Solution Manual for Dynamic Business Law The Essentials 3rd Edition by Kubasek Browne

Herron Dhooge Barkacs ISBN 007802384X 9780078023842

Full link download:
Solution Manual:
https://testbankpack.com/p/solution-manual-for-dynamic-
business-law-the-essentials-3rd-edition-kubasek-browne-
herron-dhooge-barkacs-isbn-007802384x-9780078023842/
Test Bank:
https://testbankpack.com/p/test-bank-for-dynamic-business-law-the-essentials-3rd-edition-by-
kubasek-browne-herron-dhooge-barkacs-isbn-007802384x-9780078023842/

Chapter 2: Business Ethics and Social Responsibility

1. CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Chapter 2 explains the issues of right and wrong in business conduct. This explanation begins with the
fundamentals of business ethics and social responsibility and provides a framework that allows
students to engage with ethics and social responsibility material. This framework is important because
it takes away students’ tendency to believe questions of ethics are simply matters of opinion. Consider
asking your students to use the ―WH framework‖ throughout the course.

2. LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter, students will be able to answer the following questions:

1. What are business ethics and the social responsibility of business?

2. What are values?
3. How do values provide a starting point for thinking about ethics?
4. How are business law and business ethics related?
5. How can we use the WH framework to make ethical business decisions?

3. LECTURE NOTES WITH DEFINITIONS

a. In the news…
Teaching tip: For each chapter, consider asking students to relate current news items to material
from the chapter.

In addition to ideas students come up with on their own, consider weaving in news stories
provided by the McGraw-Hill. Stories are available via a McGraw-Hill DVD, and on the
publisher’s web site.
Chapter 02 – Business Ethics and Social Responsibility

For Chapter Two, McGraw-Hill offers the following stories:

―Smoke & Mirrors: Tobacco Companies Have Been Steadily Adding More Nicotine to Cigarettes to
Make Them More Addictive, Especially to Teenagers.‖
Apply the WH framework to the decisions tobacco companies are making.
Is it ―socially responsible‖ for tobacco companies to add nicotine to cigarettes? Should
legal rules provide additional protections to vulnerable consumers, such as teenagers?

b. What are business ethics and the social responsibility of business? Ethics is
the study and practice of decisions about what is good or right.

Business ethics is the use of ethics and ethical principles to solve business dilemmas.

An ethical dilemma is a question about how one should behave that requires one to reflect on the
advantages and disadvantages of the optional choices for various stakeholders.

The social responsibility of business consists of the expectations that the community places on the
actions of firms inside that community’s borders.

Teaching tip: How are the concepts of ethics and social responsibility different? Do they
overlap?

c. What are values?

Values are positive abstractions that capture our sense of what is good or desirable. They are
ideas that underlie conversations about business ethics.

d. How do values provide a starting point for thinking about business ethics? Values are essential
for our clarifying why something is deemed good or bad. An understanding of values is necessary to
begin using the WH framework for ethical business decisions.

e. How are business law and business ethics related?

The legality of the decision is the minimal standard that must be met. The law both affects and is
affected by evolving ethical patterns.

f. How can we use the WH framework for ethical business decisions? The WH
framework provides practical steps for responding to an ethical dilemma.

W:Whom would the decision affect?

o Stakeholders: assorted groups of people affected by the firm's decisions, e.g., owners or
shareholders, employees, customers, management, general community, future generations.
o Interests of stakeholders will sometimes be in common and will sometimes conflict.
H: How do we make ethical decisions?
o We use classical ethical guidelines, such as these:
o The Golden Rule—―Do unto others as you would have done to you."
o Public Disclosure Test—Suppose your decision would be published in the

1-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution
in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 02 – Business Ethics and Social Responsibility

newspaper. (Our actions are in the open rather

than hidden.)
o Universalization Test—If I take action X, were others to follow my example, would the world be
a better place?

Teaching tip: Choose a current ethical dilemma from the newspaper and ask students to apply the
WH framework to the dilemma.

4. TEACHING IDEAS

Connecting to the Core One way to connect to the core expands the chapter’s discussion of ethics
and accounting. You may want to obtain and show your class a PBS videotape called ―Bigger than
Enron,‖ available at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/

This videotape explores the collapse of Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm Enron used to help it
hide its fraud. The tape asks, ―What went wrong?‖
Teaching Basics After showing ―Bigger Than Enron,‖ ask the class questions that
facilitate understanding. Here are some questions to get you started:
What argument did Hedrick Smith present in the videotape?
Why should business students care about the argument and facts in the videotape?
Is there ―another side‖ to the story?
How did the videotape make you feel, as an American citizen?

5. ANSWERS TO BUSINESS ETHICS FLASHPOINTS

Flashpoint #1- Chevron in Ecuador: When reacting to Chevron’s behavior in

Ecuador, consider your personal value preferences and how these value preferences
determine what you think is right and wrong in this situation. If one were to believe that
Chevron’s behavior in Ecuador was unethical, this may be because of values such as
respect, compassion, and safety. One may believe that these values were not upheld by
Chevron, considering the health and environmental effects that their behavior had on the
citizens and community of Ecuador.

Flashpoint #3- The WorldCom Accounting Scandal: The stakeholders directly affected
by the behavior of WorldCom would be WorldCom shareholders, employees of WorldCom,
and the telecommunications industry. Stakeholders in the background would be consumers
in the telecommunications industry.

1-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution
in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 02 – Business Ethics and Social Responsibility

Flashpoint #4- The Health Focus of Revolution Foods: The behavior of Revolution Foods
demonstrates consistency with all three ethical guidelines: the golden rule, the public
disclosure test, and the universalization test. The goal of Revolution Foods was to create a
product that was considerate of the health needs of its consumers, transparent about the
ingredients being used, and mindful of creating a product that could change norms around
healthy eating.

Flashpoint#5- The Dofasco Steel Company’s Approach to Workers: Values that are in
conflict in this business scenario could be respect (for the employee’s health) over comfort
(of maintaining current safety policies), or, excellence over conformity (to the common
industry practices that are less safe for employees).
When considering the WH Framework, stakeholders in this scenario would be the
employees of Dofasco, management of Dofasco, owners and investors of Dofasco, and
community members who were positively impacted by Dofasco’s Environmental
Management Agreement. When considering the values that may be in tension among these
various stakeholders, Dofasco may have appealed primarily to the universalization guideline
and the golden rule guideline— focusing on the best way to treat employees as well as how
to create a work environment that, if universalized, would promote healthier employee
conditions.

6. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS

1. If an American business manager was working in another country and was questioning
engaging in a behavior that is ethical in that country, but unethical in the United States, that
manager could apply the Public Disclosure Test. Specifically, the manager may want to think
about whether the behavior would be considered ethical if it were to be broadcast in the country
where she is working.
2. The legality of a decision or behavior is the minimal standard that must be met. The
existence of this minimal standard is essential for developing ethical business decisions.
Overall, law and business ethics serve as an interactive system- informing and affecting each
other.
3. The legality of a decision is the minimal standard that must be met. The law both
affects and is affected by evolving ethical patterns.
4. The WH framework provides practical steps for responding to an ethical dilemma. The W refers
to who would the decision affect such as stakeholders and their interests. The P refers to what are the
ultimate purposes of the decision, specifically, which values are being upheld by the decision. The H
refers to how we make ethical decisions, specifically, those principles and beliefs that guide our
decisions.
5. Employers to have a duty to respect the religious beliefs of their employees. They do not
have to respect employees’ non-religious beliefs. So, the question here is whether Friedman’s
veganism was a religious belief. Friedman argued that his belief that it is immoral and unethical
for humans to kill or exploit animals is a religious belief. The court disagreed. Veganism does
not ―address fundamental or ultimate questions such as the meaning of human existence and
the purpose of life, the beliefs were not comprehensive, because they did not derive from a
power or being or faith to which all else was subordinate, and no formal or external signs of a

1-4
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution
in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
religion were present.‖ The court viewed veganism as a secular philosophy and would
not protect it.

6. Presumably Kozlowski would have conducted himself differently if his actions were subject to
public disclosure. The same result would entail from the universalization test as no one would want
Kozlowski’s behavior to serve as an example for others nor did it make the world a better place.
7. The WH framework calls for students to apply the whom, purpose and how tests. Students
should determine the stakeholders affected by the decisions made by the state and the
pharmaceutical companies, the values underlying these decisions and the principles applicable
to making the decision in reaching their conclusions.
8. Erickson won the suit. The value of justice applies here, e.g., people must be treated
equally. Their gender should not matter. The court ruled that, ―[a]lthough Title VII does
not require employers to offer any particular type or category of benefit, when an employer
decides to offer a prescription plan covering everything except a few specifically excluded
drugs and devices, it has a legal obligation to make sure that the resulting plan does not
discriminate based on sex-based characteristics and that it provides equally comprehensive
coverage for both sexes.‖
9. The court ruled that the First Amendment does not give media agencies the right to
record or broadcast an execution from within a prison. If ENI had applied the Golden
Rule, it might have demonstrated more sensitivity to Timothy McVeigh’s family. It is
unlikely his family would have wanted the world to watch the execution.
10.Values that may be at odds include freedom, justice and efficiency.
Another document from Scribd.com that is
random and unrelated content:
 DR. SERVATIUS: At the beginning of your activities you had to
deal with prisoners of war, had you not? What did you find out at that
time, or what did you do?
SAUCKEL: I found out that some of the Russian prisoners of war
were terribly undernourished.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did you do?
SAUCKEL: Together with the general in charge of the Prisoners of
War Organization I arranged for all these prisoners of war—as far as I
know and remember there were about 70,000 in the Reich at that time—
to be billeted with German farmers, in order to build up their strength.
The farmers were obliged to feed these prisoners of war for at least 3
months, without putting them to work. As compensation the farmers
were given the assurance that these prisoners of war would stay with
them and work for them until the end of the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: During the course of the war did prisoners of war
obtain the status of free laborers?
SAUCKEL: Yes. As far as French workers were concerned, I was
instrumental in seeing that they were employed only by agreement with
the French Government. These agreements were concluded under the
sponsorship of the German Ambassador in Paris. The quotas were
negotiated in accordance with instructions given me by the Führer and
by the Reich Marshal. The first quota was 250,000 French laborers and
150,000 skilled workers.
As a compensation for the use of these voluntary workers—and I
emphasize voluntary—50,000 French prisoners of war who were farmers
were to be, and actually were, returned to the French Government in
order to improve the cultivation of French farm land.
That was the first agreement.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the Relève?
SAUCKEL: The Relève was an agreement between the French
Government and my office according to which for every three French
workers who came to Germany one French prisoner-of-war was released
and sent home by the Führer.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who brought about this agreement?
SAUCKEL: This agreement was concluded on the basis of a
discussion between the French Premier and myself. I was much in favor
of this agreement, because I myself spent 5 years behind barbed wire
during the first World War.
 DR. SERVATIUS: Did it make it easier for the prisoners? Did they
return home?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they returned home.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how did the civilian population react to
that? Above all, how did the workers feel who had to go to Germany?
SAUCKEL: This was an act of comradeship, and according to the
reports I received the feeling was favorable.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then in reality instead of one prisoner-of-war
there were three imprisoned workers?
SAUCKEL: No. These workers could move about freely in
Germany in the same way as the other French workers and the German
population.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they have to come to Germany for an
indefinite period of time?
SAUCKEL: No, they stayed according to the length of their
contracts, just like the other workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the average duration of a contract?
SAUCKEL: 9 months.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then the result was that after 9 months the
prisoners of war, as well as the other workers, could return home?
SAUCKEL: Yes. This continual exchange necessitated new quotas
and new agreements with the French Government, for there always had
to be replacements.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these negotiations carried on under a
certain pressure?
SAUCKEL: No. I beg you to hear witnesses on this. They were
conducted on a free diplomatic basis.
DR. SERVATIUS: To what extent was this Relève carried through?
Was it on a very large or only on a small scale?
SAUCKEL: It was carried out on the basis of 250,000 workers who
were to go to Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: The French Prosecution in their government
report said that only weak and sick people were sent back who could not
work anyway. What have you to say to that?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know, French soldiers who were prisoners
of war were sent back. The sending back and the selection of the soldiers
was not my task but that of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War
Organization. I consider it possible that sick soldiers were also sent back
to their homes in this way if they wished it. But certainly it was not the
intention to send back only sick or older soldiers, but soldiers in general.
That was the basis of the agreement.
DR. SERVATIUS: There was a second course which was chosen—
the improved status which the French called “transformation.” What kind
of arrangement was that?
SAUCKEL: The improved status was a third agreement which
included the provision that French prisoners of war in Germany were
given the same contracts and the same status as all other French civilian
workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: When a new French worker came to Germany?
The ratio therefore was 1 to 1?
SAUCKEL: 1 to 1.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did these French workers have to bind
themselves indefinitely, or was there a time limit here too?
SAUCKEL: Exactly the same as applied to the Relève.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was this improvement in status welcomed by the
French soldiers, or did they disapprove of it?
SAUCKEL: They did not disapprove of it but welcomed it,
according to the attitude of the individual soldier. A large number
rejected it; others accepted it gladly, for by this measure the workers
received high wages and all the liberties that were accorded outside the
barbed wire, and the like. I myself saw how an entire camp accepted this
new status. They had been told that the gates and barbed wire would be
done away with, the prisoner regulations discontinued, and the
surveillance abolished.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could these prisoners who had been turned into
workers also go home?
SAUCKEL: My documents show that they were allowed to go
home.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they receive any furlough?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they did. Many of them came back, and an equally
large number did not.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to refer to Document RF-22,
German text, Page 70 of the French Government report. This document
shows and admits that the prisoners received leave to go home at the
beginning of this transformation, and I quote, “The unfortunate men did
not return, however, and therefore this procedure was discontinued.”
[Turning to the defendant.] Have you heard of the idea, “indirect
forced labor”?
SAUCKEL: No. Please explain it to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the Tribunal.] The French report
contains the argument that those workers who worked in France in
armament industries did so for the benefit of Germany. Sauckel was not
connected with this in any way. This French report, which deals at length
with the economic side of the Arbeitseinsatz, says that it worked
according to a well-conceived and flexible system, and at first
negotiations were friendly. The measures then became harsher in
accordance with the circumstances.
[Turning to the defendant.] Was there a definite plan? Did you have
to carry out certain instructions, or what system was adopted?
SAUCKEL: I should like to be allowed to explain this. A plan of
the sort you have just outlined never existed. The only thing towards
which I worked was the program which I drew up and which is in the
possession of the Tribunal; a program which I admit, and for which I
take all the consequences and the responsibility, even for my
subordinates. This program was carried out through my decrees, which
are also available in full. The development of the war did not permit me
to give full consideration to the circumstances which now, post factum,
appear obvious. We ourselves stood in the midst of the flow of events as
the war developed and did not have time to ponder over such matters.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the “Sperrbetriebe” and the
“Ausnahmebetriebe” in France?
SAUCKEL: The Sperrbetriebe were industries which were the
result of an agreement between Reich Minister Speer and, I believe, the
French Minister of Economics, Bichelonne. They were industries which
worked partly for German armaments and partly for German civilian
requirements, and did not come under my offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the number of workers who were
brought to Germany from foreign countries?
SAUCKEL: The number of workers brought from foreign countries
to Germany, according to careful estimates and the records of the
statistical department of the Reich Ministry of Labor, might be said to be
about 5 million.
 DR. SERVATIUS: Did you determine how far these laborers were
to be used, and how many were to be brought in?
SAUCKEL: No, I could not determine that, for I did not represent
the German economy, and I myself could not decide the extent of the
German armament and agricultural programs.
DR. SERVATIUS: Apart from the current quotas which you had to
supply, there were certain so-called program orders made by the Führer.
Is that true?
SAUCKEL: Yes, because the Führer drew up the armament
program, as far as I know.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have told me of your programs. I shall read
the figures, and perhaps you can confirm them.
The first program in April 1942: the demand was for 1.6 million
workers; 1.6 million were supplied, the entire figure being made up of
foreigners.
The second program in September 1942: 2 million, and 2 million
were supplied, of which 1 million, that is only half, were foreigners.
In 1943: the demand was for 1 million, and 1 million were supplied,
the entire figure being made up of foreign workers.
Then the last program on 4 January 1944: the Führer demanded 4
million, and the demand met with 0.9 million.
SAUCKEL: Allow me to correct you. The figure should read,
demand met with 3 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: Demand 4 million; demand met with 3 million.
And how many were foreigners?
SAUCKEL: 0.9 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: 0.9 million foreigners. How many workers came
from the East, how many from the West, and how many from other
regions?
SAUCKEL: I naturally cannot give you the exact figure here
without data or statistics, but on an average I would say that the figure
for each group might be about 30 percent; the percentage of workers
from the East was certainly somewhat higher.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how were the requirements ascertained?
SAUCKEL: Through the demands of the employers of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what were the employers of labor?
 SAUCKEL: They were the Economic Ministry, the Armament
Ministry, the Agricultural Ministry, the various trades, the State
Railways, the mines, et cetera, all big undertakings.
DR. SERVATIUS: And to whom did they present their demands?
SAUCKEL: Usually the demand was made simultaneously to the
Führer and to me, or to the collecting agencies provided for by the Four
Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they the reduced requirements, if their
demands had to be checked, or were they the original demands?
SAUCKEL: I have just said that it varied. The demands were sent
in to me, and at the same time they were almost always sent to the
Führer, because the Führer had to approve these demands.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was the position of the Central
Planning Board?
SAUCKEL: The Central Planning Board was an office where above
all, as far as I know, the quotas for raw materials were fixed, but where
questions of work and manpower were also discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you receive orders from the Central
Planning Board?
SAUCKEL: Yes, the demands which were put to me I had to
consider as orders, for the Führer had laid on me the duty of meeting the
demands of the war economy.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you belong to the Central Planning Board
yourself?
SAUCKEL: No, I was only called in when there were to be debates
on the use of manpower.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the relationship between your office
and Speer’s?
SAUCKEL: My office had to meet the demands made by Speer.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Speer have his own machinery for directing
labor?
SAUCKEL: Yes, he had to have that in his ministry, and he did
have it. That was essential.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you meet all the demands made of you?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were your labor reserves exhausted?
 SAUCKEL: According to my conviction, yes; for already in 1943—
and it was one of the purposes of my manifesto—I pointed out that the
economic problems of the occupied countries were very serious and had
to be regulated and settled so as to avoid confusion.
DR. SERVATIUS: What labor reserves were still left in Germany?
SAUCKEL: In Germany after 1943 there were no more really
usable reserves of manpower left. Many discussions took place on this
problem, but the labor most in demand was skilled labor, miners, and
workers for the heavy industries.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what manpower reserves were there to be
gotten out of France?
SAUCKEL: I must say that from our point of view, and according
to our judgment concerning economic and labor questions, there was a
great deal of manpower and very extensive reserves in the occupied
territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you mean that in comparison the economic
forces of Germany were far more exhausted than those of the occupied
countries?
SAUCKEL: Perhaps I can show it by a comparison with the first
World War. In the first World War, 10 to 12 million Germans were
mobilized for labor. In this war about 25 million German men and
women were used, and more than half were women. I must add that all
the women who did Red Cross or other welfare work in Germany were
not included in my statistics. They were included in other countries.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have a concluding question: If you view your
activity as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor from
today’s standpoint, what would you say about the use of foreign labor in
general?
SAUCKEL: It is very hard for me to answer this question. I myself
and the entire German people were of the opinion, and had to be, that
this war was neither willed nor brought about by the German people—
and, to be truthful, I must include the Party. Our standpoint was that we
had to do our duty to our people.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is not intended that you should give an
explanation in the wider sense, but that you should limit yourself to the
general aspects of the question of labor allocation, and tell us whether
today you consider your activity justified or not.
 SAUCKEL: From the point of view of the war situation and of
German economy, and as I saw and tried to carry out my allocation of
labor, I considered it justified, and, above all, inevitable; for Germany
and the countries we occupied were an economic whole that could not be
split up. Without such an exchange of eastern and western manpower
Germany could not have existed for even 1 day. The German people
themselves were working to the extreme limit of their capacity.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have concluded my questioning of the
defendant.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg):
Witness, did the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories often try
to cut down the labor quotas demanded by you?
SAUCKEL: Not only the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern
Territories tried to do that, but I myself tried very hard to do so by
intervening with the Führer and all the employers of labor.
DR. THOMA: I should like to put several questions to you with
regard to Document Number 054-PS, which describes the abuses in the
recruiting and transporting of Eastern Workers. Did you personally take
steps to put an end to the abuses which are specified here?
SAUCKEL: Yes, of course. Please interrogate the witnesses on this.
DR. THOMA: Did you notice that this report deals with the city and
the region of Kharkov in the Ukraine, and do you know that this entire
district was never under the civilian administration of the Ministry for
the Occupied Eastern Territories?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I know that, and I testified that this report was not
sent to me but to an Army office. This Army office had its own labor
department which was directly subordinate to it.
DR. THOMA: In this report did you especially notice the following
paragraph on the first page:
“a) With few exceptions, the Ukrainians who are being
employed in the Reich as individual workers for example, in
small trade enterprises, on farms...”
SAUCKEL: Will you please tell me where it says that?
DR. THOMA: On Page 1, the last paragraph: “Judging from the
discussions with the gentlemen and the reading of the reports, it can be
said in general...”
SAUCKEL: Which documents? There are several documents.
 DR. THOMA: I mean 054-PS, of course.
SAUCKEL: Which?
DR. THOMA: I think it is the first, second, third paragraph, “d”—
the second paragraph.
SAUCKEL: Yes, I have found it.
DR. THOMA: It says there that the Ukrainians who were being
employed as individual workers in the Reich, were “very satisfied with
the conditions.” But: “b. On the other hand the Ukrainians living in
community camps complain a great deal...”
Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: Yes. In my testimony I quoted the passage in which the
author of the letter said that this was the case during the first few months
only, for I immediately had the camps inspected and improved. I even
went so far as to get the Reich Labor Minister to issue new camp
regulations, all as a result of this complaint.
DR. THOMA: Did you personally visit the Occupied Eastern
Territories on several occasions and speak to the administrative
authorities there; for example, in Riga, Kovno, Zhitomir?
SAUCKEL: Not only did I speak to the administrative authorities
there, but I compiled this manifesto in Russia and had it published there,
and everything that is contained in the manifesto was communicated to
these offices in the same way.
DR. THOMA: Yes. But is it correct that you emphasized the special
urgency of the Führer decree?
SAUCKEL: That was my duty; that was what I was there for.
DR. THOMA: That is not right from the legal point of view; for
your actual authority came from Göring, as the Delegate for the Four
Year Plan.
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct. The official channel was: Führer,
Göring, Four Year Plan—that was the order.
DR. THOMA: Then, if you said it was the Führer’s order, you did
so to give a special emphasis?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not my intention. The Führer
commissioned me to replace the loss of German soldiers, Doctor. These
were instructions which I had received directly from the Führer or
Göring on the basis of the requirements of the employers of labor.
DR. THOMA: Was a written order sent to you?
 SAUCKEL: Yes, written orders were also sent.
DR. THOMA: From Hitler personally?
SAUCKEL: Yes, from Hitler and from Göring; from both of them.
DR. THOMA: Do you recall that you made an agreement with
Rosenberg to the effect that Eastern Workers in Germany, after their
return to their own country, were to receive land so that they would not
be at a disadvantage as compared with the people who had remained?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that was agreed between Rosenberg and myself;
that is correct.
DR. THOMA: Was this actually carried out?
SAUCKEL: Just how far this was carried out, I am unable to state.
That was a task for the Ministry of the Occupied Eastern Territories. I
assume that it was carried out as far as possible.
DR. THOMA: Do you recall that Rosenberg constantly advocated
the doing away with the so-called Eastern Worker’s badge?
SAUCKEL: Rosenberg, as well as I myself, advocated the abolition
of the Eastern Worker’s badge. There is a letter from the Reichsführer SS
refusing this; but I know for certain that at the end of 1943 or the
beginning of 1944 we succeeded in abolishing this Eastern Worker’s
badge, and it was replaced by a national emblem as worn by the other
foreigners.
DR. THOMA: Why was this Eastern Worker’s badge to be
abolished?
SAUCKEL: This Eastern Worker’s badge was to be abolished for
various reasons, but above all to eliminate the demoralizing effect
produced on the Eastern Workers by the wearing of a discriminating
badge.
DR. THOMA: I have one last question. You said that you did not
recall having received any complaints except those that you discussed
with Rosenberg. Now, numerous complaints were constantly being
investigated by the Central Agency for Eastern People together with the
DAF. Did the DAF report to you on this?
SAUCKEL: The DAF reported that, in accordance with my
directives, it had to put a stop to abuses and bad conditions wherever
they were found. That was its duty. In order to remedy these abuses the
DAF had not to apply to me but to the trade inspection department of the
Reich Ministry of Labor, whose task it was.
 DR. THOMA: Did you make sure whether this inspection
department stopped these abuses?
SAUCKEL: I installed my own inspection agencies there, as
mentioned by Dr. Servatius. However, the trade inspection department
was the only authorized agency which had the legal authority to use
compulsory measures and it was supervised by the Reich Labor Minister
who had full authority.
DR. THOMA: I have no further questions. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the emblem that you have been
speaking about?
SAUCKEL: The Eastern Worker’s emblem or badge consisted of a
bluebordered square, which bore a blue inscription “Ost.” The
Reichsführer SS first ordered it to be worn on the right side of the breast;
later, on the sleeve. Still later I was instrumental in getting this changed
to a national emblem—blue, I think, or something similar—like the
Russian colors, as the people themselves wished.
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Herr Sauckel,
the Defendant Keitel and the OKW are accused by the Prosecution of the
deportation of civilian people for the purposes of the mobilization of
labor. You were also interrogated before the start of this Trial as to
whether the OKW, and Keitel as Chief of the OKW, participated in the
procurement, recruitment, and conscription of people in the occupied
territories.
A number of things which were not clear and which are contained
in the record have been cleared up by your testimony. Especially in
answering the last question of my colleague, Dr. Thoma, you made it
clear that the organizational official channel was as follows: The
Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, the Four Year Plan
—Göring, and the Führer. Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: Generally speaking, yes.
DR. NELTE: I am interested in determining whether in this official
channel the OKW was included, or the Führer in some other function
than Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht.
SAUCKEL: I myself was not a soldier, and I am not familiar with
the detailed organization of the OKW and the OKH. It was often difficult
for a layman to make the distinction between these things. It is true that
the OKH was competent for the recruitment of workers in occupied
countries controlled by army groups. Therefore, labor regulations for the
occupied countries which were under the authority of the Army had to be
issued through laws or directives by the General Staff.
DR. NELTE: You probably mean the Quartermaster General of the
Army?
SAUCKEL: The Quartermaster General was, as far as I know, next
to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army.
DR. NELTE: And by this you mean to say that the OKW and the
Defendant Keitel had no competence concerning the procuring,
recruiting, and conscripting of manpower in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: He had no competence in this respect. I came into
contact with Field Marshal Keitel, because the Führer repeatedly
instructed me to ask Field Marshal Keitel to transmit his orders to the
army groups by telephone or through directives.
DR. NELTE: And what about the question of the allocation of
workers? Did the OKW, and specifically the Defendant Keitel as Chief
of the OKW, have any competence concerning the allocation of workers
at home?
SAUCKEL: No, for the workers were used in those economic
branches for which they had been demanded, and they had nothing at all
to do with the OKW.
DR. NELTE: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of the Prosecution wish to
cross-examine?
M. JACQUES B. HERZOG (Assistant Prosecutor for the French
Republic): Defendant Sauckel, you joined the National Socialist Party in
1925, didn’t you? Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: I joined the National Socialist Party for the first time,
as an ordinary member, as early as 1923. When the Party was
reorganized in 1925 I again became a member.
M. HERZOG: But you had supported the policy of National
Socialism since 1921, had you not?
SAUCKEL: From 1921 onwards, I supported a German policy. In
1921 I did not as yet belong to the Party. I knew about the Party, and I
was in sympathy with its ideas; that is probably the right way to put it.
M. HERZOG: Did you not make speeches in favor of National
Socialism from that time on?
SAUCKEL: From about the middle of 1921 I made speeches in
favor of Germany, not expressly for the Party and only in a very small
way, at small gatherings, and as my conscience guided me.
M. HERZOG: You were Gauleiter, member of the Landrat, Minister
of the Interior, and Governor of Thuringia. Is it correct that in this
capacity you brought about the Nazification of your Gau?
SAUCKEL: I was Prime Minister of Thuringia from August 1932,
and I was Minister of the Interior as well.
M. HERZOG: I am asking you the question again: Is it correct that,
in your capacity as Gauleiter and Governor of Thuringia, you brought
about the Nazification of your Gau?
SAUCKEL: Nazification is a term with which I was neither familiar
nor do I consider it correct. I recruited for the National Socialist Party
and I supported it.
M. HERZOG: You were Obergruppenführer of the organization of
the SS, were you not?
SAUCKEL: I do not quite understand. Of the SS?
M. HERZOG: You were an Obergruppenführer of the SS?
SAUCKEL: I already stated in my preliminary interrogation that I
was an honorary Obergruppenführer of the SS. I myself never served in
the SS, nor did I exercise any functions in the SS.
M. HERZOG: When did you become Obergruppenführer of the SS?
SAUCKEL: As far as I remember I became an Obergruppenführer
of the SS in 1934.
M. HERZOG: And you were that until when?
SAUCKEL: Until the end.
M. HERZOG: Among the documents which you have presented in
your document book, there is Document Sauckel-95. I will read the
following passage on Page 252 of the French translation:
“My dear fellow countrymen, our magnificent SA and SS,
persecuted and insulted during a whole decade as the scum of
the German people, have carried through, supported, and
sustained this revolution with an unshakable discipline....”
Is it correct...
THE PRESIDENT: From what are you reading?
M. HERZOG: From Document Sauckel-95 of the defendant’s
document book; Document Sauckel-95, which was submitted yesterday
by the learned counsel for the defense, Page 252 of the French
translation. It is in the third document book of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
M. HERZOG: I put the question again and read:
“My dear fellow countrymen, our magnificent SA and SS,
persecuted and insulted during a whole decade as the scum of
the German people, have carried through, supported, and
sustained this revolution with an unshakable discipline....”
Do you confirm this declaration?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I request that I be shown the document in
cross-examination so that I can define my attitude in detail.
M. HERZOG: This document is taken from your own document
book, which you yourself submitted.
SAUCKEL: Yes, I remember it well.
M. HERZOG: Were the Nuremberg Laws concerning Jews in
accordance with your convictions?
SAUCKEL: I had no influence on legislation such as culminated in
the Nuremberg Laws. My conviction is that every nation and every race
has the right to exist and to demand respect and protection through itself.
What I demand and have demanded for my own people is exactly the
same.
M. HERZOG: Did you see to it that the Nuremberg Laws were
strictly applied in the Gau of Thuringia?
SAUCKEL: The Nuremberg Laws could apply to Thuringia only
insofar as my authority to appoint or dismiss employees was involved;
and, of course, according to German law, it was my duty to carry out the
law. The carrying out of this law by me entailed neither ill-usage nor any
other inhuman treatment.
M. HERZOG: Did you approve of Hitler’s theory of living space?
SAUCKEL: The Führer wrote about living space in his book. How
far I agreed or disagreed with him cannot, in my opinion, be dealt with in
this Trial, for I had no influence as to how the Führer himself should
interpret the word Lebensraum.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think that you must answer the
question, whether or not you approve of the doctrine of Lebensraum.
SAUCKEL: I am not fully acquainted with the statements made by
the Führer about the doctrine of Lebensraum. I should like to emphasize
that I never thought of Lebensraum in connection with the carrying out
of wars, or wars of aggression; neither did I promote the idea; but the
idea of Lebensraum is perhaps best brought home to us by the fact that
the population of Europe in the last 100 years has increased threefold,
from 150 million to 450 million.
M. HERZOG: Did you, or did you not approve of the theory of
Lebensraum? Answer “yes” or “no.”
SAUCKEL: I did not agree with the theory of Lebensraum if it had
to do with wars of aggression.
M. HERZOG: Did you approve of Hitler’s theory of the master
race?
SAUCKEL: I could give abundant proof that I personally always
refused to emphasize the idea of a master race, and said so in my
speeches. I am personally much more interested in proficiency than in
ideas about a master race.
M. HERZOG: Then you did not think that the foreign policy of
Germany should have been conducted according to these two theories;
the theory of Lebensraum on the one hand, and the theory of the master
race on the other hand?
SAUCKEL: I have already stated to my counsel that I did not
concern myself with foreign policy and was not informed about it, as I
am not versed in matters of foreign policy.
M. HERZOG: On the contrary, did you not approve of all the
measures of foreign policy, and did you not participate in them?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better break off now, and you
can repeat the question tomorrow.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 30 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]
ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-SECOND DAY
Thursday, 30 May 1946

Morning Session
[The Defendant Sauckel resumed the stand.]
PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl):
Mr. President, I should like to put a request to you. My client comes next
in order and he would like to be excused, if possible, this afternoon and
all day tomorrow, so that he can prepare his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that the
Defendant Von Papen is absent.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, I was asking you yesterday
whether you considered that Germany’s foreign policy was based on the
Hitlerian theories concerning living space and the master race.
SAUCKEL: May I ask you to repeat the question? I did not quite
understand it in German.
M. HERZOG: I was asking you yesterday if you considered that the
foreign policy of Germany was based on the two Hitlerian theories,
Lebensraum and the master race.
SAUCKEL: I have understood—whether German foreign policy
was based on the principles of Lebensraum and the master race.
M. HERZOG: Yes, I am asking you to answer whether, in your
opinion, it was so.
SAUCKEL: Not on the principle of a master race. I should like to
be permitted to give an explanation of this.
I personally have never approved of the statements made by some
of the National Socialist speakers about a superior race and a master
race. I have never advocated that. As a young man I traveled about the
world. I traveled in Australia and in America, and I met families who
belong to the happiest memories of my life. But I loved my own people
and sought, I admit, equality of rights for them; and I have always stood
for that. I have never believed in the superiority of one particular race,
but I always held that equality of rights was necessary.
 M. HERZOG: That being so, you did not approve of the whole of
the foreign policy of Hitler; and you did not collaborate with him?
SAUCKEL: In answer to the question by my counsel I stated that I
never considered myself to be a politician as regards foreign policy. I
entered the Party by quite a different way and for quite different motives.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the declaration which you made
on 4 September 1945 to two American officers?
[Turning to the Tribunal.] This declaration is Document Number
3057-PS. It was submitted as Exhibit Number USA-223.
[Turning to the defendant.] You said the following:
“I have been a convinced National Socialist since 1921 and
agreed 100 percent with the program of Adolf Hitler. I worked
actively to that end; and during the period from 1921 until the
assumption of power I made about 500 speeches, the sense and
contents of which represented the National Socialist
standpoint. It was for me a particular satisfaction to have raised
the Gau of Thuringia to a predominant position with regard to
its National Socialist views and convictions. Until the collapse
I never doubted Adolf Hitler, but obeyed his orders blindly.”
THE PRESIDENT: You are going a little bit too fast. This has been
read, M. Herzog. I do not think you need read all of it.
M. HERZOG: I would ask you then, Defendant Sauckel, if you
confirm the statements which were made under oath, voluntarily and
without any duress, on 4 September 1945, and which contradict those
that you made yesterday and which you have just made to me.
SAUCKEL: I confirm that my signature is appended to this
document. I ask the Tribunal’s permission to state how that signature
came about.
This document was presented to me in its finished form. I asked to
be allowed to read and study this document in my cell in Oberursel and
decide whether I could sign it. That was denied me. During the
conversation an officer was consulted who, I was told, belonged to the
Polish or Russian army; and it was made clear to me that if I hesitated
too long in signing this document I would be handed over to the Russian
authorities. Then this Polish or Russian officer entered and asked,
“Where is Sauckel’s family? We know Sauckel, of course we will take
him with us; but his family will have to be taken into Russian territory as
well.” I am the father of 10 children. I did not stop to consider; and
thinking of my family, I signed this document.
When I returned to my cell, I sent a written message to the
commandant of the camp and asked permission to talk with him alone on
this matter. But that was not possible, because shortly afterwards I was
brought to Nuremberg.
M. HERZOG: Is not your signature at the end of this document in
which you declared that you “made the above declarations voluntarily
and without any duress”?
SAUCKEL: That is correct, but in this situation...
M. HERZOG: I think your explanation is sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you ask him whether he has read it now
and whether it is true.
M. HERZOG: I asked you a few moments ago, and I ask you now:
Are you ready to confirm that your statements are correct?
SAUCKEL: These statements are not correct in individual points,
and I asked that I might correct these various points; but I was not given
the time to do that.
On the last morning before I left I was told I could discuss this
matter in Nuremberg, and when I was interrogated here I told the
American officer about the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, was this document read over in the
Tribunal during the prosecution?
M. HERZOG: This document was submitted under Exhibit Number
USA-223.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, as far as I recall this document
was not submitted. At the time I had a conversation with the American
representative of the Prosecution and told him about these objections. He
did not bring it up at a later session because of these objections; and the
President himself, at the conclusion, asked whether this document would
not be produced, and the prosecutor said, “No. Having talked it over with
the Defense, I will dispense with this document.”
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you tell us that it wasn’t read over in
court.
DR. SERVATIUS: No, it was not read in court. At any rate I would
like to object to the admissibility of this document, for it was given under
duress.
 THE PRESIDENT: Under these circumstances, M. Herzog, you
may cross-examine in what way you like upon the document. The
Tribunal was under the impression that it had already been read over.
That is why they stopped you reading it.
M. HERZOG: [Turning to the defendant.] In Paragraph 2 you
declared:
“After the putting into effect of the Nuremberg Laws, in
keeping with my convictions, I saw to it that all these laws
were fully carried out in the Gau of Thuringia.”
Paragraph 4:
“With regard to foreign policy I have been of the opinion that
the German people has a justified claim for living space in
Europe and by reason of their superior racial level have to
assume a leading position.... I agreed with all the decisions
taken by Hitler and the NSDAP concerning the means to be
used and the measures to be taken to obtain these ends, and I
collaborated actively in the execution of this plan.”
SAUCKEL: I could not follow your concluding sentences.
M. HERZOG: I will read it once more:
“...I agreed with all the decisions taken by Hitler and the
NSDAP concerning the means to be used and the measures to
be taken to obtain these ends, and I collaborated actively in the
execution of this plan.”
I ask you to confirm whether you made these statements.
SAUCKEL: I certainly would not have made those statements in the
way I did, if I had been able to act freely and according to my own will.
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will consider it. Is it a fact that you
were appointed...
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, the Tribunal thinks that the
document is before the witness and he should be asked to point out in
what way he says the document is wrong.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, you heard what the President has
said. You say that this document does not correspond to the truth. Will
you kindly tell the Tribunal in what way it does not.
SAUCKEL: May I take this document point by point? I was 100
percent in agreement with the social program, and I told my counsel that
when he examined me.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, what the Tribunal wishes is that you
should take the document and point out, sentence by sentence, what is
wrong in it.
SAUCKEL: In Paragraph 1, the year 1921 is incorrect.
I became a member, as my first membership card shows, only in
1923 or 1925. Before the year 1923 I was in sympathy with the Party.
As to being 100 percent in agreement with Adolf Hitler’s program, I
meant 100 percent insofar as the program appeared to me to be justified
legally and constitutionally, and according to ethics and morality.
Just how many meetings I conducted I cannot say. My speeches and
lectures were based mainly on my life and on my experiences. Those
were the only things that I could talk about, and I wanted to reconcile the
German social classes and the German professions to National Socialist
ideology.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, I have pointed out to you that what
the Tribunal desires is for you to take the document and say what
sentences in it are wrong, and not to make speeches.
SAUCKEL: In my eyes, all the sentences are wrong. I would not
have put them that way if I myself had been able to formulate them. The
way they stand, I dispute each and every sentence, for I did not write
them and I was not consulted. These sentences were put before me as
they are now.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I be permitted to give an
explanation of this matter? This statement is practically a summary of all
the interrogations in which the various points appear as a confession in
the sense of the Indictment. The defendant could not say a word in his
own defense if this were correct. Since it is a résumé and since
conclusions can be drawn from it, he must have the opportunity of
refuting these conclusions; and that necessitates a statement. These are
not definite facts which can be answered with “yes” or “no.”
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has just said that the whole
document is wrong, and he has also said that the document was obtained
from him under duress.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And it is therefore not any use to go through it
in detail. But the Tribunal would like to hear from the American
Prosecution if they have anything to say about the matter.
 MR. DODD: I do not have a copy of the document before me in
English, but I...
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Mr. Dodd, M. Herzog has said that it
was offered in evidence under the Exhibit Number USA-223.
MR. DODD: My recollection is that—I will check the record, Mr.
President—my recollection is that in the presentation of the case on
Slave Labor, we included this in our document book but did not offer it
in evidence. I think I said to the Tribunal at the time that we had decided
not to offer it. It had been printed and put in the document book.
My memory may be faulty, but my recollection is, Mr. President,
that the President of the Tribunal asked me if I did not intend to offer it,
and I then stated that we had thought it over and decided not to use it.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not understand how it gets an exhibit
number if it isn’t offered in evidence.
MR. DODD: I don’t either. I think it is an error.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Mr. Dodd, do you know whether this is a
résumé or a summary of a number of interrogations which were taken?
MR. DODD: My understanding is to the contrary. I think it was
taken before the Defendant Sauckel was in Nuremberg and before any
interrogations were conducted on the part of the interrogation division of
the American Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you aware Dr. Servatius was objecting to
the document on the ground that it was obtained under duress?
MR. DODD: My recollection is that at the time of the presentation
of the Slave Labor case Dr. Servatius made some objection, and I think
that is what brought the matter up at that time; and that is why we did not
use it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then you had better pass from it.
M. HERZOG: [Turning to the defendant.] You were appointed
Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor by an ordinance of
21 March 1942?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct to say that this decree was countersigned
by the Codefendant Keitel?
SAUCKEL: The decree, I believe, was countersigned three times. I
believe that is right. At the moment I cannot confirm it with certainty.
 M. HERZOG: Would you kindly explain to the Tribunal under what
circumstances you were appointed to that office?
SAUCKEL: I answered that question when it was put to me by my
counsel yesterday. It was a surprise to me.
M. HERZOG: Did Speer, the Reich Minister for Armaments, have
anything to do with your appointment?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you that from my own knowledge.
Bormann’s announcement said it was at the suggestion of Speer; but I
cannot tell you that from my own knowledge.
M. HERZOG: Do you recollect having made any statement on that
subject in your interrogation on 12 September 1945?
SAUCKEL: At this moment I cannot remember the statement.
M. HERZOG: On 12 September 1945 you were interrogated by
Major Monigan; and you appear to have stated the following—the
Tribunal will find this on the first page of the extracts of the
interrogatory which has been handed them:
“In March 1942 I was summoned rather suddenly by Minister
Speer, who had been appointed a short while previously. Speer
told me that it was urgent that I should assume...”
THE PRESIDENT: Could you move those papers away from the
light; you cannot see the light which is constantly going on.
M. HERZOG: “...Speer told me that it was urgent that I should
assume new functions in connection with the question of labor.
A few days later he asked me to go with him to general
headquarters, and I was introduced to the Führer who told me
that I must accept this new appointment without fail.”
Do you confirm that statement?
SAUCKEL: It is correct; only I cannot say whether that was before
a decision—whether my appointment was previously arranged before
these meetings through the initiative of some other gentlemen; but except
for that, the facts are correct.
M. HERZOG: But you confirm that the Defendant Speer, Minister
for Armament and War Production, took you to Hitler’s headquarters on
the occasion of your appointment.
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
 M. HERZOG: Yesterday your counsel submitted a chart showing
the general organization of your service and how it was connected with
the other organizations of the Reich. You declared that chart was correct.
I would ask you to confirm, by saying “yes” or “no,” whether you think
that chart is correct.
SAUCKEL: According to my own personal recollection, yes.
M. HERZOG: Have you that chart in front of you?
SAUCKEL: No, I have not.
M. HERZOG: It is the document which was handed up yesterday by
your counsel showing the different offices.
THE PRESIDENT: Which chart is it?
M. HERZOG: It is Chart Number 1, indicating how Sauckel’s
department dovetailed with the other ministerial services.
[Turning to the defendant.] Will you look at Column 6 starting from
the left, the column above which there is the name of the Defendant
Funk? Have you found it?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
M. HERZOG: Would you go down that column, the third square,
representing the armament inspectors? Is it correct that the armament
inspectors, as shown here, were under the Defendant Funk?
SAUCKEL: Under Funk? Which department do you mean, which
division? That is not quite correct here. It should be moved a bit to the
side. Later it was under Speer. It says Reichsautobahn and highway
inspectors. That did not come under Funk. That is a mistake.
M. HERZOG: Do you see the square beside that one, which
connects the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor with the
directorate of the Reichsautobahn service. It is the square on the right-
hand side, a little above the others. Should it be connected with the
Reichsautobahn service? Should it not be with the square above,
inspectors of armaments?
SAUCKEL: Yes; I cannot understand how this mistake could
happen in this chart. I have not seen this diagram before. This is the first
time I have seen it; that is a mistake. I did not know about that.
M. HERZOG: And you stated it was accurate without having
examined it beforehand, is that so?
SAUCKEL: I assumed it to be the same chart as the one which was
put before me as complete.
 DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, when I presented this chart
yesterday, I mentioned that there might be a few discrepancies. These
discrepancies came in when it was being mimeographed. But I did not
see the final...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you can ask any questions if you
want to in re-examination, but there is no ground for objection to
questions which have been put. The questions are perfectly proper.
M. HERZOG: Defendant, you did take part in the conferences of
the Central Planning Board of the Four Year Plan?
SAUCKEL: Only in some of them, when labor problems were
being discussed.
M. HERZOG: Will you please tell the Tribunal which of your
colleagues accompanied you or represented you at such conferences?
SAUCKEL: That varied—Dr. Timm, Dr. Hildebrandt, Dr.
Stothfang; but it varied.
M. HERZOG: Who among the other defendants also participated in
those conferences? Can you tell us?
SAUCKEL: I can recall with certainty only Herr Speer as being one
who participated in these conferences. Whether Herr Funk actually
participated, I really cannot remember any particular meeting. Perhaps
he did, and perhaps not. I am sorry I cannot say for certain.
M. HERZOG: And the Defendant Göring?
SAUCKEL: At the meetings of the Central Planning Board I
personally never saw the Reich Marshal. I do not know whether certain
conferences which were held at his place had strictly to do with the
Central Planning Board. Some conferences in which he participated took
place at Karinhall, but whether they dealt with matters concerning the
Central Planning Board I cannot say. It was not always clear.
M. HERZOG: But when the Defendants Göring and Funk did not
take part in these meetings were they not represented there?
SAUCKEL: The Reich Marshal was represented by Field Marshal
Milch, but whether Reich Minister Funk was represented I cannot
remember exactly. He might have been represented by Herr Kehrl or
someone else. There were many gentlemen there; I did not know all of
them personally.
M. HERZOG: Is it not correct to say that, at these conferences of
the Central Planning Board of the Four Year Plan, the general decisions
concerning the allocation of labor were made by all the people who were
present or were represented?
SAUCKEL: At the Central Planning Board no general decisions
were made. The demands were made known there and, as there was
nearly always a dispute, the higher authorities had to decide; generally it
was the Führer. That happened frequently.
M. HERZOG: The Central Planning Board had established a
collaboration between you and the other defendants who were present or
represented there, is that not so?
SAUCKEL: That collaboration did not originate there, as those
questions had already been discussed before the formation of this Central
Planning Board. The questions were also discussed there, and demands
were submitted and discussed.
M. HERZOG: Will you please take Document Number R-124. It
has already been submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number USA-
179. You will see therein a declaration which you made at the meeting of
1 March 1944. I read:
“My duty towards the Führer...”
SAUCKEL: Will you please tell me the page from which you are
reading?
M. HERZOG: Page 1780. The place is no doubt marked.
“My duty towards the Führer, the Reich Marshal, Minister
Speer, and you, gentlemen, as well as towards agriculture, is
clear; and I will fulfill it. As a start we have already 262,000
new workers; and I hope and am firmly convinced that I shall
obtain most of what has been asked. The labor will have to be
distributed, of course, according to the needs of German
armament first, and secondly, German industry as a whole; and
I shall always be prepared, gentlemen, to see to it that closest
contact is constantly maintained here and that closest
collaboration is given by the subordinated labor exchanges, as
well as by the Gau labor exchanges.”
Therefore, you do not contest the fact that the Central Planning
Board did establish collaboration among the various services which
recruited manpower, because you yourself asked for this collaboration.
SAUCKEL: I did not deny that there was collaboration.
Collaboration is necessary in every regime and in every system. Here we
were not concerned with foreign labor only, but chiefly with German
labor, even at that period. I did not dispute the fact that work was being
carried on; but final decisions were not always made there. That is what I
wanted to say.
M. HERZOG: It is correct that you appointed delegates to represent
you in the various German administrative departments?
SAUCKEL: I did not have representatives in the various
administrative departments. I had liaison men, or else the administrative
departments had liaison men in my office.
M. HERZOG: Did you not have such a liaison officer with the
Defendant Speer, Minister for Armaments and War Production?
SAUCKEL: The man who was constantly with Speer was not a
liaison officer, but the man who talked over with the Minister questions
of demand, et cetera, which were pending. As far as I remember it was a
Herr Berk.
M. HERZOG: And did you have a liaison officer with the Reich
Minister of Labor?
SAUCKEL: I had no liaison officer with the Reich Minister of
Labor. There were two departments in the Reich Ministry of Labor
which concerned themselves with these problems in an administrative
capacity.
M. HERZOG: In your interrogatory of 12 September 1945 you said
as follows—the Tribunal will find it on Pages 6 and 7 of the
interrogatory:
“ ‘I had moreover two officials who acted as intermediaries
between Minister Speer and the Ministry of Labor.’
“Question: ‘Did this liaison officer establish a connection
between your Ministry, Minister Speer, and the Ministry of
Labor?’
“Answer: ‘Between me, Minister Speer, and the Ministry of
Labor...’ ”
SAUCKEL: Will you please tell me the page?
M. HERZOG: Pages 4 and 5. Have you found it?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
M. HERZOG: “Between me, Minister Speer, and the Ministry of
Labor...”
 THE PRESIDENT: That is surely Page 6, is it not? You said Pages
4 and 5. It is Page 6, is it not?
M. HERZOG: Page 4 of the German extract, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.
M. HERZOG: “Between me, Minister Speer, and the Ministry
of Labor there were two counsellors, Dr. Stothfang ... and
Landrat Berk. They were jurists and experts in national
economy. Dr. Stothfang was commissioned to act principally
as liaison officer with the Ministry of Labor...”
Why did you tell me a few minutes ago that you had no liaison
officer with the Ministry of Labor?
SAUCKEL: I made it quite clear that there were two departments
which belonged to the Ministry of Labor, Departments 3 and 5; and this
Ministerialrat Dr. Stothfang was formerly the personal assistant to State
Secretary Syrup. In a few isolated cases he had discussions with State
Secretary Syrup at my request, that is true; but these were not important.
In general the departments themselves were in touch with the Ministry of
Labor.
M. HERZOG: You confirm then, that you had a liaison officer at the
Ministry of Labor and another in Minister Speer’s office?
SAUCKEL: I confirm that for occasional conferences. But these
gentlemen were attached to those departments, and they came to me as
my personal consultants and did not work in that Ministry. I cannot say
either whether in this case the translation is correct. I do not remember
exactly, but in principle it is correct.
But these gentlemen worked with me.
M. HERZOG: And will you please tell the Tribunal what the
Stabsbesprechung was?
SAUCKEL: Stabsbesprechung was a conference on technical
questions in which the various ministries or industrial employers
participated who needed labor and the questions which had to be
considered were discussed. I could not act independently, of course, as
you have heard.
M. HERZOG: Who instituted these conferences, this new
arrangement, these staff conferences? Who took the initiative in
instituting them?
 SAUCKEL: These staff conferences were instituted by me in order
to obtain a clear conception of all these important questions, because in
no regime or government in the world can anything be done in the dark.
M. HERZOG: You confirm then that these various kinds of liaison
imply a common responsibility as to decisions taken by each one of you
in the matter of manpower?
SAUCKEL: This question is not clear to me technically or
administratively, for I could not do anything with the workers. I had to
give them to other people, and I had to discuss the way this was to be
done. But these conferences did not take place with the idea of a
conspiracy or of a criminal act; they were the same kind of conferences
as formerly took place. I have been present at conferences under a
parliamentary system, and matters were dealt with in exactly the same
way.
M. HERZOG: That is not what I was asking you. I was asking you
whether you confirmed that the existence of these liaison officers to
Minister Speer and the Minister of Labor, on the one hand, and the
existence of this new organization that you created, on the other hand,
implied a common responsibility in the decisions regarding manpower
taken by Minister Speer, the Minister of Labor, and by you?
SAUCKEL: I cannot answer this question with a definite “no,” as
orders were given to me which, as a German official, I had to carry out
in this case; and in order to carry them out I had to hold conferences. It
was not possible to do otherwise, for it was not I personally, but German
economy, that demanded and used these workers. This matter had to be
settled in some way, regardless of whether German or other workers
were concerned; and the same situation applied in normal times.
M. HERZOG: Is it a fact that, after you were appointed, you were
authorized to be represented by special representatives in the military
and civil departments of the occupied areas?
SAUCKEL: After 30 October—I cannot state the exact date—at the
instigation of the Führer, I appointed representatives to the governments
in the occupied countries. I mentioned this yesterday through my
counsel.
M. HERZOG: The 30th of October? I think you mean the decree of
30 September 1942. It is a mistake on your part for the decree is dated 30
September.
SAUCKEL: I am sorry, I do not know the exact date.
 M. HERZOG: Is it right that these representatives, appointed by that
decree, were directly subordinate to you?
SAUCKEL: Insofar as they were my delegates, that is, for the
passing on of orders, they were subordinate to me.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that they were authorized to give directives
to the civilian and military authorities in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: That is correct as far as orders were concerned, but it is
not true in general. It was a technical matter.
M. HERZOG: Who was your delegate with the occupation
authorities in France?
SAUCKEL: The delegate with the occupation authorities in France
was, first of all, President Ritter; he was murdered in Paris. And after
him, President Glatzel.
M. HERZOG: Did you have a representative in Belgium?
SAUCKEL: In Belgium I had a delegate by the name of Schulze; he
was with the military commander.
M. HERZOG: And in Holland?
SAUCKEL: In Holland there were various men. First of all, Herr
Schmidt, and there was another man; I believe his name was Ritterbusch,
or something like that, but I do not recall the exact name.
M. HERZOG: This system of representatives with the occupation
authorities, was that approved of by Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: This was at the instigation of the Führer, and I assume
that Speer agreed. He recommended it, as far as I know.
M. HERZOG: To your knowledge, did he take any initiative in the
decree issued by the Führer concerning this matter?
SAUCKEL: Yes. He was present and he recommended it.
M. HERZOG: In your interrogatory you said, when speaking about
these representatives, that Speer instituted these agencies for manpower
in 1941 or 1942. The Tribunal will find this statement on Page 9 of the
excerpts from the interrogatory. What do you understand by that
sentence?
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand you.
M. HERZOG: I shall read an extract of your interrogation of 8
October 1945.
“Question: ‘What was the mission entrusted to your
representatives in the labor offices of the military commander
 and of the civil governor? Did they merely give technical
advice to the military authorities, which could be rejected at
any time by the latter, or did they have authority to give
directives to the military commanders on technical
questions?’ ”
THE PRESIDENT: On what page is that?
M. HERZOG: Page 9, Mr. President.
“Answer: ‘In 1941 or 1942 Speer instituted this delegation for
manpower.’ ”
I would merely ask you what you understand by that phrase. What
did you mean when you said that Speer instituted this delegation for
manpower in 1941 or 1942?
SAUCKEL: I have to say, in this connection, that I never saw the
minutes again after I had been interrogated. I cannot confirm that
sentence about 1941-42, and I cannot imagine that I expressed myself in
that way during the interrogation.
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will judge your answer. Is it correct
that, besides your representatives with the civil and military
commanders, you installed administrative offices for labor in the
occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: That is not correct. They were already there.
M. HERZOG: You confirm then that besides the delegates who
represented you, there were recruiting agencies for manpower in the
occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: Yes. In the occupied territories, in all regional
governments, either civilian or military, there were departments dealing
with manpower which were a part of the administration; and they were
subordinate to the administration authorities.
M. HERZOG: Can you give an indication of the size of the
personnel of those various services in the occupied areas?
SAUCKEL: Do you mean the total number? I cannot tell you from
memory the separate figures for the personnel of these administrative
offices. I never have known these figures exactly.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the conference which took place,
with you as chairman, on 15 and 16 July 1944 at the Wartburg with the
heads of the regional labor offices and the labor delegations from the
European occupied territories? On 15 July 1944, in the afternoon, State