidence relating to the individual defendants and before the introduction of evidence relating to the accused organizations is granted. The Tribunal, however, will not decide the question of the guilt or innocence of any defendant until after all the evidence has been heard; and, if any of the evidence relating to the accused organizations is thought by counsel for any defendant to support his defense, he may ask to be heard further with regard thereto. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the evidence relating to the individual defendants, will accordingly hear first the argument in their behalf, and then the summing up of the Prosecution. The statements of each of the defendants in his own behalf will be heard at the conclusion of the Trial before judgment.
The Tribunal is of opinion that the argument relating to the guilt or innocence of the individual defendants will be more helpful if heard immediately at the conclusion of the evidence bearing thereon, and before the Tribunal has departed from this and goes into the branch of the case relating to the organizations. This arrangement, furthermore, will give the commissioners, who are taking the evidence as to the organizations, further time in which to complete their work. The defendants will not be prejudiced in any way by this arrangement; for, apart from the fact that their cases are essentially different from the cases of the organizations, they will be allowed to call to the attention of the Tribunal any circumstance developed on the hearing of the organizations which is thought to be helpful to their defense. The Tribunal finds nothing in the Charter which forbids this procedure, and Article 9 leaves to the discretion of the Tribunal the manner of hearing evidence on behalf of the accused organizations.
Counsel for the individual defendants will not be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses called by counsel on behalf of the organizations, or to take part in such proceedings save when specially authorized to do so by the Tribunal.
That is all.
The Tribunal will sit tomorrow at 10 o’clock in open session until 1 o’clock.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I ask permission for the Defendant Von Papen to be absent on Monday and Tuesday to prepare his case.
He will be represented by my colleague Dr. Nelte.
[The witness Timm resumed the stand.]
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, yesterday we were speaking, at the end, of the staff conferences. I should like to leave this question now, but we will come back to it later when we talk about controls. First, I should like you to explain the relationship of Sauckel’s office to the higher authorities. Whom did Sauckel come under?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor was under the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what did he have to do with Hitler?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General kept in the closest touch with Hitler, and as far as possible he presented his plans to Hitler at personal discussions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there a constant connection with the Four Year Plan through a liaison man, or how was that done?
TIMM: There were various ways of keeping the contact active. There were liaison men on both sides. The Plenipotentiary General sent men from his select staff to the office of the Four Year Plan for a preliminary co-ordination of his plans, and on the other hand, as far as I can recall, there were almost constantly delegates from the office of the Four Year Plan who took part in the staff conferences.
In addition, the Plenipotentiary General frequently had personal talks with the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was the co-operation with the other ministries conducted? With Goebbels, to begin with?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General felt in principle that it was important to keep as close a contact as possible with the other departments and to have his plans and intentions co-ordinated beforehand. Co-operation with the Ministry of Propaganda was no longer so good, especially at the time when the Minister, Dr. Goebbels, was Delegate for Total War Effort.
DR. SERVATIUS: After the proclamation of total war was Sauckel subordinate to Goebbels?
TIMM: The relationship was never quite clear. In my opinion it had to be looked at this way: The Delegate for Total War Effort received comprehensive powers for all tasks, and was therefore in fact superior to the GBA (Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor).
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the relation with the other authorities, for instance with the Reich Ministry for Food?
TIMM: The co-operation with the Reich Ministry for Food was very good. The relations with State Secretary Backe especially were always very good as far as I could judge. There were also continual conferences between the experts of both offices on questions of feeding in general.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, what was the date of the proclamation of total war?
DR. SERVATIUS: Does the witness know when total war was declared?
TIMM: I do not remember the date.
DR. SERVATIUS: It was after the fall of Stalingrad. I cannot give you the exact date.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, please.
DR. SERVATIUS: As to relations with Himmler, what co-operation was there with that office?
TIMM: I know nothing of any close personal relations between the GBA and Himmler. On Sauckel’s labor staff there was a liaison man from the Reichsführer SS, especially for any general police questions that might arise concerning the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of questions were there?
TIMM: All kinds of questions; especially the question of badges in connection with the employment of foreigners.
DR. SERVATIUS: And probably also questions concerning barbed wire?
TIMM: Yes; questions concerning barbed wire, and all the questions which arose in police spheres.
DR. SERVATIUS: And also the question of labor training camps?
TIMM: As I was not an expert on those questions I cannot remember very well, and I do not know whether there were any detailed conferences about them.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I should like to pass on to the connection of the authorities with the occupied territories.
With whom were negotiations carried on and to whom did one apply when making demands on the occupied territories?
TIMM: One had to apply to the respective district governments at the time—military commanders, Reich commissioners or something similar.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of position did Sauckel’s deputies have?
TIMM: The deputies were organized and intended to be men who were to exert a direct and vigorous influence on the execution of Sauckel’s plans, instructions and orders.
This goal, however, was not reached as they were not able to succeed. I remember that the Plenipotentiary General therefore intended to ask Hitler for more comprehensive instructions and more comprehensive powers.
I seem to recall that the Plenipotentiary General once announced that he had learned from Hitler himself, or from his entourage, that Hitler was not inclined to extend these powers as he could not release the local governments, especially the military commanders, from their comprehensive responsibility and powers; so the Plenipotentiary General had only one recourse, that of putting forward his wishes through the channel of direct negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why were the deputies not able to succeed?
TIMM: The deputies could only try to consult with the existing regional governments, but the opposition was so strong that they could not carry any weight.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did these deputies not hold another position at the same time?
TIMM: As they could not attain an independent position, the deputies were generally incorporated into the existing local administration by way of negotiations. With few exceptions they were entrusted with the management of the labor section, or were incorporated into the section for economy and labor.
Generally they were placed within the staffs of the military commanders as administrative officials and that was the position which they held ostensibly.
DR. SERVATIUS: So it was a combination of two or more positions held by one person?
TIMM: It was, to a certain extent, a combination of different positions held by one person, of which, without doubt, the most important was the position of section chief in the existing regional government.
DR. SERVATIUS: With whom did this arrangement of a dual position originate?
Was it Sauckel who insisted on it, or the responsible regional authorities?
TIMM: As far as I know, it resulted from talks with the regional governments on the question of the position of the deputies. The regional governments wanted on no account to have any men in their districts who were independent of their administration and had special powers.
DR. SERVATIUS: So that curbed the initiative of the deputies?
TIMM: Their initiative as originally planned was no doubt checked.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did Sauckel exercise his authority to issue instructions?
TIMM: The authority to issue instructions to the offices abroad was generally exercised by means of sending instructions, directives, and decrees through normal administrative channels via the central offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could he issue instructions to cover everything that happened there, or were there other offices which dealt with the recruitment of labor?
TIMM: At that time, unfortunately, the situation was such that even after the appointment of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor other agencies there repeatedly interfered in labor matters or carried on recruiting too—that is, agencies which had neither the power nor the authority to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: What time is he talking about; he says “at that time”?
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite understand.
THE PRESIDENT: I say what time. He said “at that time.” At what time? What time is he speaking about?
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the witness.] What time are you speaking about?
TIMM: It was at the time when the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor was appointed.
DR. SERVATIUS: When was he appointed?
TIMM: He was appointed in March 1942.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was the recruiting carried out? Was it voluntary? How would you differentiate between the types?
TIMM: In principle, recruiting was carried out on a voluntary basis because from the technical point of view—that is, from the point of view of the utilization of the labor recruited—only voluntary recruiting could lead to success. That is to say only voluntary recruiting could bring people who were happy and willing to work, and who could achieve the output necessary for production.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the point of view which Sauckel emphasized?
TIMM: During the whole time that I worked with Sauckel in the Ministry of Labor I never heard of any events which indicated any other point of view. He repeatedly emphasized that the basis of recruiting must be voluntary.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. He issued many directives and held many speeches. But did he not within the select circle...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, and Witness, will you try and pause between the sentences, and between the questions and the answers? The witness’ sentences seem to me to be running on, whereas if he would pause it would give the interpreter some chance.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
[Turning to the witness.] Sauckel issued a number of directives and made speeches to that effect. Did he not give you more precise instructions for the guidance of the department?
TIMM: The instructions which we received always agreed in principle with the instructions which he issued to larger circles at presidential or similar conferences.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the result of voluntary recruiting? Did the workers come solely on the basis of that recruiting, that is on the basis of the conditions as described to them?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: About how many were there?
TIMM: It is, of course, not possible for me to give exact figures. Thinking it over I believe I can say that about 2 to 3 million workers might be considered voluntary workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Other workers came by virtue of the compulsory service laws which were introduced in those countries?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What do you estimate the number of those people to be?
TIMM: I can hardly give an estimate. As about 2 to 3 million may be considered volunteers, the rest must reach this figure too.
DR. SERVATIUS: People were deported too. Do you understand what is meant by deportation?
TIMM: If I may ask, does that mean the people who were transported for military or similar reasons? I am not quite clear as to what you mean by that.
DR. SERVATIUS: You do not know what deportations are?
TIMM; You mean forcible deportations, do you not? I cannot remember and do not know anything about such measures in connection with the activity of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: In connection with the obtaining, recruiting, and conscription of labor, there are quite a number of serious charges concerning abuses which occurred. To what extent did you learn of them?
TIMM: I understand your question to mean abuses in the recruiting itself?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
TIMM: I have no practical knowledge of the recruiting itself. As far as I had a general view of the situation, serious abuses, such as you mention in your question, were not reported to the GBA. Yesterday in an answer I pointed out that I knew of the case of the surrounded cinema, and that I could recall no events surpassing that case in gravity.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I come to conditions in Germany. Did you hear anything about conditions of the worst kind there? You probably read the papers and know what these charges mean. You were one of the people most closely involved there, so what did you learn?
TIMM: Complaints about the treatment of foreigners came through various channels to the GBA too. They referred in general to questions of clothing and food, and that of barbed wire which came up repeatedly, and the question of badges, the marking of foreign workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the Prosecution is speaking here of Crimes against Humanity.
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are those only things which happened daily in a normal administration, or are they, so to say, things which were reported?
TIMM: Such things as you call catastrophic, Doctor, did not come to my knowledge, because if they had, I should still remember them now.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who supervised the execution of the orders, and how did that come to your knowledge, or how should that have come to your knowledge?
TIMM: Various authorities were concerned with supervising the work of foreign workers. These were five or six different offices. There was in particular the German Labor Front, which, on the basis of a so-called Führer decision, claimed for itself the question of the treatment and care of foreign workers. And I may mention in this connection that it repeatedly said this assignment went beyond the order given by the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor to the German Labor Front, and that to a certain extent it was bound by a higher authority to carry out this task of welfare and control of treatment, et cetera. On this fundamental question there were repeated conferences between the office of the GBA and the German Labor Front, and these later led to an agreement according to which the GBA also transferred this question to the German Labor Front. To settle these matters, the German Labor Front established a central inspectorate whose mission it was to look after foreign workers throughout the whole Reich. In addition to this central inspectorate, the Office for the Allocation of Labor within the German Labor Front was still functioning.
DR. SERVATIUS: We will come to that in a minute.
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What connection was there between Sauckel’s office and this inspectorate of the Labor Front? How were contacts maintained?
TIMM: In the first place, a man from the German Labor Front worked as liaison man on Sauckel’s technical staff...
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was that?
TIMM: That was Herr Hoffmann. And secondly, the central inspectorate of the German Labor Front constantly had conferences on their inspection activities to which an official of the GBA was invited.
DR. SERVATIUS: This liaison man, Hoffmann, presumably reported on what he heard from the Labor Front?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did he report?
TIMM: The things which he reported covered the same ground as I have already told you about.
DR. SERVATIUS: The German Labor Front already had this task before Sauckel’s office was set up?
TIMM: The German Labor Front was of the opinion, as I, for several...
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you must answer me. The German Labor Front had this task before Sauckel came?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did it consider that its authority was restricted by the fact that Sauckel was appointed?
TIMM: I was just about to explain that it considered its task a general, comprehensive one; and when the newly appointed Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor occupied himself so intensively with these matters, it did see in this a certain encroachment on its task.
DR. SERVATIUS: And was this agreed upon between Ley and Sauckel?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: At whose instigation was this agreement reached?
TIMM: As far as I can recall the suggestion was the outcome of a wish of the German Labor Front.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was the aim?
TIMM: Of course, I can give only my personal opinion. I believe that the aim was in any case to express the fact that the German Labor Front was generally competent for these questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who presented the agreement, Sauckel...?
THE PRESIDENT: Have we not got the agreement between Sauckel and Ley?
DR. SERVATIUS: It was submitted by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: If we have it, we do not want to have his personal recollection of it, do we?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness goes back too far. I would like to know who suggested it and drew it up, and when it was signed. There are two dates at the foot of this document as far as I remember today.
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, the document which is being mentioned now was submitted to the Tribunal. It is Document Number 1913-PS.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is in my document book, in the first document book, Page 79. In the English book it is Page 74. Here in the first text may be found...
THE PRESIDENT: What are you after? There is no use in getting the evidence of a witness, who said he does not remember in detail about it, about a document which we have got before us. It does not seem to me to be in the least bit useful to know who suggested that the agreement should be entered into.
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the witness.] There were still other inspectorates. For example, the Gauleiter was an authorized agent for the Allocation of Labor Department. To what extent did the Gauleiter report things which occurred in their Gaue during the allocation of labor?
TIMM: The Gauleiter were appointed by the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor by virtue of his Decree Number 1, to be his authorized agents, with the task of applying themselves precisely to this question.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did they report?
TIMM: I do not know of any written reports from the Gauleiter on this question; at least, not to any extent worth mentioning. Hardly any written reports from the Gauleiter came in on this question; at least, not to our office.
DR. SERVATIUS: At this opportunity I should like to clear up the question of the position held by the Gauleiter as authorized agents for the Allocation of Labor in relation to the Gau labor offices. Was the Gauleiter president of the Gau labor offices, or in what relation did they stand to each other?
TIMM: In administration and matters of personnel, the president of the Gau labor offices was undoubtedly subordinate to the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, or to the Reich Minister for Labor. But the Plenipotentiary General had made it the duty of these presidents to keep in closest contact with the Gauleiter and to make constant reports on the things which occurred in their sphere of work. In particular, if there were any tension or difficulties in the Gau, they were to apply to the Gauleiter for aid.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I understand you correctly, the Party as such had nothing to do with the actual utilization of labor itself?
TIMM: I believe that is so. If the question is to be considered in that way, I would say that the institution of a Plenipotentiary General emphasized the political aspect of the Allocation of Labor, and that the Gauleiter, according to their varying personal opinions, concerned themselves to a greater or lesser extent with the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: As an organ for care and control?
TIMM: Yes; for all questions concerning labor allocation.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you will understand that your testimony concerning your knowledge of the events submitted by the Prosecution is received with great skepticism. Did you not unofficially hear and see things which, if they did not come to your attention officially, certainly should have given you cause to investigate them more thoroughly?
TIMM: Of course, one heard here and there of cases where foreign workers were allegedly ill-treated in some way. As far as such things came to my attention I always considered them official matters, and made out a report accordingly or had them attended to. In such cases, the necessary investigations were made immediately and everything necessary was done to clear up the matter.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these individual cases not symptoms of conditions as a whole?
TIMM: I do not believe so. At any rate, events which one might call catastrophic never came to my attention. As I have already said, they were nearly always only things which were connected with the question of treatment—that is to say, questions of accommodations in camps, clothing, and so forth.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the output and the morale of the workers?
TIMM: The output achieved by foreign workers varied. The output of the Eastern Workers was especially good. In general, because of this output, the demand for Eastern Workers was great. The output was also very good in particular of the skilled French workers...
DR. SERVATIUS: That is enough. Now, I must come back again to your connections with the occupied territories. Did you take part in negotiations with authorities in the occupied territories?
TIMM: Not in the East. A few times I went on journeys in the West with the Plenipotentiary General and took part in negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you with him once when he visited General Falkenhausen?
TIMM: Yes, I was present at the negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Of what nature were these negotiations, as far as the atmosphere was concerned? Were they tense, were they friendly, or what were they like?
TIMM: The conferences with General Falkenhausen at which I was present were generally comparatively short. I had the feeling that the two gentlemen did not care for each other...
THE PRESIDENT: What does it matter whether they were tense or friendly or short?
DR. SERVATIUS: General Falkenhausen made an affidavit, which was submitted here, in which he said that Sauckel gave him orders and negotiated with him in a manner which caused him to offer the strongest opposition.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to contradict Falkenhausen’s affidavit you can put it to the witness, if that’s what you are trying to do.
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not have it here at the moment. I will forego that question.
[Turning to the witness.] You were in France?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you present at negotiations with the French authorities?
TIMM: I was present at negotiations with Laval, who was Premier at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Of what nature were these negotiations?
TIMM: One can certainly say that the negotiations were carried on in a very friendly manner.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the French not bring any complaints?
TIMM: Individual complaints were made. I remember that the complaints were especially about the question of the transfer of wages.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to ask you whether complaints about treatment, the methods of recruitment, coercive measures, and so on—whether complaints were made about those things?
TIMM: No, I do not remember any complaints of that sort. I should certainly remember them if there had been any.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have a few more questions concerning Sauckel’s relations with the Central Planning Board and with Speer. You yourself repeatedly represented Sauckel at the Central Planning Board. Is that correct?
TIMM: Yes, a few times.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the Central Planning Board as far as Sauckel was concerned?
TIMM: The Central Planning Board was a branch of the Four Year Plan. Its task, as far as the GBA was concerned, was to collect the demands for workers made by the big employers, and to adjust these demands at regular sessions. As the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor could not judge himself the importance of the use made of workers by the various industries, this question was decided in the Central Planning Board. An attempt was made, for certain periods of time, for as long a time as possible, to work out a balance of workers, I might say, and in connection...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Sauckel told us all about this already, didn’t he?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is no need to go into it with another witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President.
[Turning to the witness.] Do you know Speer’s position?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was Speer’s position in relation to Sauckel and vice versa? Could Speer give orders to Sauckel in particular?
TIMM: Speer was Plenipotentiary General for Armament while Sauckel was Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, and Speer held the point of view that he, as Armament Minister, should have decisive authority in all matters pertaining to the production of armaments, that is raw materials, coal and consequently also the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could Speer give Sauckel orders and instructions, or did he actually give them?
TIMM: Yes, as a matter of form. As I have just said, the question was not quite clear, and the two conceptions were opposed. In reality there was always a certain tension between the two men because the Armament Ministry wanted more or less to claim the power to issue instructions. This tension was generally cleared up through talks, or the exchange of letters between the two men. Sometimes it led to what one might call “agreement conferences,” headed by Reichsminister Lammers, as he was at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the result of these conferences, these agreement conferences?
TIMM: These conferences led to agreements which, as far as I remember, were several times taken down in writing, and in my opinion they led to an increasingly strong influence by the Armament Ministry on questions concerning the allocation of labor.
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. HANS FLÄCHSNER (Counsel for Defendant Speer): 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?
TIMM: As I wanted to express in my last answer, the difficulties consisted in the fact that Speer, as Plenipotentiary General 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 labor allocation...”
DR. FLÄCHSNER: I understood 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 assumed by Speer?
TIMM: As Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor Sauckel felt himself competent and responsible for all questions concerning it.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: 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 Führer?
TIMM: I do not remember anything so definite. He was Plenipotentiary General for...
THE PRESIDENT: Surely this is very far removed from anything we have got to deal with. He says that the tension was cleared up by conferences. What more is there to discuss?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: That was the last question I wanted to ask the witness.
Witness, you spoke of conferences which are supposed to have taken place with Minister Lammers. In the minutes of the session of 11 July 1944 and of 4 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 session with Lammers you have in mind?
TIMM: Unfortunately, I cannot give the dates of the sessions exactly. I know only that the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor several times wished to report these circumstances to the Führer, and that the two men, as far as I can remember, agreed that these questions should be discussed with the Führer. Then, however, in order to avoid always taking things to the Führer they agreed to have matters talked over with Reichsminister Lammers.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: You cannot give any details about that?
TIMM: Only if—I remember, for example, that the question of the blocked industries in France was discussed.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine the witness?
M. HERZOG: Witness, were you a member of the National Socialist Party?
TIMM: Yes.
M. HERZOG: From what date?
TIMM: In 1933 I applied for admission. My application was at first refused, and as far as I remember it was approved in 1934 or 1935.
M. HERZOG: Were you a member of the SA?
TIMM: I was a member of the SA for a short time. I left the SA when proceedings for my expulsion were instituted against me in the SA, and I resigned.
M. HERZOG: Were you a member of the SS?
TIMM: No.
M. HERZOG: What were your functions up to the time you entered Sauckel’s office?
TIMM: I was employed in that branch of the Reich Ministry of Labor which had the employment agency, the office for vocational guidance, and the training agency.
M. HERZOG: When did you first meet Sauckel?
TIMM: As far as I can remember, I saw Sauckel for the first time when he visited State Secretary Syrup in the Reich Ministry of Labor, and the individual officials were invited to meet him.
M. HERZOG: At what time did this take place?
TIMM: I cannot give the date exactly. I believe it was about a few weeks after the appointment of Sauckel as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
M. HERZOG: What was your position at the time when Sauckel was appointed Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
TIMM: I was in the department for employment and unemployment relief—the employment department...
M. HERZOG: And at the end, what was your position?
TIMM: At that time I was a Ministerialrat in the Reich Ministry of Labor.
M. HERZOG: Will you tell me where Sauckel’s offices were in Berlin?
TIMM: I did not understand the question.
M. HERZOG: Will you tell me where Sauckel’s offices were in Berlin?
TIMM: In Berlin, Sauckel himself worked in Thuringia House, while the special sections made available by the Reich Ministry of Labor were in the building of the Reich Ministry of Labor at Saarlandstrasse 96, and some, after a part of the building had been destroyed, were in alternative quarters near Berlin.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. The offices at Saarlandstrasse 96 therefore came under Sauckel’s administration? Is that right?
TIMM: The office at Saarlandstrasse 96 was not a new office; it was the Reich Ministry of Labor. The two sections had been made available by a Führer decree to carry out the tasks of the GBA.
M. HERZOG: A document headed “Delegate for the Four Year Plan, Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, Berlin SW 11, Saarlandstrasse 96” therefore comes from Sauckel’s office?
TIMM: I did not quite understand.
M. HERZOG: A document which has the following heading: “Delegate for the Four Year Plan, Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor...”
THE PRESIDENT: Why not show him the document?
M. HERZOG: I show you Document Number L-61, 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 Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.” On the top in the right-hand corner, “Berlin SW 11, Saarlandstrasse 96.” It is dated 26 November 1942, and comes, therefore, from Sauckel’s offices. Is that right?
TIMM: This document comes from the GBA, therefore from Sauckel’s office.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. Did you represent Sauckel at the conferences of the Central Planning Board for the Four Year Plan?
TIMM: I either represented him, or I went with the GBA to take part in the sessions. Not always, but frequently.
M. HERZOG: When you represented him there, you received instructions before going there, did you not?
TIMM: When we had to go to larger and more important conferences, we were informed by Thuringia House that there were to be sessions, and we received our instructions as to how we were to represent the GBA at these sessions.
M. HERZOG: And when you came back from these meetings, you gave Sauckel a report on them, did you not?
TIMM: After the sessions we either reported the results of the conference to him personally, or through his personal advisers.
M. HERZOG: Sauckel then had to take the responsibility for the declarations you made at the various meetings? Is that right?
TIMM: As an official, it was always my duty to make sure when I made reports in a session and to ascertain...
M. HERZOG: That is not what I asked. Will you answer my question? You received instructions before the conferences began. You reported to Sauckel afterwards what was discussed at these conferences. Consequently Sauckel was responsible for what was discussed there, was he not?
TIMM: 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.
[Turning to the witness.] 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 12 January 1943?
TIMM: 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.
M. HERZOG: I have already submitted Document Number F-809 to the Tribunal. It contains the minutes of this conference. In the course of the conference, Laval, among other things, said to Sauckel: