French colonial troops put to work on the Atlantic Wall

[winsome]

[Split from "French colonial troops in 1940?"]

Recently I found photos on Ebay of black French colonial troops put to work in the Landes (western France) cutting trees as part of the work to build the Atlantic Wall.
Was use of captured troops in such work contrary to the Geneva Convention?

[Loïc]

They came from the Frontstalags of the Northern occupied zone (including the southwestern Aquitaine coast) where the germans sent blacks mulattos French citizens, black and northern african indigenous colonials POW's not allowed in Germany for racial reasons
After 1942-1943 Pétain's regime accepted that the germans converted them in (so-called) "free workers" although for the men and their cadres there was no real change because they were not really free...



there is a book published few months ago
Les prisonniers de guerre coloniaux dans les Frontstalags landais et leurs Kommandos : 1940-1944
François Campa

it seems that there were also some Commonwealth POW's from South Africa

[Webdragon2013]

Recently I found photos on Ebay of black French colonial troops put to work in the Landes (western France) cutting trees as part of the work to build the Atlantic Wall.
Was use of captured troops in such work contrary to the Geneva Convention?

The color doesn't matter.
Generally you can employ POWs to do work, however I believe they have to be remunerated correctly and be fed and treated correctly. Officers have a right to be exempt from any kind of work but especially physical work.

Hague convention article 6 on POWs.

The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war.

Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account.

Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are none in force, at a rate according to the work executed.

When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons the conditions are settled in agreement with the military authorities.

The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them on their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.

The geneva convention does not add much

Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. Remuneration will be agreed between the Belligerents and will belong to the prisoner who carries out the work.

Germany and France both ratified the convention and respected it.
POWs were treated normally on both sides for the most part, irrespective of color despite what you hear.

The Germans did segregate non-white troops.
But they did so not for racist reasons as is conveniently lied about.
They did so to respect the laws of war at the time.

Geneva convention article 9

Belligerents shall, so far as possible, avoid assembling in a single camp prisoners of different races or nationalities.

There was also a concern for the health of the colonial troops. The fear was that the cold weather of Germany would make conditions too difficult for African troops not used to it (it would be considered breach of convention to house prisoners in environment that would harm them). I believe the French state reminded the Germans of this. Hence why French POWs were often sent to German camps whilst non-white troops were stationed in French camps.
There was also a very justified fear of African diseases being brought to Germany (the African troops regularely had thought contagious diseases. It is not a racial thing to mention!)

Some photos of such camps in France with black POWs employed as aides by the Germans (cooks, medical help to German doctors, etc)

German cook and his Black aide rejoice at the upcoming feast !

All in all, it must be said that the Germans overall had cordial relations with the Black POWs.
Like all Europeans, they probably had "naive" view of blacks, but there is a big difference between this and racist attacks!

The few regrettable incidents during the Battle of France where black troops were shot, in my opinion is very hard to prove that they were shot because they were black! There is this recent book about an almost "Black Holocaust" happening in France (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-African ... 0521730619) but I find it very hard to justify considering the facts I have in my hands.
The reality is that most massacres in battle of France are isolated incidents at squad level (NCO or enlisted soldier deciding on own initiative to breach geneva convention) not policy of any army! And this applies to the French side aswell which commited crimes but on the whole treated Germans well!

[winsome]

Apropos Black colonial troops working in the Landes I would have thought that cutting timber for use in the construction of the Atlantic Wall was "war-related" and thus not sanctioned under the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
In any event thank you for your considered feedback, gentlemen

[Marcus]

A few posts dealing with War crimes against colonial French soldiers in 1940 were moved to an active thread on that topic.

/Marcus

[Webdragon2013]

I think that the color of the troops working on the Atlantic wall are completely irrelevant, if we arguing the legality of such work.

The thread must be: Was work on the Atlantic wall done by POWs legal?

There are different aspects of legality.
1. Is the work itself legal?
2. The conditions of the work (treatment of POWs) must be legal. The pay, the conditions, etc.

Let us focus on the question I believe as intended, which is point 1: Were POWs meant to work on Atlantic wall in general and was this legal?

Relevant legal code:
Article 6 Hague convention

The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war.

Article 31 Geneva convention. Chapter 3 on PROHIBITED LABOR

Labor furnished by prisoners of war shall have no direct relation with war operations. It is especially prohibited to use prisoners for manufacturing and transporting arms or munitions of any kind or for transporting material intended for combatant units.

So we can see here, that the Hague and Geneva convention are quite similar in their terms.
Essentially, a belligerent cannot employ a POW to do work against his own side, which makes sense.

Here is my opinion:
The POWs here are POWs from the Battle between France and Germany.
The battle has been concluded by an Armistic between the two states.
The Atlantic wall has absolutely no relations with the Battle of France which has been concluded in 1940 with an Armistice.

Article 20 of the 1940 Armistice between France and Germany.

French troops in German prison camps will remain prisoners of war until conclusion of a peace.

So, in conclusion, I would deem the holding of French POWs legal, as per the armistice of 1940.
I would also deem the participation in the Atlantic wall legal, because it did not have relations with the Battle of France.

Of course this is very basic opinion from non-lawyer.
Please criticize.

It is important to note, that the foundations of this construction was led by the Organization Todt, which employed civilian volunteers for the main part. These civilians were paid like normal contractors legally.
However the difference is when the hired hands were POWs. These POWs were paid, fed, etc.
I truly believe the legal question is whether the work itself was illegal for POWs to undertake.

My legal opinion is that as long as these soldiers were not from belligerents engaged in the war at time of building, it is legal as per legal code in place.

[David Thompson]

Webdragon2013 -- You reasoned:

Here is my opinion:
The POWs here are POWs from the Battle between France and Germany.
The battle has been concluded by an Armistic between the two states.
The Atlantic wall has absolutely no relations with the Battle of France which has been concluded in 1940 with an Armistice.

Article 20 of the 1940 Armistice between France and Germany.

French troops in German prison camps will remain prisoners of war until conclusion of a peace.

So, in conclusion, I would deem the holding of French POWs legal, as per the armistice of 1940.
I would also deem the participation in the Atlantic wall legal, because it did not have relations with the Battle of France.

Wars are concluded by treaties of peace, not by an armistice. An armistice merely suspends hostilities, it doesn't resolve them. In this case, the war continued as a larger conflict than the Battle of France.

The terms of the Franco-German armistice made it clear that the armistice was not the same thing as a peace ending the war:

ARTICLE XXIV. This agreement is valid until conclusion of a peace treaty. The German Government may terminate this agreement at any time with immediate effect if the French Government fails to fulfill the obligations it assumes under the agreement.

FRANCO-GERMAN ARMISTICE, JUNE 25, 1940
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1940/400625a.html

In fact, the existence of a larger war was the reason Germany broke the terms of the armistice, by occupying all of France in 1942.

Even in 1940, the existence of an ongoing war was the excuse the Germans used to occupy French territory:

ARTICLE II. To safeguard the interests of the German Reich, French State territory north and west of the line drawn on the attached map will be occupied by German troops.

* * * * *

ARTICLE III. In the occupied parts of France the German Reich exercises all rights of an occupying power The French Government obligates itself to support with every means the regulations resulting from the exercise of these rights and to carry them out with the aid of French administration.

All French authorities and officials of the occupied territory, therefore, are to be promptly informed by the French Government to comply with the regulations of the German military commanders and to cooperate with them in a correct manner.

It is the intention of the German Government to limit the occupation of the west coast after ending hostilities with England to the extent absolutely necessary.

* * * * *

FRANCO-GERMAN ARMISTICE, JUNE 25, 1940
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1940/400625a.html

and to detain French POWs after the armistice:

French troops in German prison camps will remain prisoners of war until conclusion of a peace.

FRANCO-GERMAN ARMISTICE, JUNE 25, 1940
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1940/400625a.html

and, as you have already pointed out, in an ongoing war it is illegal to use POW labor related to war operations:

Article 6 Hague convention
The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war.

1907 Hague IV Convention
http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ ... enDocument

Article 31 Geneva convention. Chapter 3 on PROHIBITED LABOR
Labor furnished by prisoners of war shall have no direct relation with war operations. It is especially prohibited to use prisoners for manufacturing and transporting arms or munitions of any kind or for transporting material intended for combatant units.

1929 Geneva POW Convention
http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ ... enDocument

For the position of the French government on the subject of illegal POW labor, see IMT proceedings vol. 5, pp. 469-79.

[David Thompson]

For interested readers, here is the United Nations War Crimes Commission's overview, from UNWCC Reports, vol. 15, pp. 103-05 (1949). The footnote references are to other volumes in the UNWCC Reports series.

(v) Causing prisoners of war to perform unhealthy or dangerous work is a clearly recognised war crime.(5) Article 32 of the Geneva Convention provides that: "It is forbidden to employ prisoners of war on unhealthy or dangerous work ...", and the judgment delivered in the High Command Trial placed this provision among those which it regarded as being merely declaratory of existing customary law.(6)

This provision has been applied so as to render illegal the use of prisoners of war in work which is dangerous either in itself or because of the locality in which it takes place. The loading of ammunition and mine clearing have been declared to constitute dangerous work, and the use of prisoners of war in the construction of field fortifications or with combat units has also been regarded as criminaI.(7)

(vi) There is, however, some little doubt regarding the extent or scope of the war crime of causing prisoners of war to perform work having a direct connection with the operations of war.

Article 31 of the Geneva Convention provides that:

"Work done by prisoners of war shall have no direct connection with the operations of war. In particular, it is forbidden to employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined for combatant units . . ."

_____________________________________________________
(1) Vol. VII, p. 44.
(2) See Vol. XII, pp. 104-105.
(2) See Vol. IV, pp. 118-124.
(4) Vol. III, p. 96.
(5) There is nothing illegal in the mere employment of prisoners of war. Article 27 of the Geneva Convention provides :

"Belligerents may employ as workmen prisoners of war who are physically fit, other than officers and persons of equivalent status according to their rank and their ability.

"Nevertheless, if officers or persons of equivalent status ask for suitable work, this shall be found for them as far as possible.

"Non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war may be compelled to undertake only supervisory work, unless they expressly request remunerative occupation."

(6) Vol. XII, p. 91.
(7) See Vol. XII, p. 98.

104 TYPES OF OFFENCES

This Article was specifically applied in the Milch Trial,(l) in the trial before a Netherlands Temporary Court Martial of Tanabe Koshiro, when the court decided that the building of ammunition dumps constituted "work connected with the operations of war" (2) and in the trial before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.(3)

In the I.G. Farben Trial the Tribunal pointed out that the use of prisoners of war in war operations and in work having a direct relation to such operations was prohibited by the Geneva Convention.(4) The Judgment delivered in the Krupp Trial cited the first paragraph of Article 31 of the Geneva Convention (and Article 6 of the Hague Convention) among a number of Articles from the Hague and Geneva Conventions and said that "practically everyone of the foregoing provisions were violated in the Krupp enterprises".(5)

In the Flick Trial, one of the offences found by the Tribunal to have been proved was that of voluntarily employing prisoners of war on work "bearing a direct relation to war operations ".(6) The Tribunal would appear to have found the use of prisoners of war for the production of freight cars to be contrary to the Hague Regulations.(7)

Article 2 (6) of the French Ordinance of 28th August, 1944, should also be quoted at this point:

"Illegal restraint, as specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 344 of the Code Pénal, shall include the employment on war work of prisoners of war or conscripted civilians. "(8)

On the other hand the Tribunal acting in the High Command Trial did not list Article 31 among those which it regarded as being an expression of existing customary law and held that "in view of the uncertainty of the international law " as to the question of the "use of prisoners of war in the construction of fortifications" (which might not unreasonably have been regarded as work having a direct connection with the operations of war)
_____________________________________________________________
(1) See Vol. VII, pp. 43 and 47. The Tribunal relied also upon Article 6 of the Hague Regulations which reads:

"The State may employ the labour of prisoners of war, other than officers,. according to their rank and capacity. The work shall not be excessive, and shall have no connection with the operations of the war."

(Vol. VII, p. 43). Judge Phillips' judgment included the words:

"The Tribunal holds as a matter of law that it is illegal to use prisoners of war in armament factories and factories engaged in the manufacture of airplanes for use in war effort."

(Vol. VII, p. 47).
(2) See Vol. XI, pp. 1-3. The Court relied also upon Article 6 of the Hague Convention.
(3) See British Command Paper, Cmd. 6964, p. 59, quoted in Vol. XII, p. 100.
(4) Vol. X, p. 54. The Tribunal would appear to have agreed however, that there was some doubt as to the extent of application of the prohibition of such use of prisoners of war. Of the employment of prisoners of war, the Tribunal said:

"The use of prisoners of war in war operations and in work having a direct relation to such operations was prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Under Count III the defendants are charged with violations of this prohibition. To attempt a general statement in definition or clarification of the term 'direct relation to war operations' would be to enter a field that the writer and students of international law have found highly controversial. We therefore limit our observations to the particular facts presented by this record"

; and at an earlier point :

"The use of prisoners of war in coal mines in the manner and under the conditions disclosed by this record we find to be a violation of the regulations of the Geneva Convention, and therefore, a war crime."

(5) Vol. X, pp. 140-1.
(6) See Vol. IX, p. 53.
(7) See Vol. IX, pp. 20-21.
(8) Vol. III, p. 96.

TYPES OF OFFENCES 105

"orders providing for such use from superior authorities, not involving the use of prisoners of war in dangerous areas, were not criminal on their face...."(1) It has been conceded in the notes to the High Command Trial that "prosecuting staffs have preferred to charge accused with exposing prisoners of war to danger rather than with employing them in work directly connected with operations of war, when the facts of cases could have given reasonable prospects of a conviction on either."(2)
__________________________________________________
(l) See Vol. XII, pp. 97-98.
(2) Vol. XII, p. 101. An act in some ways similar to causing prisoners of war to perform work having a direct connection with the operations of war is that of interrogating them regarding the situation of their own armed forces or their country. In the Trial of Eric Killinger and four others by a British Military Court, Wuppertal, 26th November-3rd December, 1945, the Prosecutor rested his case on the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention of 1929 and in particular Articles 2 and 5. Article 5 reads as follows:

"Article 5. Every prisoner of war is required to declare, if he is interrogated on the subject, his true names and rank, or his regimental number. If he infringes this rule, he exposes himself to a restriction of the privileges accorded to prisoners of his category.

"No pressure shall be exerted on prisoners to obtain information regarding the situation of their armed forces or their country. Prisoners who refuse to reply may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasantness or disadvantages of any kind whatsoever.

"If, by reason of his physical or mental condition, a prisoner is incapable of stating his identity, he shall be handed over to the Medical Service."

There is no indication whether the court regarded a mere breach of this article as constituting a war crime but it is interesting to note that one of the Defence Counsel made three submissions regarding the scope of the Convention, to which the court expressed its agreement. The first was that under the Geneva Convention interrogation as such was not unlawful. The second was that to obtain information by a trick was not unlawful, under the same Convention. The third point was that to interrogate a wounded prisoner was not in itself unlawful unless it could be proved that that interrogation amounted to what could be described as physical or mental ill-treatment. (Vol. III, pp. 67-68). It thus appears that if a breach of the Article is criminal, it is only so when some form of pressure has been found to have been exerted on prisoners to obtain information regarding the situation of their forces or country.

[Webdragon2013]

Thank you David.
So essentially the main point is that in 1940 the war between France and Germany did not end as no peace treaty was signed.
As such no POWs could be used on work involved in the conflict between France & Germany.

But was the Atlantic Wall work that involved the conflict between France & Germany?
You could say that the Free French Forces were opposed by the Atlantic Wall, but IMO they are not legal per se, according to Armistice (ARTICLE I. The French Government directs a cessation of fighting against the German Reich in France as well as in French possessions, colonies, protectorate territories, mandates as well as on the seas.)

To me the Atlantic Wall was an operation against other belligerents than France (the UK, later USA, etc).

So the key question here...Is what is meant in the Geneva & Hague legal code by "war"?
Any war at all where Germany is still involved? (In this case the POW work I think was illegal).
Only the war between Germany and France (In this case the work was legal at least by the definition of "War").

There is also another enquiry I have: Were the Black French soldiers employed on Atlantic Wall actually POWs?
Germany freed a number of French POWs of all races during various deals. Some of these now civilians worked as contractors on various German projects. If they were released and not POWs, and volunteers for paid work, the work itself is legal. Its then completely different than if they were still POWs

I think it would be helpful to identify exactly the work unit and division of the Organization Todt they were working under.
As such we can figure out if they were POWs or contract workers. Which will clear up the legality of the situation.

[David Thompson]

Webdragon2013 -- You asked:

So the key question here...Is what is meant in the Geneva & Hague legal code by "war"?
Any war at all where Germany is still involved? (In this case the POW work I think was illegal).
Only the war between Germany and France (In this case the work was legal at least by the definition of "War").

Neither the 1907 Hague IV Convention nor the 1929 Geneva POW Convention defines "war." This is unnecessary to test your legal theory, however.

In the International Military Tribunal case, Hermann Goering was convicted of the illegal use of French POW labor (IMT proceedings vol. 22. p. 526), and we see a similar result involving the illegal use of French POW labor in three different Nuremberg Military Tribunal cases: the Milch Trial (NMT proceedings vol. 2, p. 788), the Flick Trial (NMT proceedings vol. 6, pp. 770-71), and the Krupp trial (NMT proceedings vol. 9, pp. 1395-96). Illegal use of POW labor from countries in a similar situation as France after 1940 is also singled out in the Milch Trial (Polish POWs), the Farben Trial (Polish POWs, at NMT proceedings vol. 8, pp. 1186-87), and the Flick Trial (Belgian POWs).

In the International Military Tribunal Trial, the court gave some guidance:

A further submission was made that Germany was no longer bound by the rules of land warfare in many of the territories
occupied during the war, because Germany had completely subjugated those countries and incorporated them into the German
Reich, a fact which gave Germany authority to deal with the occupied countries as though they were part of Germany. In the
view of the Tribunal it is unnecessary in this case to decide whether this doctrine of subjugation, dependent as it is upon military conquest, has any application where the subjugation is the result of the crime of aggressive war. The doctrine was never considered to be applicable so long as there was an army in the field attempting to restore the occupied countries to their true owners, and in this case, therefore, the doctrine could not apply to any territories occupied after 1 September 1939.

(IMT proceedings vol. 22, p. 497)

And the court in the Krupp trial also reasoned:

ILLEGAL USE OF FRENCH PRISONERS OF WAR

By way of justifying the use of French prisoners of war in armament industry it is claimed that this was authorized by an agreement with the Vichy government made through the ambassador to Berlin. As to this, it first may be said that there was no credible evidence of any such agreement. No written treaty or agreement was produced. The most any witness said was he understood there had been such agreement with Laval, communicated to competent Reich authorities by the Vichy ambassador. If so, there is no trustworthy evidence that any of these defendants acted upon the strength of it or even personally knew of it.

Moreover, if there was any such agreement it was void under the law of nations. There was no treaty of peace between Germany and France but only an armistice, the validity of which for present purpose only may be assumed. It did not put an end to the war between those two countries but was only intended to suspend hostilities between them. This was not fully accomplished. In France's overseas possessions and on Allied soil, French armed forces fighting under the command of Free French authorities waged war against Germany. In occupied France more and more Frenchmen actively resisted the invader and the overwhelming majority of the population was in full sympathy with Germany's opponents. Under such circumstances we have no hesitancy in reaching the conclusion that if Laval or the Vichy ambassador to Berlin made any agreement such as that claimed with respect to the use of French prisoners of war in German armament production, it was manifestly contra bonus mores and hence void.

1395

In view of this conclusion it is unnecessary to decide in this case whether the Vichy government was legally established according to the requirements of the French constitution.
[1396]

(NMT proceedings vol. 9, pp. 1395-96)