The History and the Rise of Visual Storytelling
Fast forward to the present, and there’s a proliferation of social media platforms as never before—with impressive audience sizes to match. From Facebook to Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Tumblr, YouTube, SlideShare, and Vine, each platform offers unique opportunities for visual storytelling and engagement. The wealth of social media platforms relates back to user behavior and how consumers prefer to receive information and connect online. Mobile use has skyrocketed globally, with 6.8 billion mobile subscriptions at the end of 2012, which is equivalent to 96% of the world population.15 With cameras in the vast majority of people’s pockets, it’s no surprise that platforms such as Instagram and Vine have been specifically designed for mobile audiences and then subsequently acquired by social media such as Facebook and Twitter.
Similar to past adoption patterns of social media platforms, people are continuously looking for tools, resources, and communities that will make their busy lives easier. Facebook has always been the grand dame for keeping tabs on friends and family, but the rise of platforms like Twitter, Pinterest, and SlideShare has been fueled by people’s desires for solutions that add value. It’s why people turn to Twitter for real-time information when a breaking news event happens or to Pinterest for interior design tips and meal planning. SlideShare is now a go-to resource for business information and education.
Another contributor to the rise in visual storytelling is the on-the-go nature of people’s lives and their interest in sharing user-generated imagery and visuals in real time. With smartphones always within an arm’s reach for many consumers, the ability to snap a photo or record a video and share it on social media channels has never been easier. It’s why social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, YouTube,
and Vine continue to boom in popularity—they facilitate ease and convenience of sharing in the moment.
So why is the sharing of visuals and videos so important to both consumers and companies? Delving deeper into research around user behavior on popular web and social media sites reveals that the proof is in the visual pudding.
Research indicates that consumer interest in visual content isn’t necessarily just a preference; it’s actually easier and faster for humans to process. The right picture can go further than just telling your story visually; it can make you feel emotions, evoke memories, and even make you act differently.
Humans are wired to process visuals differently than text and to respond differently to pictures than to words. Although human communication has existed for about 30,000 years, it has been only in the last 7,000 years that humans developed a written language.16 Although our wonderful brains translate marks and squiggles into words, it doesn’t come as naturally to the mind as processing images.
Let me show you what I mean.
Read this word:
GIRL
What does it make you think of? Do you have a specific girl in mind? What age is she? What is she doing? Does that word itself evoke any emotions?
Now look at this image: What does it make you think? What does it make you feel?
Images don’t just paint a thousand words. They can communicate some things far more specific than words— specific emotions, specific feelings,
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
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 Counsellor Börger gave an account of the personnel employed. It is Document Number F-810, which I submit under the Exhibit Number RF-1507. I will read on Page 20:
“State Counsellor Börger stated that outside the frontiers of the Reich there are about 4,000 people engaged in the administration of labor; Eastern area, 1,300; France, 1,016; Belgium and Northern France, 429; Netherlands, 194...”
Do you confirm this statement of State Counsellor Börger?
SAUCKEL: Yes, speaking generally it may be true.
M. HERZOG: Apart from your representatives, apart from those services that we were talking about, did you not create in France commissions composed of specialists who were entrusted with organizing the employment of labor on the German pattern? Please answer.
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand the question. Please repeat it.
M. HERZOG: I shall repeat it. Apart from your representatives— apart from the services that we have been talking about—did you not create, in France particularly, commissions composed of specialists who were entrusted with organizing the employment of manpower on the German pattern?
SAUCKEL: I told my defense counsel yesterday about my collaboration with French units for...
M. HERZOG: That is not what I mean. I am talking about commissions composed of specialists. Do you not remember that in order to insure the recruiting of manpower in France you thought of the system of attaching two French départements to a German Gau?
SAUCKEL: I remember now what you mean. This was the system of adoption arranged in agreement with the French Government, according to which a German Gau adopted a French département. The main object was to inform the workers, who were to come to Germany, about conditions in Germany and to have mutual talks with the economic offices of the French départements about statistics.
M. HERZOG: I hand to the Tribunal Document Number 1293PS, which becomes French Exhibit Number RF-1508.
[Turning to the defendant.] This is a letter bearing your signature, dated Berlin 14 August 1943, from which I shall read extracts. The Tribunal will find it in the document book which I handed to them at the beginning of this session. I shall first read the last paragraph on Page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I have not got it—1293?
M. HERZOG: Mr President, the documents which figure in my document book were handed to the Tribunal this morning—unless I am making a mistake, for which I apologize in advance—in the order in which I intend to use them.
THE PRESIDENT: I have one. 1293. Is that right?
M. HERZOG: I have attached a slip only to those documents which I think I shall use several times, so that the Tribunal may find them more easily. May I now begin to read?
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry but the documents had not been handed up to me, that is all. None of them had been handed up.
M. HERZOG: I am reading at the bottom of Page 1:
“The solving of these two great manpower problems demands the immediate setting up in France of a stronger and better German labor organization possessing the necessary powers and means. This will be done by a system of sponsorship by Gaue. France has got about 80 départements. Greater Germany is divided into 42 political Gaue, and for the purposes of manpower recruitment it is divided into 42 Gau labor office districts. Each German Gau labor office district will take over and sponsor, say, two French départements. Each German Gau labor office will furnish for the départements it sponsors a commission of specialists, made up of the ablest and most reliable experts. These commissions will organize the allocations of labor in these sponsored départements according to the German pattern.”
I skip one page and continue reading at the bottom of Page 2 of the French text. That is Page 3 of the German translation:
“There is no doubt that this projected system of sponsorship by Gaue for the employment of French manpower in Germany, and especially the transformation necessary in the interest of Germany of French civilian workers for the German armament industries, will bring about enormous advantages in France herself compared with the present system.”
I am passing to the bottom of Page 3 of the French text, and I read under “d”:
“The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his office...”
You told me a short while ago that the German offices for the recruitment of labor in the occupied territories were not under you as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, but under the local authorities. How do you explain this sentence?
SAUCKEL: It can be explained very simply. These men were subordinate to the military commanders in the labor department. They were sent from Germany, and they were taken from the labor offices and put into the administration.
M. HERZOG: You say, “The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his office...” The Central German Labor Office in Paris was therefore your representative?
SAUCKEL: The Central German Labor Office in Paris was a part of the civilian administration of the military commander in France. This is not expressed in this sentence, for it was taken for granted in this letter that the Gauleiter knew this. The position as I explained it is entirely correct.
M. HERZOG: I shall continue reading:
“The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his office, will therefore have in the whole of France a reliable apparatus which will make it a great deal easier for him to solve his problems in France, in spite of any possible or even real passive resistance on the part of the higher or lower French bureaucracy.”
I skip two lines.
“I have, therefore, charged the presidents or the provisional chiefs of the newly formed Gau labor offices to set up a corresponding organization in the départements which they
are sponsoring; and I request you, in your capacity as my Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor, in agreement with Reichsleiter Bormann, to promote and give your fullest support to the new task allotted to your Gau labor office. The president or the provisional chief of your Gau labor office is instructed to keep you informed of all details concerning the carrying out of these measures.”
Are not these measures an attempt to subordinate French territory to German territory as far as the organization of labor is concerned?
SAUCKEL: Yes. But I should like to ask you and the High Tribunal to allow me to say the following in explanation: On the first page, Paragraph 1—I quote from the third line—it says, “...with the full consent of the Führer I am to take far-reaching and urgent measures in France in negotiation with the head of the French Government and the competent”—now comes the important part —“German authorities;”—that is, the military commander’s department, in which these labor authorities and this delegate were incorporated and to whom they were subordinate.
And on Page 4, I should like to read about the special purpose of this system of sponsorship which should have nothing unfriendly about it. I read from Page 4 in the German text, under the letter “a”:
“Prejudice, suspicion, lack of care, failure to redress and look into complaints”—that is, complaints by the workers —“which are prejudicial to the employment of manpower in Germany, all these things can be very largely eliminated by the relations between the Gau and its sponsored département.”
Now I read under letter “b”:
“Every French worker in such a département knows exactly where and under what conditions he will have to work in Germany. German propaganda and explanatory material will tell him about the locality in which he will have to work and about all matters which are of interest to him.”
And that was the purpose of that arrangement. It was something I wanted to do for the French workers, besides looking after German interests.
M. HERZOG: Please answer me “yes” or “no.” Was this arrangement an attempt to bring about a joint administration between the French départements and the German Gaue as far as the employment of labor was concerned? Answer me “yes” or “no.”
SAUCKEL: No I should like to give an explanation to this negative answer. The purpose of this arrangement was to clear up unsolved problems between the French Government, between the French départements, between French industrialists and factories, on the one hand, and the administrative offices in Germany where the French workers were to be employed. That was the real purpose —to settle complaints and clear away mistrust.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
M. HERZOG: Defendant, is it true that your Codefendant Göring placed under your control all the organizations of the Four Year Plan which were concerned with the recruiting of labor?
SAUCKEL: The various organizations of the Four Year Plan which had to do with manpower were dissolved. Departments 3 and 5 of the Reich Ministry of Labor continued to deal exclusively with these matters.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that the powers of the Reich Minister of Labor concerning the employment of labor were transferred to you and that as a result of this transfer you had powers to issue regulations and laws?
SAUCKEL: Only insofar as the work of Departments 3 and 5 were connected with my own task. Otherwise the functions of the Reich Ministry of Labor remained independent under the Reich Minister of Labor.
M. HERZOG: But within these departments you exercised the powers of the Reich Minister of Labor after your appointment as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: Within my office as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. But I must emphasize that these departments were not under me; they were merely at my disposal. Great importance was attached to this difference at the time. The departments continued to work independently within the whole framework of the Ministry of Labor.
M. HERZOG: But as a result of this situation you exerted administrative autonomy in matters concerning labor?
SAUCKEL: Not an autonomy; it was done by vote. I could not issue decrees, but could only give instructions. In every case I had to get the agreement of the other administrative authorities and Reich ministries, and the agreement of the Führer or of my superior office.
M. HERZOG: Did you not have carte blanche from the Führer for the recruiting and the utilization of labor?
SAUCKEL: Not for recruiting and utilization, but for guiding and directing. If I may express it in this way, it was never a case of the workers’ agent—that is, of course, what allocation of labor really means—employing these workers himself. The firms employed the workers, not the agent.
M. HERZOG: For the recruiting of labor you had carte blanche from the Führer. Is that not true?
SAUCKEL: Not absolutely, and only after there had been a vote and after the agreement of the regional authorities concerned had been obtained, especially in the case of foreign countries. I never recruited workers in France without the express agreement of the French Government and with their collaboration. The French administration was used here.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, you have on several occasions mentioned the agreements and arrangements made in France with those whom you yourself call “the leaders of collaboration.” You know better than any other that these leaders of collaboration, imposed upon France by the enemy, bound themselves only and that their acts were never ratified by the French people as a whole. Besides, these leaders of collaboration, whose testimony cannot be suspect to you, have themselves revealed that pressure was exerted upon them, and we will discuss that now. Is it
true that on 16 April 1942, that is to say, less than a month after your appointment, you stated in a letter to the Defendant Rosenberg— which states your program and which was presented to you yesterday—that you included the recruiting of foreign workers in your program for the utilization* of labor?
SAUCKEL: I resent the term “exploitation.”* By strictest orders from the Führer, it is true that recruitment of foreign workers had to be included in my program.
* The word utilization used by the French prosecutor was wrongly interpreted into German as “Ausbeutung” meaning “exploitation.”
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you included the recruitment of foreign workers in your program of 16 April 1942? You admitted this yesterday, and I ask you to confirm it.
SAUCKEL: Yes, it is true. I only emphasize that I did it on the strictest orders from the Führer.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that this program of 16 April 1942, that is to say, 3 weeks after your appointment, already contained the principle of forced recruiting?
SAUCKEL: It was done by express order of the Führer, in case voluntary recruitment proved to be inadequate. I said that yesterday to my counsel.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the decree that you issued on 29 August 1942? This decree dealt first and foremost with the employment of labor in occupied territories—Decree Number 10 of 22 August by the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. It was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-17 (Document Number RF-17). Do you remember it?
SAUCKEL: I do remember Decree Number 10.
M. HERZOG: Was this decree applicable to the occupied territories which were under German administration?
SAUCKEL: As far as I can remember—I have not the exact wording and the separate paragraphs before me—it dealt with the regulation of working contracts drawn up by German firms. The purpose was to prevent a muddle.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in August 1942?
SAUCKEL: That is possible; but I, of course, cannot remember the individual dates.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in January 1943?
SAUCKEL: That is also possible, even probable.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in January 1944?
SAUCKEL: Also probable, yes; but I do not know the individual dates.
M. HERZOG: You therefore went on missions to Paris before the French authorities, the French de facto authorities, had published the legislative decrees of 4 September 1942, 16 February 1943, and 1 February 1944. Is that not true?
SAUCKEL: I did not understand your question exactly.
M. HERZOG: I asked you whether it is true, that before the French de facto authorities published the three fundamental laws on forced labor of 4 September 1942, 16 February 1943, and 1 February 1944, you went on missions to France, to Paris?
SAUCKEL: I only went on journeys to Paris for the purpose of negotiating with the French Government, and I want to add that for me and in accordance with my convictions...
M. HERZOG: Do you admit that in the course of these missions you imposed on the French authorities the laws on forced labor?
SAUCKEL: It is not correct to put it in that way, rather...
M. HERZOG: You therefore contest the fact that the laws on forced labor were issued under pressure by you?
SAUCKEL: I dispute the word “pressure.” I negotiated most correctly with the French Government before such laws were
published. I expressly resent the word “pressure,” and there were plenty of witnesses during these negotiations.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the telephone conversation that the Defendant Speer had with you from the Führer’s headquarters on 4 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I probably had several conversations with Speer. I do not know which particular conversation you are referring to.
M. HERZOG: Do you not remember a note that you sent to your various offices as a result of this telephone conversation of 4 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Yes. Quite probably I did make several notes. I had to make notes when I received a telephone conversation containing an instruction.
M. HERZOG: I now submit Document Number 556-PS, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Numbers USA-194 and RF-67. I will read that document, or at least its first paragraph:
“On 4 January 1943, at 2000 hours, Minister Speer telephoned from the Führer’s headquarters to inform me that according to the decision of the Führer it is no longer necessary, when engaging skilled and unskilled labor in France, to show any special consideration for the French. Emphasis or more severe measures may be used in order to recruit labor.”
I ask you, Defendant, what you mean when you say that it is not necessary to show any special consideration for the French?
SAUCKEL: This note or rather this decision did not come from me. This was a communication which came from the Führer’s headquarters, based on a decision made by the Führer. In spite of that—and I want to emphasize that particularly—my attitude towards the French Government did not change, and it does not say so in this record either. I continued to adopt the same polite attitude in my negotiations with the Government, and I ask the Tribunal to be
allowed to make a short statement on how these negotiations with the French Government were conducted.
M. HERZOG: You will give it later in your examination. Do you remember the discussion that you had on 12 January 1943, at the German Embassy in Paris, with the French authorities?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know, I only talked to French ministers in the German Embassy in Paris.
M. HERZOG: That is exactly what I am asking you. Do you remember this conversation that you had with the French authorities on 12 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Not in detail, no; but that I did negotiate is possible.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the persons who took part in this conversation?
SAUCKEL: Yes. Usually the French Premier, the French Minister for Labor, Minister Bichelonne, took part in such discussions. On the German side, the Ambassador; on behalf of the military commander, Dr. Fischer; and, as my representative, probably Dr. Hildebrandt or some other gentleman.
M. HERZOG: And you do not remember what Laval said to you at this meeting of 12 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Very many matters were discussed in great detail during these conferences, and I do not know what you mean.
M. HERZOG: Well, I will submit to you the minutes of this meeting. It is Document Number F-809, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1509.
In the course of this discussion Laval made a long statement to you; more exactly, several statements.
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall we find this?
M. HERZOG: It is in my document book, Mr. President. It must be marked with a slip 809.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, I have got it.
M. HERZOG: First, I read Page 7 of the French text and of the German text:
“Gauleiter Sauckel demands a further 250,000 new workers. Gauleiter Sauckel knows very well—and his offices have certainly informed him about this—the difficulties which the French Government had in carrying out the program last year. The Gauleiter must realize that as a result of the number of prisoners of war and workers who are already employed by Germany, the sending of another 250,000 workers will increase even further the difficulties of the French Government. I cannot conceal these difficulties from the Gauleiter, because they are evident; and the Germans who are in Paris know these difficulties. When the Gauleiter replies that they have had to overcome the same difficulties in Germany and when he even states that French industry must be expanded, it seems to me that I must remind him that Germany not only demands workers of France, but is also beginning to take away the machines from factories in order to transport them to Germany. France may have nothing left, but until now she still had her means of production. If these too are taken from her, France loses even her possibilities for working.
“I do everything to facilitate a German victory”—and you see Laval could hardly be suspect to you, Defendant—“but I must admit that German policy makes heavier demands on me nearly every day and these demands do not conform to a definite policy. Gauleiter Sauckel can tell the German workers that they are working for Germany I cannot say that Frenchmen are working for France.
“I see that in many fields the French Government is not able to act. One would almost believe that on the German side they set no value on the good will of the French and that they are bent on instituting a German administration throughout France. My task is being made more difficult every day. It is true that I do not allow myself to be discouraged; but I consider, however, that it is my duty to remind the Gauleiter of the gravity of Franco-German relations and of the impossibility of continuing along this
path. It is no longer a matter of a policy of collaboration; rather, it is on the French side a policy of sacrifice, and on the German side a policy of coercion.”
I pass to the next page, Page 11:
“The present state of mind in France, the uncertainty concerning the means which the French Government possesses, the half-freedom in which it finds itself, all these do not give me the necessary authority to furnish Gauleiter Sauckel with an immediate reply. We can do nothing. We are not free to change salaries; we are not free even to combat the black market; we cannot take any political measure without everywhere coming up against some German authority which has substituted itself in our place.
“I cannot guarantee measures which I do not take myself. I am persuaded that the Führer is unaware that the French Government cannot act. There cannot be in one country two governments on questions which do not concern directly the security of the occupation forces.”
I skip two more pages, to Page 18; and I read only this sentence:
“It is not possible for me to be a mere agent for German measures of coercion.”
That is the document which I submit to you, Defendant, and I ask you two questions concerning it.
The first question is: What did you answer to Laval when he made this statement to you?
The second one is: Do you not think that here there is proof of the pressure which you dispute?
SAUCKEL: To begin with, if the Tribunal would permit it, I should have to read my reply to Premier Laval. The document proves, and this has been confirmed to me by Premier Laval on various occasions, that I conducted my negotiations with him in a proper manner; and in spite of the fact that I had orders not to conduct political conversations but only to deal with my actual task, I always
reported to the Führer about these matters. But I think that the tone of my reply was definitely beyond reproach. These negotiations which I conducted...
M. HERZOG: That is not the question that I asked you. I asked you what you answered him when he made that statement to you, when he said to you, for instance, that it was not possible for him to be a mere agent for German measures of coercion.
SAUCKEL: I would have to read my answer I cannot remember it now.
M. HERZOG: Do you therefore dispute the fact that this represents pressure?
SAUCKEL: Premier Laval did not complain about me in this connection. He complained about general conditions in France, because this was the time of occupation. The situation was that there was a German occupation. It was war.
M. HERZOG: Well, I am going to submit to you Document...
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, regarding this document, I should like to draw your attention to an error of translation which will lead to considerable misunderstanding. According to this document it says that the recruitment could be approached with emphasis and more severe measures, and the word “emphasis” has been translated by “pressure” in the English. But that is not meant. It is not “Druck,” pressure; it is “Nachdruck,” emphasis. That means that the next in authority can be approached with energy.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that the translation we have got is “emphasis.”
DR. SERVATIUS: “Pressure.”
THE PRESIDENT: I am told the translation is “emphasis.” No, no, the translation is “emphasis.” It is in this document, and the translation in English is “emphasis.”
DR. SERVATIUS: Oh, I had the French translation.
M. HERZOG: I am going to submit to you Document...
THE PRESIDENT: Is this document in the PS series?
M. HERZOG: No, Mr President, it is a new document which I am submitting now, a French document which will bear Exhibit
Number RF-1509 (Document Number F-809).
THE PRESIDENT: Where did this document come from?
M. HERZOG: That document comes, Mr. President, from the archives of the Majestic Hotel in Paris, where the German offices in Paris were located. Some months ago these archives were found again in Berlin, and we have extracted the Sauckel documents.
I submit to the Tribunal the certificate of authentication for the Sauckel files, as well as for the documents which I intend to submit to the Tribunal in the course of my cross-examination. Perhaps, as the document is in French, the Tribunal would like me to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, read it, will you? You mean this procèsverbal? What is this procès-verbal? Who is it identified by?
M. HERZOG: This procès-verbal is identified by two persons, by Commandant Henri, French liaison officer at the American Documentation Center in Berlin, and by my colleague, M. Gerthoffer, who, with Commandant Henri, took these archives.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you had better read this procèsverbal so that it will go into the record.
M. HERZOG: “I, Charles Gerthoffer, Deputy Prosecutor at the Court of the Seine, on duty with the International Military Tribunal for the Major War Criminals, having gone to Berlin to the offices of the Ministerial Collecting Center, Commandant Henri, Chief of the French Mission, gave to me, with the authority of Colonel Helm of the American Army, Chief of the 6889 Berlin Collecting Center, seven files from the archives of the German military command in France concerning forced labor and registered at the M.C.C. under the following numbers: 3 DS, lumbers 1 to 213; 4 DS, Numbers 1 to 230; 5 DS, Numbers 1 to 404; and two appendices; 6 DS, Numbers 1 to 218; 7 DS, Numbers 1 to 118; and one appendix; 1 to 121; 50 DS, Numbers 1 to 55; 71 DS, Numbers 1 to 40.
“I declared to Commandant Henri that I took the said files in order to submit them to the International Military Tribunal for the Major War Criminals so that they might be used in the
course of the proceedings and that they will thereafter be delivered to the French Ministry of Justice, whose property they remain.
“There are five copies of this document, one of which is to serve as an affidavit for the International Military Tribunal for the Major War Criminals.”
Signed, “Charles Gerthoffer,” and Signed, “Henri.”
This represents the certificate of authentication of the files themselves.
I have a second certificate...
SAUCKEL: May I make a remark regarding the first document, please?
M. HERZOG: I would ask you not to interrupt me.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, the documents came from the Hotel Majestic, did they?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Hotel Majestic was the place where the...
M. HERZOG: The place in Paris where the offices of the German military command in France and the various occupation offices were located. These documents, which had vanished at the time of the liberation, were found again at the Ministerial Collecting Center in Berlin. The document which I have just submitted to you is the certificate of authentication of these files, and I also have the certificate of authentication of the documents which I have extracted from these files and which I am now ready to read to the Tribunal, if the Tribunal so desires.
THE PRESIDENT: The Hotel Majestic was the place where the German military government was established in Paris; isn’t that right?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President, if I am not mistaken. Does the Tribunal desire that I should read the other certificate of authentication, that is to say at least in part—the one concerning the document itself?
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you had already read it.
M. HERZOG: No, Mr. President. I am submitting to the Tribunal two certificates of authentication. The first, the one which I have just read, is the certificate of authentication of seven files which contain a very large number of documents. From these seven files we have extracted only a certain number of documents which we are submitting to the Tribunal; and that is why, after having presented the certificate...
THE PRESIDENT: The second document only says that the documents which you are submitting are documents which came from those files?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: And the files themselves came from the Hotel Majestic, which was the place where the German military administration was carried on. Will you put the second document on the record?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering in evidence the original German documents?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
[Turning to the defendant.] Since you still deny the pressure that you exerted on the government, I will submit to you Document Number 1342-PS.
SAUCKEL: I think that an error in translation has been made here. I understood that you asked whether I denied that I was putting pressure on the Tribunal. I respect this Tribunal too highly to try to exert pressure upon it. I do not understand the question. I understood you to ask me whether I denied that I exerted pressure on the Tribunal; and, of course, that question I have to answer with “no.”
M. HERZOG: I said this to you: Since you deny that you exerted pressure on the French authorities, I will submit to you a new document. It is Document Number 1342-PS which has already been submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-63. This document represents the minutes of a meeting which you held on 11
January 1943 in Paris with various German occupation authorities. Do you remember that on that occasion you made a declaration concerning your relations with the Vichy Government? I will read this declaration to you. It is on Page 4 of the French and German texts.
SAUCKEL: Unfortunately, I am not able to find it.
M. HERZOG: I will read the declaration:
“The French Government...”—It is the last paragraph but one before the end of Page 4.—“The French Government is composed of nothing but adepts at temporization. If the first 250,000 workers had arrived in Germany in time, before the autumn—the negotiations with the French Government having already been begun in the preceding spring—we might perhaps have been able to recruit key men in the Reich earlier and form new divisions; and it might then not have come to the cutting off of Stalingrad. In any case, the Führer is now absolutely decided to rule in France, if need be even without a French Government.”
When you made this declaration, did it not reflect the pressure which you were exerting on the French Government?
SAUCKEL: This is not a conference with the French Government. This is a statement of facts.
M. HERZOG: I did not say that it was a conference with the French Government. I asked you what you meant when you stated that the Führer was determined to rule in France, even without the French Government. Was that not pressure?
SAUCKEL: That was a straightforward decision and a statement from the Führer, for which I am not responsible. I merely repeated it, and in any case it was never realized.
M. HERZOG: Why did you transmit it to the occupation authorities in France in the course of a conference that you were holding with them concerning the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: Because it was my duty to give a description of the situation as I saw it at the time.
M. HERZOG: But do you not think that, in expressing to them this declaration of the Führer, you were using it to exert pressure?
SAUCKEL: I could not exert any pressure by that, because this was merely transmitting a statement of the situation. I did not tell the French Government that the Führer would remove them and that therefore they would have to do such and such a thing. I merely negotiated.
M. HERZOG: But you did state, and I ask you to confirm it, you did state in the course of that conference that the Führer had decided to rule in France, if need be, even without a French Government?
Did you say that? I ask that you answer me “yes” or “no.”
SAUCKEL: Yes, I repeated that, but not with the intention of doing that.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the discussion which you had on 14 January 1944 in Paris with various German personalities?
SAUCKEL: Yes; it is possible that I had a discussion there at that time, but I cannot remember at the moment what it was about.
M. HERZOG: You do not remember a discussion which you had on 14 January, and you do not remember the German personalities who were present, at this meeting?
SAUCKEL: Probably there were several conferences, but I cannot tell you now which one you are talking about. Neither do I remember, of course, what the actual subjects of the discussions were.
M. HERZOG: On 14 January 1944 you had a conference in Paris with Abetz, Von Stülpnagel, Oberg, and Blumentritt. Do you remember that in the course of that discussion you submitted to your listeners the draft of a law which you had drawn up and which you wanted to impose on the French authorities?
SAUCKEL: I was not trying to impose it. I was trying to discuss it. I was negotiating. I was not trying to impose it upon them. The wording of the minutes shows that quite clearly.
M. HERZOG: Do you dispute the fact that you yourself drafted a law which you transmitted to the French Government?
SAUCKEL: No, that I do not deny. That I submitted such a draft law and that I drafted it, I do not deny.
M. HERZOG: You do admit then that you yourself drafted the text?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I cannot tell you which one you mean.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you Document Number F-813, which I put in under Exhibit Number RF-1512. It is the minutes of this meeting of 14 January 1944, Document Number F-813. These minutes are signed by Abetz, Oberg, Von Stülpnagel, Blumentritt, and you. I read from Paragraph III the heading: “The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor”—which was you—“has drawn up a draft law for the French Government.”
Do you still dispute the fact that you yourself drew up draft laws which you submitted to the French Government?
SAUCKEL: That I do not deny; I had to submit a proposal. However, it was based on mutual negotiations.
M. HERZOG: Do you deny the fact that you imposed this law by pressure?
SAUCKEL: That I imposed this law by pressure, that I do deny. I negotiated about it.
M. HERZOG: Do you not remember that you gave an account to the Führer of the mission which you carried out in Paris in January 1944?
SAUCKEL: It was my duty to report when I made such journeys for I was carrying out the Führer’s orders.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you this report, Document Number 556-PS, which was submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-67. Twice in the course of this report you speak of German demands. Do you not think that to give an account to the Führer of German demands having been accepted is to give an account to him of the success of the pressure which you exerted?
SAUCKEL: I cannot conceive in what other way a basis for negotiations could be found. The German Government made demands, and because of those demands there were negotiations with the French Government which had to be considered by me as de jure.
