The Nuremberg Interviews (39 page)

He emphasized the same thing I’ve heard from Ribbentrop, Frank, and others, that he volunteered for army (in Sauckel’s case he said navy) duty with the outbreak of war in 1939. But the request was denied. He was charged with caring for the economic and social well-being in Thuringia and on the borders of that province. Unexpectedly, then, in 1942 he received what he was again prone to call “the hardest assignment of my life” when he was called to Berlin to take charge of labor “deployment.” He “had to obtain and place millions of laborers for German war leaders in various fields of the economy.” The Führer told him he had “a soldier’s job to do.” He claimed that “both in written orders and oral commands he upheld the rights and protected the interests of not only German, but also foreign workers.” He talked of “the solidarity of the European laboring man,” and so forth.

I asked him what he knew of the reports of the mistreatment of slave labor, of families being cruelly separated in occupied countries and the able ones brought as workers to Germany, and of people having been seized in theaters and public places and shipped without notice as workers to Germany. His reply was evasive. “What would you do if your country’s welfare depended on labor? When a ship is in a storm it requires one captain.” These and other evasive non sequiturs were his stock in trade, and method of parrying vital moral and ethical points.

In 1935 Sauckel was appointed by Hitler as honorary member of the Gustloff Works, and while a member of this Sauckel tried to build a subterranean airplane factory in 1944 “according to my own engineering ideas.”
²
Sauckel frequently referred to himself as a worker, a seaman, or an engineer.

What was his attitude toward the Jews? Was his family anti-Semitic? No, he recalled no particular anti-Semitism on his father’s part. His father later became a party member, and so naturally shared the party ideas on the Jewish question. But in years gone by, when Sauckel was a child, he could recall no particular anti-Semitism. In general, however, he believed that the Jewish question “had to be handled,” that even
among Jews there were the Zionists who agreed that Jews are a race and should have their own land. As for extermination of the Jews, he was not in favor of it, and knew of no Jewish persecutions in Thuringia while he was there. What happened later, after he went to Berlin in 1942, he could not say. Indeed he knew the concentration camp Buchenwald had been there once in the early years, but that was “Himmler’s territory” and not his. Although Buchenwald was in Thuringia he had no jurisdiction over it.

He attributed all his work to the highest of ideals, a devotion to Hitler, and the idea of unifying German life. He tried to glorify his own simple beginnings and use them as a raison d’être for his political convictions. He repeated proudly his not owning any property; having had no large sums in a bank; his wife’s bearing their ten children almost without medical aid, at home; his avoidance of social functions; and his choice of a simple way of life.

His attitude toward Hitler was still that of the blindly loyal servant. Nothing that transpired at the trial thus far seemed to have changed his evaluation of Hitler. He did say that some of the “little things that have come out thus far in the trials are incomprehensible,” but that did not seem to seriously affect his view of Hitler. As with so many of his followers, Hitler kept Sauckel at a distance, and was never intimate with him. At the times Hitler saw him it was to give him a direct order or policy, or to discuss literature, art, and music, things which were completely out of Sauckel’s sphere of intellectual development, and thus probably made the Führer seem all the more wondrous. His attitude toward other Nazis was unoriginal and consisted of the same platitudes I had heard so often in the Nuremberg prison. “Himmler, Bormann, and Goebbels, they were probably bad fellows.” Shifting the buck, especially to those who were dead or have disappeared, is as characteristic of Sauckel as of many of the others. He said that he never approved of these men or understood them, but on the other hand he had no occasion to negate their policies or object to their doings, because it wasn’t his work. Asked if the slave labor which he controlled and Himmler’s activities didn’t in many ways relate to each other, he denied this vigorously. What about in the procuring of the laborers? “No.” He considered the three men Himmler, Bormann, and Goebbels responsible for the isolation of Hitler. This last was a refrain I had heard before. He believed the “estrangement from Christianity” was the greatest error, and attributable to Bormann.

Sauckel admits he left the church, too, but that basically and within the confines of his family, he remained “deeply religious.” Just what he means by that term I could not find out, and it was my impression that he was mouthing words that sounded nice and were part of the general picture he was trying to represent: a good, solid worker who was so busy doing good that he went along with the party, despite certain unsavory businesses which he sensed, because of his ideals.

Toward the end of the war, the fall of Thuringia was imminent and Sauckel saw Albert Kesselring. Even then he hoped some armistice or adjustment with the western powers was possible. It was again an instance of how little knowledge these men had of the overall picture of the war or of international events. On the eighth or ninth of May he was at Berchtesgaden and voluntarily gave himself up, through the Catholic parson there, to the Americans. He “returned to the arms of the church” then, he said. These statements were not made with much feeling, but rather in clipped sentences easy to understand, as if he were making a public address.

He was very unhappy and depressed at first over the war’s loss. But now he felt better, and “secure in the knowledge” that he has “personally done nothing to be ashamed of.” If he went “before God or the highest court” he could go with a “confident heart.” Love had always been in his heart, not hate. Hate was too much present in the last few years, the war years, not before, among the Nazis. Then he uttered much platitudinous material that amounted to God is love, and without love nothing can be accomplished, and so on.

“I always tried to bring understanding between the Russians and the Germans and therefore I don’t fear the Russian case which began yesterday. I can prove it. After I took office in 1942 as general plenipotentiary for labor, I tried to get billets and food for Russian POWs.

“I had nothing to do with concentration camps — Himmler’s work. There was a labor minister, Ley, whose position is like your John Lewis in America.
³
My duties were to assign POW and foreign labor to factories or whatever work had to be done. I had nothing to do with punishment, criminals, and so forth. That’s Himmler’s work. If someone had told me as a seaman I should have engaged in politics I would have taken it as an insult. After my return from France, when I found the workers in the Schweinfurt factory all divided up into groups, many parties — I want to give you an honest reason — that’s why I became a
National Socialist. In 1922–23 I knew, by fate, I must find a solution to the labor and social problem.

“I strove for socialism on a national basis without taking away private property.

“I knew Hitler well, since 1926, but although I had many talks with him, I did not have so much to do with him as others had. Hitler came to Weimar, the capital of Thuringia, and we discussed Goethe and culture.

“The Reichstag met less and less often after the Reichstag fire, but it was still semi-alive in 1933–34. Thereafter there was seldom a Reichstag meeting. The Führer always told me the authority he wielded and I wielded were necessary.

“I’m sure most of the Nazis wanted a parliament or some kind of institution of criticism or correction. Hitler always promised a big senate aside from the Reichstag, for the German people. He never kept that promise. That he never did depressed Hitler but he always brought up the excuse, namely, that during a war such an institution could not be established. I’m quite sure after the war some people including those like myself would have to manage such an institution.

“Up to 1940 I could still approach the Führer. But not afterward — particularly after Hess flew to England. Bormann, Goebbels, and Himmler kept him in isolation, which was bad for the German people.

“I’m convinced that Hess was a good influence on Hitler. I can only say what I heard myself. In a lot of things, like the occupation of Austria, he didn’t know any more about it than I did.

“Everybody followed a rule, a very strict rule, to do his own work, and not interfere with or talk with others.

“I believe Hess was very just. I personally feel Hess wanted a peace treaty with England.” I remarked that in the trial it was said that he wanted a treaty with the fascists in England and would not deal with the Churchill government. “I can’t tell. I don’t know what Hess thought of it. Personally I wanted to go to sea again but Hitler didn’t let me.” At this point Sauckel was close to tears. “Hitler told me I shouldn’t go to sea because the sea was England’s business, not Germany’s.

“Hess always had a saying, ‘National Socialism is not a thing for export,’ so Hess didn’t want to interfere with the affairs of other nations. I can’t say much except I don’t think Hess would want to sign a peace with a government other than the government the English people wanted. If Hess was wrong it was just an error. He was well intentioned.
Anyway in court at lunch the other day, Hess told me he did not demand this when he went to England. Hess is a clever man, was born in Egypt, and should know the English people, among whom he was reared.”

I said that if Sauckel considered Hess such a good man, when he was associated with the Nuremberg Laws, persecution of Jews and other religious sects, and connected with fifth column activities, it indicated Sauckel approved these actions. “As far as the fifth column, I never heard of it. We had a union of Germans in other countries, a union of Germans in foreign countries — it’s the perfect right of any nation to nationalize people in other lands if they are German citizens. This organization was headed by Ernst Wilhelm Bohle. It was an organization of party members in foreign lands. I see no reason why Germans can’t do it, if there is a Communist International, and if England has people unified in all parts of the world. It is now clear that there was a fifth column but I never knew of it. And besides, it was just like England and America having intelligence services, so why can’t Germany, too?” I said I thought that an intelligence service and a fifth column were not the same thing. “Well, there are Germans in all countries — you can’t brand them all as fifth columnists.” I replied that we don’t — just those who worked against democracy.

He said, “There was no intention to go against democracy in other countries. I would have seen it as madness to try to force a German political belief on other people. I saw Fritz Kuhn’s name in the papers at times.
⁴
His function was to make National Socialism popular in America. We National Socialists never had a remarkable organization, like the Communist International [Comintern]. Thuringia was Communist when I first went there in 1922. I
know
. I
lived
in Germany!” He became quite excited in a theatrical manner. I asked him if the large Communist vote in Thuringia meant the influence of the Comintern. “Sure. All the people had to do was read Marx or the
Communist Manifesto
.”

I said that
Mein Kampf
and other Nazi books were available in America. Why didn’t Nazis become stronger in America? Sauckel did not reply. I asked him, how did the Comintern influence the Communist vote in Thuringia? “With propaganda, gold, and agents. Whether documents to prove this exist or not is not important. It’s fifteen years since then.” I asked him what proof he had of the influence of the Comintern other than Goebbels’s opinion. “Any opinion is honorable. I had many friends who were Communists and Social Democrats.”

I said that Goering asserted he built concentration camps for Communists. Did Sauckel have any comment? “Only Communists and Social Democrats who acted against the state were incarcerated. Most of the Communists and Social Democrats I had known became Nazis later. Only those who were doing anything against the state were thrown in concentration camps.

“I have heard in the trials about the crimes against the churches. This is not so. In 1933 the church received 135 million marks from the Reich. In 1934 and 1935 this sum increased. In 1938 it was 580 million marks. The same year the colonies contributed 7 million marks, and communities 85 million marks. All this was a contribution from the state to the church. The National Socialist regime believed in complete freedom of church and belief.” I asked him about the Jewish religion. “According to National Socialism the Jews were not looked on as a religious sect but as an enemy race. It’s a big point — even the Jews don’t agree. The Zionists say they are a nation; others say they should stay where they are. Bormann’s and Hitler’s policies were false, however.”

I remarked that freedom of religion and burning of synagogues seemed inconsistent. “I never burned down synagogues. It was a revolution, and Russians burned churches during their revolution. If there are many different nationalities in a country, the leadership should be divided among people by percentages. In finance, press, radio — the Jews had taken over positions. That feeling existed before Hitler.”

I asked if he had been anti-Semitic before his association with Hitler. “Don’t ask me. Ask Rosenberg and Streicher, they are specialists in it. I was a prisoner in France for years. Since 1924–25 I was a Nazi. I followed anti-Semitism because of social feelings.

“For most of the people, workers like myself, National Socialism was to prevent class hatred between labor and the bourgeoisie. In Russia there are only forty people per square kilometer, in Germany there are one hundred and forty people per square kilometer. I don’t know about the figures in England, but English workers can go to Africa, Canada, or Australia. I read a book by Jack London about conditions in London and Liverpool. It was about the same as in Germany.