Part 1 (of 4):
M. JACQUES B. HERZOG (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr. President and Your Honors.
The National Socialist doctrine, by the pre-eminence which it gives to the idea of the State, by the contempt in which it holds individuals and personal rights, contains a conception of work which agrees with the principles of its general philosophy.
For it, work is not one of the forms of the manifestation of individual personalities; it is a duty imposed by the community on its members.
The conception of compulsory labor is thus, for National Socialism, necessarily complementary to the conception of work itself."The relationship of labor, according to National Socialist ideas," a German writer has said, "is not a simple judicial relationship between the worker and his employer; it is a living phenomenon in which the worker becomes a cog in the National Socialist machine for collective production."
Compulsory labor service was first of all imposed on the German people. German labor service was instituted by a law of 26 June 1935 which bears Hitler's signature and that of the Defendant Frick, Minister of the Interior. This law was published in the
438
18 Jan. 46
Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 769. I submit it to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-6 (Document Number 1389-PS).
From 1939 the mobilization of workers was added to the compulsory labor service. Decrees were promulgated to that effect by the Defendant Göring in his capacity as Delegate for the Four Year Plan. I do not stress this point; it arises from the conspiracy entered into by the accused to commit their Crimes against Peace, and which my American colleagues have already brought to the attention of the Tribunal. I merely point out that the mobilization of workers was applicable to foreigners resident in German territory, because I find in this fact the proof that the principle of compulsory recruitment of foreign workers existed prior to the war. Far from being the spontaneous result of the needs of German war industry, the compulsory recruitment of foreign workers is the putting into practice of a concerted policy. I lay before the Tribunal a document which proves this. It is Document C-2 of the French classification, which I offer as Exhibit Number RF-7. This is a memorandum of the High Command of the German Armed Forces of I October 1938. This memorandum, drawn up in anticipation of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, contains a classification of violations possible under international law. In connection with each violation appears the explanation which the High Command of the Armed Forces thinks it possible to give. The document appears in the form of a list in four columns. In the first is a statement of the violations of international law; the second gives a concrete example; the third contains the point of view of international law on the one hand and, on the other hand, the conclusions which can be drawn from it; the fourth column is reserved for the explanation of the Propaganda Ministry.
I read the passage which deals with the forced labor of civilians and prisoners of war, which is found on Page 6 of the German original, Page 7 of the French translation:
Second column:"Use of prisoners of war and civilians for war work, (construction of roads, digging trenches, making munitions, employment in transport, et cetera)."
The third column:"Captured Czech soldiers or Czech civilians are ordered to construct roads or to load munitions."
439"Article 31 of an agreement signed 27 July 1939 concerning the treatment of prisoners of war forbids their use in tasks directly related to war measures. Compulsion to do such work is in every case contrary to international law. The use of prisoners of war as well as civilians is allowed for road construction but forbidden for the manufacture of munitions."
18 Jan. 46
Last column:
The compulsory recruitment of foreign workers is thus in accordance with National Socialist doctrine, one of the elements of the policy of German domination. Hitler himself recognized this on several occasions. I quote in this connection his speech of 9 November 1941 which was printed in the Volkischer Beobachter of 10 November 1941, Number 314, Page 4, which I submit to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-8. I read the extract of this discourse, Columns 1 and 2, and the first paragraph below, in the German original:"The use of these measures may be based on war needs or on the declaration that the enemy has acted in the same way first."
The recruitment of foreign workers thus proceeds in a systematic mariner. It constitutes the putting into practice of the political principles as applied to the territories occupied by Germany, These principles, the concrete development of which in other departments of German criminal activity will be pointed out to you by my colleagues, are essentially of two kinds: employment of all active forces of the occupied or dominated territories; extermination of all their non-productive forces."The territory which now works for us contains more than 250 million men, but the territory in Europe which works indirectly for this battle includes now more than 350 million. "As far as German territory is concerned, the territory occupied by us and that which we have taken under our administration, there is no doubt that we shall succeed in harnessing every man for this work."
These are the two reasons which the-defendants gave in justification for the establishment of the recruitment of foreign workers. There are many, documents to this effect; I confine myself to the most explicit.
The justification for the recruitment of foreign workers, because of the necessity of including the peoples of the enslaved states in the German war effort, is primarily a result of the explanatory statement of the decree of 21 March 1942, appointing the Defendant Sauckel as Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor. The decree was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1942, Part 1, Page 179. 1 submit it and will read its complete text to the Tribunal, as Document Number RF-9.
I would like to point out here that the Defendant Sauckel developed the same theme at the Congress of Gauleiter and Reichsleiter held 5 and 6 February 1943 at Posen. He expressed himself in plain terms: He justified compulsory recruitment on the basis of National Socialist philosophy and on the basis of the necessity of drawing all the European peoples into the struggle carried on by Germany. His speech constitutes Document 1739-PS. I submit it under Exhibit Number RF-10, and I request the Court to take judicial notice of it and to accept the following passages in evidence against the Defendant Sauckel. First, Page 5 of the German text, fourth paragraph-this is found on the first page of the French translation:"The decree of the Führer concerning the creation of a Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor, dated 21 March 1942.
440
18 Jan. 46
"The assurance of the required manpower for the whole war economy, and in particular for the armament industry, necessitates a uniform direction, meeting the needs of the war economy, of all available labor, including hired foreigners and prisoners of war, as well as the mobilization of all unused labor still in the Greater German Reich, including the Protectorate as well as the Government General and the occupied territories.
"This mission will be accomplished by Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel in the capacity of Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor. In this capacity he is directly responsible to the Delegate for the Four Year Plan."
The compulsory recruitment of foreign workers did not have as its only object the maintenance of the level of German industrial"The remarkable violence of the war forces me to mobilize, in the name of the Führer, many millions of foreigners for labor for the entire German war economy and to urge them to effect the maximum production. The purpose of this utilization is to assure in the field of labor the war material necessary in the struggle for the preservation of the life and liberty, in the first place, of our own people, and also for the preservation of our Western culture for those peoples who, in contrast to the parasitical Jews and plutocrats, possess the honest will and strength to shape their life by their own work and effort.
"This is the vast difference between the work which was exacted through the Treaty of Versailles and the Dawes and Young Plans at one time-which took the form of slavery and tribute to the might and supremacy of Jewry-and the use of labor which I, as a National Socialist, have the honor to prepare and to carry out as a contribution by Germany in the fight for her liberty and for that of her allies."
441
18 Jan. 46
production. There was also the conscious desire to weaken the human potential of the occupied countries.
The idea of extermination by work was familiar to the theorists of National Socialism and to the leaders of Germany. It constituted one of the bases of the policy of domination of the invaded territories. I lay before the Court the proof that the National Socialist conspirators envisaged the destruction by work of whole ethnical groups. A discussion which took place on 14 September 1942 between Goebbels and Thierack is significant. It constitutes Document 682-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-11, from which I take the following passage:
The idea of extermination by work was not applied to ethnical groups alone, the disappearance of which was desired by the defendants; it also led to the employment of foreign labor in the German war industry up to the extreme limit of each man's strength. I will revert to this aspect of the policy of forced labor when I lay before the Tribunal the treatment of foreign workers in Germany: The cruelty to which they were submitted sprang from this main conception of National Socialism, that the human forces of the occupied countries must be employed with no, other limitation than that of their extermination, which is the final goal."Concerning the extermination of asocial elements, Doctor Goebbels is of the opinion that the following groups must be exterminated: All Jews and gypsies; Poles who have to serve 3 or 4 years penal servitude; Czechoslovakians and Germans who have been condemned to death or hard labor for life or placed in protective custody. The idea of extermination by work is best."
The defendants have not only admitted the principle of compulsory recruitment of foreign workers; they have followed a consistent policy of putting their principle into practice, applying it in the same concrete manner in the various occupied territories. To do this they resorted to identical methods of recruitment; they set up everywhere the same recruitment organizations to which they gave the same orders.
In the first place, it was a question of inducing foreign workers to work in their own countries for the army of occupation and the services connected with it. The German military and civil authorities organized yards and workshops in order to carry out on the spot work useful to their war policy. The yards and workshops of the Todt Organization, which were under the direction of the Defendant Speer after the death of their founder, and those of the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, and the NSKK organization, employed numerous foreign workers in all areas of Western Europe.
442
18 Jan. 46
But the essential undertaking of the German labor offices was the deportation of foreign workers to the munition factories of the Reich. The most varied means were used to this end. They were built up into a recruiting policy which can be analyzed as follows:
In the beginning, this policy took on the cloak of legality. The use of labor took the form of requisition as under the terms of Article 52 of the appendix to the fourth Hague Convention; it was also effected by means of the voluntary recruitment of workers, to whom the German recruiting offices offered labor contracts.
I shall provide the Tribunal with proof that the requisitions of labor effected by the National Socialist authorities were a deliberate misinterpretation of the letter and spirit of the international convention by virtue of which they were carried out. I shall show that the voluntary character of the recruitment of certain foreign workers was entirely fictitious; in reality their work contracts were made under the pressure which the occupation authorities brought to bear on their will.
The defendants lost no time in flinging aside their mask of legality. They compelled prisoners of war to do work forbidden by international conventions. I shall show how the work of prisoners of war was incorporated in the general plan for the Allocation of Labor from the occupied areas.
After all, it is through force that the defendants brought their recruitment plans to fruition. They did not hesitate to resort to violent methods. Thus they established compulsory labor service in the areas which they occupied. Sometimes they directly promulgated orders bearing the signature of military commanders or Reich commissioners; this is the case with Belgium and Holland. Sometimes they forced the actual authorities to take legislative measures themselves; this is particularly the case with France and Norway. Sometimes they simply took direct action that is, they transferred foreign workers to factories in Germany without issuing regulations providing for such action; this happened in Denmark. Finally in certain occupied areas where they had carried out Germanization, the defendants incorporated the inhabitants of those territories in the labor service of the Reich. It happened thus in the French provinces of Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin, Moselle, and in Luxembourg.
The policy of compulsory labor was asserted and systematized from the day when the Defendant Sauckel was appointed Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor. Member of the National Socialist Party since its formation, member of the Diet of Thuringia, and member of the Reichstag, Obergruppenführer of the criminal organizations SS and SA, the Defendant Sauckel was Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter of Thuringia. On 21 March 1942 he was appointed Plenipotentiary General
443
18 Jan. 46
for Allocation of Labor by a decree of the Führer This decree is countersigned by Lammers in his capacity as Reichsminister and Chief of the Chancellery and by the Defendant Keitel; the responsibility of these latter is confirmed by this countersigning. The Defendant Keitel has associated himself with the policy of compulsory labor through the appointment of Sauckel, the principles and methods of whom he approved.
I have already read this decree to the Tribunal. I would remind you that it placed Sauckel, in his capacity as Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labour, under the immediate orders of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the Defendant Göring The latter bears a direct responsibility in pursuing the plan of recruitment of compulsory labor. I shall produce numerous proofs of this. I ask the Tribunal to authorize me to produce as first proof the decree signed by the Defendant Göring the day after the appointment of the Defendant Sauckel. This decree, dated 27 March 1942, was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1942, Part I, Page 180. 1 submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-12 (Document Number 1902-PS). Göring by this decree did away with all the administrative offices of the Four Year Plan which had been charged with the recruitment of labor; he transmitted their powers to Sauckel's department, thus confirming his appointment.
The powers of Sauckel between 1942 and 1944 were considerably strengthened by decrees of Hitler and Göring These' decrees gave full significance to the Defendant Sauckel's title of Plenipotentiary. They gave him administrative autonomy and even legislative competency such as he could not have aspired to had he confined himself to executive tasks. The importance of the political part which he played during the last 2 years of the war increases to this extent the weight of the responsibility devolving upon him.
I draw the attention of the Tribunal very especially to the decrees of the Führer of 30 September 1942 and of 4 March 1943 and to the decree of the Defendant Göring of 25 May 1942. 1 will not read these decrees, which have been commented on by my American colleague, Mr. Dodd. I submit them in support of my argument.
I will first refer to the decree of the Defendant Göring of 25 May 1942. It was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1942, Part I, Page 347. He delegated to Sauckel part of the powers relating to labor held by the Minister of Labor. I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number EF-13 (Document Number 1905-PS). Hitler's decree of 30 September 1942 gave Sauckel considerable power over the civil and military authorities of the territories occupied by the German Armed Forces. It made it possible for the defendant to introduce into the staffs of the occupying authorities
444
18 Jan. 46
personal representatives to whom he gave his orders direct. The decree is countersigned by Lammers and by the Defendant Keitel and appears in the Collection of the Decrees, Directives, and Notices of 1942, second volume, Page 510. 1 submit it under Exhibit Number RF- 14 (Document 1903-PS).
In the carrying out of this decree representatives of Sauckel's department were in fact introduced into the headquarters staffs of the military commands. The interrogation of General von Falkenhausen, Military Governor of Belgium and Northern France, gives in this connection a proof which I would ask the Tribunal to be good enough to remember. General von Falkenhausen was interrogated on 27 November 1945 by the head of the Investigation Section of the French Delegation.
I submit his evidence to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-15. I read the following extract-Page 3, the first paragraph, of the French text, and Page 2, the fifth paragraph, of the German translation:
'"Q: 'Can the witness tell us what was the line of demarcation between his own powers and the powers of the Arbeitseinsatz?'
"A: 'Up to a certain moment there existed in my department a labor service which was engaged in the hiring of voluntary workers. I no longer remember the exact date perhaps autumn 1942 -- when this labor service was placed under the order of Sauckel, and the only thing I had to do was to carry out the orders which came through this way. I don't remember, but Reeder, who is also in prison"'-- Reeder was a Militärverwaltungschef on the staff of General von Falkenhausen --"'is very well informed about the dates and can undoubtedly give them better than I can.'
"Q: Before the question of labor was entirely entrusted to Sauckel's organization, did there exist in the General Staff or in its services an officer who was in charge of this question? Afterwards was there a delegate from Sauckel's service in this department?'
"A: 'Until Sauckel came into power there was, in my service, Reeder, who directed the Bureau of Labor in my office. This labor office functioned as an employment office in Germany, that is to say, it concerned itself with demands for labor which would naturally be voluntary.'
"Q: 'What took place when the change happened?,
"A: 'After the change the office continued to exist, but the orders were given directly by Sauckel to the Arbeitseinsatz and passed through my office."
[A recess was taken.]
445
18 Jan. 46
M. HERZOG: I have just reminded the Tribunal of the legislative framework through which the activity of the Defendant Sauckel was exercised. This framework was strengthened by the varied decrees of the defendant. The first document shows that Sauckel deliberately assumed the responsibility of the general policy for the recruitment of foreign workers. It is his decree of the 22d of August 1942, which appeared in the Reichsarbeitsblatt, 1942, Part 1, Page 382. This decree lays down the principle of forced recruitment and makes the necessary provisions for the whole human potential of the occupied territories to be placed at the service of the German war machine.
Sauckel forced the inhabitants of the invaded countries to participate in the war of Germany against their own fatherland. It is not only a violation of international law, it is a crime against the law of nations. I submit the decree to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-17 and I shall read it:
A second document demonstrates the willingness of the Defendant Sauckel to take the responsibility for the treatment of foreign workers. It is an agreement concluded on 2 June 1943 with the Chief of the German Labor Front. I shall not read this document to the Tribunal; it has been discussed by Mr. Dodd. I point out that it was published in the Reichsarbeitsblatt, 1943, Part I, Page 588. 1 submit it in support of my statement under Exhibit Number RF-18 (Document Number 1913-PS)."Decree Number 10 of the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor, concerning the employment of labor in the occupied territories, under date of 22 August 1942.
"In order to mobilize the labor force of the occupied territories under the new organization for the Allocation of Labor within the European area, this force must be subjected to a rigid and uniform control. The maximum production, as well as the useful and rational distribution of this force, must be assured in order to satisfy the labor requirements of the Reich and the occupied territories. By virtue of the full powers which are conferred upon me, I order:
"I) By virtue of the decree of the Fuehrer, under date of 21 March 1942, concerning the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor and by virtue of the ordinance of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, under date of 27 March 1942, concerning the application of this decree, I likewise am competent to employ, as may be necessary, the labor of occupied territories, as well as to take all the measures necessary to augment its efficiency. Those German offices competent for the tasks of the Arbeitseinsatz and for the policy of wages, or my commissioners, will carry out this Allocation of Labor and take all measures necessary to increase efficiency, according to my instructions.
"2) This decree extends to all the territories occupied during the war by the Wehrmacht, as far as they are under German administration.
"3) The labor available in the occupied territories must be utilized in the first place to satisfy the primary war needs of Germany herself.
446
18 Jan. 46
"This labor must be utilized in the occupied territories in the following order:
"a) For the needs of the army, the occupation services, and the civilian services; b) for the needs of German armament; c) for the tasks of food supply and agriculture; d) for industrial needs other than those of armament, in which Germany is interested; e) for the industrial needs concerning the population of the territory in question."
Designated by Hitler and by the Defendants Keitel and Göring in order to pursue, under the control of the latter, the policy of recruitment of compulsory labor, the Defendant Sauckel carried out his task by virtue of the responsibilities which he had assumed. I request that the Tribunal bear this in mind.
I request the Tribunal, likewise, to note that the policy of recruitment of foreign workers involves the responsibility of an German ministers responsible for the economic and social life of the Reich. An inter-ministerial office, or at any rate an inter-administrative office, the Central Office for the Four Year Plan, proceeded to formulate the program for the recruitment of foreign workers.
All departments interested in the labor problem were represented at the meetings of the Central Office. General Milch presided at the meetings, in the name of the Defendant Göring The Defendant Sauckel and the Defendant Speer took part, in person, and I shall submit to the Tribunal certain statements made by them. The Defendant Funk also took part; he therefore knew of, and approved, the program for the deportation of workers. He even collaborated in its formulation. As proof thereof I produce two documents inculpating Funk.
The first is a letter of 9 February 1944, in which Funk is summoned to a meeting of the Central Office of the Plan. It is Document F-674 which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-19. I read:
"Sir: In the name of the Central Office of the Plan, I invite you to a meeting concerning the question of the Allocation of Labor, to take place on Wednesday, 16 February 1944,
447
18 Jan. 46
at 10 o'clock in the committee room of the Secretary of State at the Ministry of Aviation, Leipziger Straße, in Berlin.
"In the enclosure I transmit to you some statistics on the subject of the development of the Allocation of Labor. These statistics will serve as a basis for discussion at the meeting."
Funk was unable personally to attend the meeting but he arranged to be represented by Undersecretary of State Hayler. He received the minutes of the meeting, and on 7 March 1944 he wrote to General Milch to excuse himself for his frequent absences from the meetings of the Office. I submit this document to the Tribunal. It is Document F-675, which I submit under Exhibit Number RF-20. It is the account of the 53rd meeting of the Central Office of the Plan- The Tribunal may see on Page 2 of the French translation that Minister Funk received an account of this meeting. He is mentioned on the second line of the distribution list Reich Minister Speer first and on the second line Reich Minister Funk.
I now produce under Exhibit Number RF-21 (Document Number F-676) the letter by which Funk excuses himself to Marshal Milch because of his inability to be present at the meetings:
THE PRESIDENT: Does this document tell us anything more than that the Defendant Funk was unable to be present?"Very honored and dear Field Marshal:
"Unfortunately the meetings of the Central Office of the Plan are always set for dates when I am already engaged by other important meetings. So it is to my great regret that I shall be unable to be present Saturday at the meeting of the Central Office of the Plan, inasmuch as I have to speak on that day in Vienna in the course of a great demonstration commemorating the anniversary of the day of the Anschluss.
"State Secretary Dr. Hayler will also be in Vienna on Friday and Saturday, where at the same time there will be an important southeast European conference, in which foreign delegates will participate and at which I must likewise speak.
"Under these circumstances I beg you to allow Ministerial Director and General of Police, SS Brigadeführer Ohlendorf, who is the permanent deputy of State Secretary Hayler, to participate as my representative...."
M. HERZOG: This document, Mr. President, was given to me by my American colleagues, who asked me to use it in the matter of compulsory labor, because they have not had the necessary time to include it in their charge against Funk. It is presented to the Tribunal to prove that Funk followed the meetings of
448
18 Jan. 46
the Central Office of the Plan and that he had permanent representatives there. He was represented at all meetings, and by the minutes he received he was kept in touch with the work of the Central Office of the Plan. That is why we present to the Tribunal this document on Defendant Funk.
I shall continue to quote:
"Under these circumstances, I beg you to allow Ministerial Director and General of Police, SS Brigadeführer Ohlendorf, who is the permanent deputy of State Secretary Hayler, to participate as my representative. Mr. Ohlendorf will have Ministerialdirector Dr. Koelfen as a consultant for questions concerning goods for consumption and Counsellor of State Dr. Janke, for questions concerning foreign trade."
The policy of the Central Office pursued by the Defendant Sauckel is shown by the mass deportation of workers. The principle of this deportation is a criminal one, but the manner of its execution was even more criminal. I shall submit proof of this to the Tribunal and explain in succession, the methods of compulsory recruitment, its results, and the conditions of deportation.
I wish here to thank the members of the French Delegation and of the foreign delegations who have come to my aid in the preparation of my work, in particular, my colleague M. Pierre Portal, attorney at the bar of Lyons. The statement which I have the honor of presenting to the Tribunal will be limited to the account of the recruiting of foreign labor in the occupied territories of Western Europe, since the deportation of workers coming from Eastern Europe will be dealt with by my Soviet colleagues.
During the whole duration of the occupation the local field commanders imposed conscription of labor on the populations of the occupied territories. Fortification works considered necessary for the furtherance of military operations and guard duties made necessary by the need of maintaining the security of the occupation troops were carried out by the inhabitants of the occupied areas. The labor requisitions affected not only isolated individuals but entire groups.
In France, for instance, they affected, in turn, groups of Indo-Chinese workers, workers from North Africa, foreign workers, and Chantiers de Jeunesse (youth work-yards). I produce in evidence an extract from the report on forced labor and the deportation of workers drawn up by the Institute of Statistics of the French Government. This report bears the Document Number F-515 and I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-22. This document, because of its importance, has been taken out of the document book. I quote first of all Page 17 of the French
449
18 Jan. 46
text and 17, likewise, of the German translation, second paragraph before the end:
I skip the table on Page 18 and I read:"Paragraph 6: The forced labor recruitment of constituted groups:
"Finally, a last procedure employed by the Germans on a number of occasions during the whole course of the occupation, for direct forced labor as well as for indirect forced labor: the 'requisition! of constituted groups already trained and disciplined and consequently an excellent contribution. "(a) Indo-Chinese labor (M.O.I.): This formation of colonial workers had been intended from the beginning of hostilities to satisfy the needs of French industry in unskilled labor. Under the control of officers and noncommissioned officers of the French Army, who became civilian officials after the month of July 1940, Indo-Chinese labor was, from 1945 on, compelled to do partial forced labor, directly as well as indirectly."
"(b) North African labor: Between 17 August and 6 November 1942 the home country received two contingents of workers from North Africa; one composed of 5,560 Algerians, the other of 1,825 Moroccans. These workers were immediately compelled to do direct forced labor, which brought the number of North African workers enrolled in the Todt Organization to 17,582.
"(c) Foreign labor: The law of 11 July 1938, concerning the organization of the nation in time of war, provided for the cases of foreigners living in France, obliging them to render service. Under French officers and noncommissioned officers who by the law of 9 October 1940 had assumed the status of civil servants, foreign labor was progressively subjected by the Germans to direct forced labor." I skip the table and I read:
"(d) Youth work-yards: On 29 January 1943 the labor staff of the German Armistice Commission in-Paris made known that the Commander-in-Chief 'West' was examining whether and in what ways the formations of French labor might be called upon for the accomplishment of tasks important for both countries. There followed partial recruiting and demands for young people from the work-yards for direct labor."
Similar requisitions took place in all the other territories of Western Europe.
These requisitions were illegal. They were carried out by virtue of Article 52 of the Appendix to the fourth Hague Convention. In reality they systematically violated the letter and the spirit of the text of this international law.
450
18 Jan. 46
What does Article 52 of the Appendix to the fourth Hague Convention say? It is worded as follows:
"Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country and be of such a nature that they do not imply for the populations the obligation to take part in war operations against their country. Such requisitions and services shall be demanded only on the authority of the commander of the area occupied."
The terms in which Article 52 authorizes the requisition of services by an army of occupation are expressly formulated. These terms are four in number:
1. The rendering of services can be demanded only for the needs of the army of occupation. All requisitions made for the general economic needs of the occupying power are thus forbidden.
2. Services demanded by way of requisition must not entail an obligation to take part in military operations against the country of those rendering them. The rendering of any service exacted in the interests of the war economy of the occupying power, all guard duties, or exercise of military control are forbidden.
3. Services rendered in a given area must be in proportion to its economic resources, the development of which must not be hampered. It follows that any requisitioning of labor is contrary to international law if it results in the impeding or prevention of the normal utilization of the riches of the occupied country.
4. Finally, labor requisitions must, under the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 52, be carried out in the area of the locality under the administration of the occupation authority who has signed the requisition order. The transfer of conscripted workers from one part of the occupied area to another and, even more, their deportation to the country of the occupied power, are prohibited.
Labor requisitions exacted by German civilian and military authorities in the occupied areas did not honor the spirit of Article 52. They were carried out to satisfy either the needs of German economy or even the needs of the military strategy of the enemy forces. They deliberately refused to acknowledge the need of ensuring facilities for a reasonable utilization of local resources. They finally took the form of migration of workers. The case of those workers who were conscripted from all countries of Western Europe and formed an integral part of the Todt Organization, to help in building the system of fortifications known under the name of the "Atlantic Wall," may be taken as a typical example.
451
18 Jan. 46
This violation of international agreements is a flagrant one; it called forth repeated protests from General Doyen, Delegate of the French authorities at the German Armistice Commission. I ask the Tribunal to accept as evidence the letter of General Doyen, dated 25 May 1941. This letter constitutes Document F-283 and it is placed before the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-23, I read:
"Wiesbaden, 25 May 1941. General de Corps d'Armee Doyen, President of the French Delegation at the German Armistice Commission, to General of Artillery Vogl, President of the German Armistice Commission.
"On several occasions, and notably in my letters Numbers 14,263/AE and 14,887/AE of 26 February and 8 March, I protested to you against the use made of French labor within the Todt Organization in the execution of military work on the coast of Brittany.
"I have today the duty of calling your attention to other cases in which the occupation authorities have had recourse to recruiting French civilians to carry out services of a strictly military character, cases which are even more grave than those which I have already called to your attention.
"If, indeed, as concerns the workers engaged by the Todt Organization, it may be argued that certain ones among them accepted voluntarily an employment for which they are being remunerated (although in practice most often they were not given the possibility of refusing this employment), this argument can by no means be invoked when the prefects themselves are obliged at the expense of the departments and the communities, to set up guard services at important points, such as bridges, tunnels, works of art, telephone lines, munitions depots, and areas surrounding aviation fields.
"The accompanying note furnishes some examples of the guard services which have thus been imposed upon Frenchmen, services which before this were assumed by the German Army and which normally fall to the latter, since it is a question of participating in watches or of preserving the German Army from risks arising from the state of war existing between Germany and Great Britain."
The occupying authorities, in the face of the resistance which they encountered, were anxious that their orders regarding the requisition of labor should be obeyed. The measures which they took to this end are just as illegal as the measures taken for the requisition itself. The National Socialist authorities in occupied France proceeded by way of legislation. They promulgated ordinances by which sentence of death could be pronounced against persons disobeying requisition orders.
452
18 Jan. 46
I submit two of these ordinances to the Tribunal as evidence. The first was given in the early months of the occupation, 10 October 1940. It was published in the Verordnungsblatt for the occupied territory of France on 17 October 1940, Page 108. 1 submit it to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-24, and I read it:
"Ordinance concerning protection against acts of sabotage, 10 October 1940.
"By virtue of the powers which have been conferred upon me by the Fuehrer and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, I decree the following:
"I. Whoever intentionally does not fulfill or fulfills inadequately the tasks of surveillance which are imposed upon him by the Chief of the Military Administration in France, or by an authority designated by the latter, shall be condemned to death."
I skip Paragraph 2 and read Paragraph 3:
The second ordinance of the Military Commander in France to which I refer is dated 3 January 1942. It was published in the Verordnungsblatt of France of 3 February 1942,Page 338. I submit it to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-25 and I read:"In less serious cases concerning infractions of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the present ordinance, and in case of negligence, punishment by solitary confinement with hard labor or imprisonment may be imposed."
These ordinances were protested against by the French authorities. General Doyen protested on several occasions against the first of these without his protest having any effect."Ordinance of 31 January 1942 concerning the requisition of service and goods.
"By virtue of the plenary powers which have been conferred on me by the Fuehrer and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, I decree the following:
"1. Whoever fails to comply with these requisitions of service or goods which are imposed upon him by the Military Commander in France, or an authority designated by him, or who performs them in such a manner as to imperil or make fail the purpose of the services or requisitions, shall be punished by penal servitude, imprisonment, or fine. A fine may be imposed in addition to penal servitude or imprisonment.
"2. In serious cases the penalty of death may be inflicted."
I refer again to his letter of 25 May 1941, which I have just submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-23 (Document
453
18 Jan. 46
Number F-283), and I read on Page 3 of the French text, Page 4 of the German translation:
"I am instructed to lodge a formal protest with you against such practices and to beg you to intervene so that an immediate end may be put to this.
"On 16 November, in letter Number 7,843/A.E, I already protested against the ordinance that was decreed on 10 October 1940, by the Chief of the Military Administration in France, which provided the death penalty for any person failing to carry out or carrying out inadequately the tasks of surveillance imposed by the occupation authorities. I protested then that this demand, as well as the penalty, was contrary to the spirit of the Armistice Convention, the object of which was to relieve the French population from any participation in the hostilities.
"I had limited myself to this protest in principle because at the time no concrete case in which such a task of surveillance might have been imposed had been called to my attention. But it was not possible to accept as justification of the ordinance in question the arguments which you gave me in your letter Number 1361 of 6 March.
"You did indeed point out there that Article 43 of the Hague Convention gave the occupying power the authority to legislate, but the power to which you refer in the said article is subject to two qualifications: There can be legislation only to establish and secure public order and life as far as it is possible. On the other hand, the ordinances decreed must..."
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't it enough to show that General Doyen protested? It is not necessary to read all the argument which was put forward on the one side or the other.
M. HERZOG: I shall then stop this quotation, Mr. President.
The German ordinances which I have just read to the Tribunal thus contained formal violations of the general principles of international criminal legislation; they were decreed in contradiction to Article 52 of the Annex to the fourth convention of The Hague and also in contradiction to Article 43, on which they were supposed to be based. They were, therefore, illegal and they were criminal, since they provided death sentences which no international law or domestic law justifies.
The system of the requisition of service furnishes the first example of the criminal character of the methods pursued by the defendants in the execution of their plan of recruitment of foreign labor.
454
18 Jan. 46
