. NMT06-T0151
Volume VI · Page 151
| the discussion of the documents submitted by
the prosecution to prove its case. The defendants and witnesses will express
their opinion on these documents, and it will become clear from this, that the
constant identification of foreign workers and "slave workers" as effected by
the prosecution in its presentation of evidence and its argumentations, is in
no way in accordance with the facts. The chief prosecutor in his opening
statement quoted remarks by Sauckel and Himmler on the exploitation of foreign
workers, to characterize the criminal intentions of the government agencies.
Neither the defendants nor the plant leaders, who were responsible for the
treatment of foreign workers in the plants, knew these remarks, nor has the
prosecution offered any proof of such knowledge. The plant leader was
confronted with the government "program" — I am for once willing to use
this expression — in the shape of a multitude of laws, regulations, and
orders of government agencies. These regulations make no enslavement manifest.
On the contrary, many of them have the character of welfare measures, and the
International Military Tribunal expressly attested to Sauckel that it does not
appear as if he had been in favor of a brutal treatment of foreign workers.
In any case there was not the slightest reason for the plant leader not to comply with these government regulations. When dealing with the decisive charges raised by the prosecution on account of the use, treatment, housing, feeding, etc., of foreign workers I shall submit to the Tribunal the most important regulations issued on these points. These regulations were not inhuman in their contents. They had to be carried out by the plant leader. Their execution was constantly supervised by government and Party agencies, and in many cases these agencies directly interfered with the treatment of foreign workers in a way which was outside the competence and the influence of the plant leaders. Where, however, a remnant of liberty of action was left to plant leaders in spite of all regimentation, they always used it in the interest of their workers. Just as the State was responsible for the treatment and employment of foreign workers, so the State was likewise the sole decisive agent in their procurement. The cooperation of the factories in the procurement of workers was restricted to voluntary recruitment. It was not left to the discretion of the plants to requisition workers, as is asserted by the prosecution. On the contrary, this was just as voluntary as it is voluntary for a man who is afloat in water to swim or to drown. I shall explain to the Tribunal in what manner and with what emphasis the pro programs were imposed on the plants and through what channels the requisitions of workers were made. This will show |
