Part I, Page 180. I 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. I 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 RF-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 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. I 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 civilian official 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._]

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 I, 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:

“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:

“1) By virtue of the decree of the Führer, 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.

“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.”

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. I submit it in support of my statement under Exhibit Number RF-18 (Document Number 1913-PS).

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 all 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, 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:

“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. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: Does this document tell us anything more than that the Defendant Funk was unable to be present?

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 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 Ministerial Director 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 workyards). 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 text and 17, likewise, of the German translation, second paragraph before the end:

“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.”

I skip the table on Page 18 and I read:

“(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 workyards: 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 workyards 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.

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.

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. Général de Corps d’Armée 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/A E and 14,887/A E 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.

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. I 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 Führer 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:

“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.”

The second ordinance of the Military Commander in France to which I refer is dated 31 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:

“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 Führer 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.”

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.

I refer again to his letter of 25 May 1941, which I have just submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-23 (Document 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/AE, 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.

The National Socialist authorities then had recourse to a second procedure to give an appearance of legality to the recruiting of foreign workers. They called upon workers who were so-called volunteers. From 1940 on, the occupation authorities opened recruiting offices in all the large cities of the occupied territories. These offices were placed under the control of a special service instituted for this purpose within the general staff of the commanders-in-chief of occupation zones.

The Tribunal knows that these services from 1940 to 1942 functioned under the control of the generals. From 1942 on, and more precisely, from the day when the Defendant Sauckel became the Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor, they received their orders directly from the latter. General Von Falkenhausen, Commander-in-Chief in Belgium and in the north of France, declared in the testimony which I have just read to the Tribunal that from the summer of 1942 he had become the simple intermediary charged with transmitting the instructions given by Sauckel to the Arbeitseinsatz.

Thus, the policy of the German employment offices set up in the occupied areas was carried out from 1942 under the sole responsibility of the Defendant Sauckel and his direct chief, the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the Defendant Göring. I ask the Tribunal to take note of this.

The task of the employment offices was to organize the recruiting of workers for the factories and workshops set up in Europe by the Todt Organization and by the Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, and other German organizations. It was also their task to procure for the German munition factories the amount of foreign labor needed. Workers recruited in this way signed a labor contract; thus they had, theoretically, the status of free workers and were apparently volunteers.

The occupation authorities always made a point of the voluntary nature of the recruiting carried out by the employment offices, but the line followed by their propaganda systematically ignored what they were actually doing. In fact, the voluntary character of this recruiting was entirely fictitious; the workers of the occupied areas who agreed to sign German labor contracts were subject to physical and moral pressure. This pressure took several forms. It was sometimes collective and sometimes individual. In all its forms it was heavy enough to deprive the workers, who were its victims, of their freedom of choice.

The nullity of contracts entered into under the sway of violence is a fundamental principle of law common to all civilized nations. It is found just as expressly stated in German law as in the laws of the powers represented in the Court, or the states occupied by Germany. The German employment offices forced on the foreign workers labor contracts which had no legal significance because they were obtained with violence. I assert this and I will try to provide the Court with proof of my assertion.

First of all, I will show proof of premeditation by the Germans. The pressure under which the foreign workers suffered was not the result of sporadic action on the part of subordinate authorities. It came from the deliberate intent which the National Socialist leaders of Germany formulated into precise instructions.

I submit to the Tribunal Document 1183-PS, which is Exhibit Number RF-26. This is a circular dated 29 January 1942, dealing with the recruitment of foreign workers. This directive comes from a section of the Arbeitseinsatz of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan. It bears the signature of the section chief, Dr. Mansfeld, but it places the executive responsibility directly on the Defendant Göring, Delegate for the Four Year Plan. I read this circular:

“Berlin (SW 11), 29 January 1942, Saarlandstrasse 96.

“Subject: Increased mobilization of labor for the German Reich from the occupied territories and preparations for mobilization by force.

“The labor shortage, aggravated on the one hand by drafts for the Wehrmacht and on the other hand by the increased amount of work for armaments in the Reich, renders it necessary for labor for service in the Reich to be recruited from the occupied territories to a much greater extent than heretofore, in order to relieve the shortage.

“Therefore, any and all methods must be adopted which make it possible to transport, without exception and at once, for employment in the Reich, manpower in the occupied territories which is unemployed or which can be released . . . for use in Germany after most careful screening.”

I read further on Page 2 of the German text:

“In the first place, this mobilization shall be carried out on a voluntary basis as hitherto. For this reason recruitment for employment in the German Reich must be intensified considerably. If, however, satisfactory results are to be obtained, the German authorities who are operating in the occupied territories must be able to exert any pressure necessary to support the voluntary recruitment of labor for employment in Germany.

“Accordingly, as far as may be necessary, the regulations in force in the occupied territories with regard to changing the place of employment or . . . those refusing work, must be tightened. Supplementary regulations concerning distribution of labor must, above all, insure that older persons who are exempt will be used to replace younger persons so that the latter may be made available for the Reich. A far-reaching reduction in the amount of relief granted by public welfare must also be effected in order to induce laborers to accept employment in the Reich. Unemployment relief must be set so low that the amount, in comparison with the average wages in the Reich and the possibilities there for sending remittances home, may serve as an inducement to the workers to accept employment in Germany. When refusal to accept work in the Reich is not justified, relief must be reduced to an amount barely sufficient for subsistence or even cancelled. In this case partial withdrawal of ration cards and an assignment to particularly heavy compulsory work may be considered.”

I here end the quotation and I call to the Tribunal’s attention that this circular is addressed to all the services responsible for labor in the occupied areas. Its distribution in Western Europe was: The Reich Commissioner for the occupied Norwegian territories, the Reich Commissioner for the occupied Dutch territories, the Chief of the Military Administration of Belgium and Northern France, the Chief of the Military Administration of France, the Chief of the Civil Administration of Luxembourg, the Chief of the Civil Administration at Metz, and the Chief of the Civil Administration at Strasbourg.

It is thus proved that a general common plan existed with a view to compelling the workers of the occupied territories to work for Germany.

I have now to show how this plan was put into practice in the different occupation zones. The machinery of pressure which the National Socialist authorities exerted on the foreign workers can be analyzed in the following manner: German labor offices organized intense propaganda in favor of the recruitment of foreign workers. This propaganda was intended to deceive the workers of the occupied areas with regard to the material advantages offered them by the German employment offices. It was carried out by the press, the radio, and by every possible means of publicity. This propaganda was also carried on as a side-line to official administrative duties by secret organizations which had been given the task of enticing foreign workers and subjecting them to a veritable impressment.

These measures proved to be insufficient. The occupation authorities then intervened in the social life of the occupied countries. They strove to produce artificial unemployment there and at the same time they devoted their energies to making living conditions worse for the workers and the unemployed.

In spite of unemployment and the poverty with which they were threatened, the foreign workers showed themselves unmoved by German propaganda. This is why the German authorities finally resorted to direct methods of pressure. They exercised pressure on the political authorities of the occupied countries to make them give support to the recruiting campaign. They compelled employers, especially the organizational committees in France, to induce their workers to accept the labor contracts of the German employment offices. Finally, they took action by way of direct pressure on the workers and gradually passed from so-called voluntary recruitment to conscription by force.

The fiction of voluntary enrollment was dispelled by the sight of the individual arrests and collective raids of which the workers of the occupied areas rapidly became the victims. There are innumerable documents providing proof of the facts which I relate. I shall submit the most important of these to the Tribunal.

The documents which show proof of the publicity campaigns made in France by the German administration will be submitted to the Tribunal by M. Edgar Faure in the course of his brief concerning Germanization and Nazification. By way of example I wish to make use of a document which in the French classification bears the Document Number F-516, which I submit under Exhibit Number RF-27.

This is a report of the Prefect of the Department of the North to the Delegate of the Minister of the Interior in the General Delegation of the French Government in the Occupied Territories. This report points out that a German publicity car circulated through the community of Lille in order to induce French workers to go to Germany. I quote the report:

“Lille, 25 March 1942. Prefect of the Region of the North, Prefect of the Lille Region, to the Prefect, Delegate of the Minister of the Interior with the General Delegation of the French Government in the Occupied Territories.

“Subject: German publicity car.

“I have the honor to inform you that for some days a publicity car covered with posters inviting French workers to enroll for work in Germany has been circulating in the vicinity of Lille, while a loud-speaker plays a whole repertoire of records of French music, among which are featured the ‘Marche Lorraine’ and the hymn ‘Maréchal, Here We Are.’”

THE PRESIDENT: I think we will adjourn until 2 o’clock.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

M. HERZOG: Mr. President, Your Honors. I showed you this morning what the official propaganda was which was conducted by the German offices in France to persuade workers to enroll for work in Germany. The effect of this official propaganda was reinforced by the clandestine recruitment bureaus. Real dens for clandestine recruiting were organized by the occupation authorities apart from the administrative services whose activities they completed. These recruitment bureaus were directed by German agents who often succeeded in securing local accomplices. In France these bureaus extended their ramifications to the non-occupied zone as well as the occupied zone. Several documents prove their existence. The first among them is a report transmitted on 7 March 1942 by the Vice President of the Council of Ministers of the _de facto_ Government of Vichy, to the Delegate General for Franco-German Economic Relations. It is Document F-654 of the French archives.

This report is drawn up under the seal of Vice President of the Council, Darlan. It bears the signature of an officer of the latter’s General Staff, Commander Fontaine. I submit this report under Exhibit Number RF-28 (Document F-654) and I read it:

“Vichy, 7 March 1942. Your Honor, the Delegate General, I have the honor of transmitting to you in this letter, for your information, a report on the organization of recruitment in France of workers for German industry.”

I now go to Page 2.

“26 of February 1942. Secret. Note on the organization of the recruitment in France of workers for German industry. Source: excellent.

“I. Organization of the recruitment of workers in France.

“One of the main organizations for the recruitment of workers in France for Germany is to be Société de Mécanique de la Seine, whose head office is in Puteaux, Seine, at 8 Quai National, and which is also known as A. M. S.

“This society is to operate under the secret control of the Kommandantur, and of three engineers, one of which is to have the rank of chief engineer and the other two are to be M. Meyer and M. Schronner.

“In addition to the work which it has to carry out, this society is particularly entrusted with the re-education of workers recruited in France and sent to Germany at the request of German industrial firms on payment of premiums.

“The A. M. S. is assisted in these operations in the Occupied Zone by three centers of recruiting which operate in Paris and are the Porte de Vincennes Center, the Courbevoie Center (200 Boulevard St. Denis), and the Avenue des Tournelles Center. These centers are also charged with co-ordinating the operations of recruitment in the non-occupied zone. For this zone, the two principal centers are in Marseilles and Toulouse. A third center is to be at Tarbes.

“a) The center at Marseilles is in charge of the recruitment in the Mediterranean zone, under the direction of Mr. Meyer who is mentioned above. The address of this engineer is not known, but one can obtain information about him at 24 Avenue Kléber, Paris, at the Military Commander’s.

“In Marseilles the A. M. S. office is situated at 83 Rue de Sylvabelle. In his task Mr. Meyer is assisted by M. Ringo, who lives in Madrague-Ville, 5 bis Boulevard Bernabo, near the slaughter house.”

I stop this quotation here to submit to the Tribunal the correspondence exchanged between the months of December 1941 and January 1942, between the Prefect of the Alpes-Maritimes and the authorities of the Vichy Government. This is Document F-518 which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-29. This correspondence emphasizes the activity of the German agents in clandestine recruiting, and particularly that of Mr. Meyer, to whom the report of Commander Fontaine, which I have just read, applies. I quote first the letter of 10 December 1941, in which the Prefect of the Alpes-Maritimes confirmed the reports which he had previously made on this question. It is the letter which is on the sixth page of the French text and the seventh page of the German text:

“Nice, 10 December 1941. The State Counsellor, Prefect of the Alpes-Maritimes, to His Honor, the State Secretary of the Interior, Secretariat General of the Police, Directorate for Home and Foreign Police.

“Subject: The activity of foreign agents, aimed at enticing away skilled workers.

“Reference: Your telegrams 12,402 and 12,426 of 28 November 1941; my reports 955 and 986 of 24 November 1941 and 6 December 1941.

“In my reports referred to I pointed out to you the activity of recruiting agents who attempted to entice skilled workers on behalf of Germany.

“I have the honor of giving you below some additional information gathered on this subject.

“The German engineer Meyer and the French subject Bentz stopped on 1 December 1941 at the Hotel Splendid in Nice, coming from Marseilles.”

Now, I go on to the third paragraph before the end:

“I permit myself to draw your attention particularly to the fact that in Paris they enrolled French workers for Germany.”

Here I end the quotation.

These documents attest to the activity which the clandestine recruiting offices developed. But I am not satisfied merely to point out their existence; I wish to show that these offices operated under the initiative of official administrations and of the German office for labor.

The proof is furnished by a statement which the Defendant Sauckel made on 1 March 1944, during the 54th conference of the Central Office for the Four Year Plan. The stenographic report of these conferences has been found. It forms Document R-124, to which my American colleagues have already referred. I submit it again to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-30 and I shall read from an extract of the minutes of the session of 1 March 1944. This is in Exhibit Number RF-30, in the French text, Page 2, second paragraph; in the German text, Pages 1770 and 1771. I quote the page numbers which are at the bottom and on the right of the German original. I read the declaration made by the Defendant Sauckel:

“The most abominable point against which I have to fight is the claim that there is no organization in these districts properly to recruit Frenchmen, Belgians, and Italians and to dispatch them to work. So I have even proceeded to employ and train a whole staff of French and Italian agents of both sexes who for good pay, just as was done in olden times for ‘shanghaiing,’ go hunting for men and dupe them, using liquor as well as persuasion. . .”

The propaganda of the official services and that of the clandestine recruiting offices proved to be inefficacious. The National Socialist authorities then had to resort to methods of economic pressure. They tried to give to the workers who were to go to Germany the hope of material advantages. I cite in respect to this an ordinance of the Military Commander in Belgium and the North of France, which I submit to the Tribunal. It is an ordinance of 20 July 1942 which appeared in the _Verordnungsblatt_ of Belgium. It exempts from tax Belgian workers who work in German factories. I submit it to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-31.

On the other hand, the occupation authorities sought to lower the living standard of workers who remained in the occupied territories. I said that they had made poverty a factor in their recruiting policy. I am going to prove it by showing how they went about creating artificial unemployment in the occupied zones and aggravating the material situation of the unemployed.

I remark as a reminder that the German authorities also practiced for this purpose a policy of freezing salaries. This measure aided the recruiting campaign for labor for Germany and had also an economic bearing, and I would like to refer the Tribunal to the explanations which will be given on this point by M. Gerthoffer.

Unemployment was produced by two complementary measures: The first is the regulating of the legal working hours; the second, the concentration and, if need be, the closing of industrial enterprises.

From 1940 the local field commandants were concerned with increasing the duration of work in their administrative zones. In France steps taken by the local authorities brought about reactions. The problem became general and was solved on a national scale. Long negotiations were imposed on the representatives of the pseudo-government of Vichy.

Finally an ordinance of 22 April 1942, from the Military Command in France, reserved for the occupation authorities the right of fixing the duration of work in industrial enterprises. This ordinance appeared in their _Verordnungsblatt Frankreich_, 1942. I submit it to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-32 and I quote the first paragraph:

“Paragraph I: For establishments and enterprises of all kinds a minimum of working hours may be imposed. This minimum of working hours will be decreed for an entire economic region, for specified economic branches, or for individual enterprises.”

In Belgium working hours were fixed by a decree and by an implementing order of 6 October 1942, which appeared in the _Verordnungsblatt_ of Belgium. I submit this ordinance to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-33.

The regulating of working hours did not release a sufficient number of workers for the German factories; that is why the National Socialist authorities used a second method. Under the pretext of rationalizing production they brought about a concentration of industrial and commercial enterprises, certain of which were closed at their instigation. I cite in this relation the provisions which were made or imposed by the Germans in France, in Belgium, and in Holland.

In France I would like to refer to two texts. The first is the ordinance of the Vichy Government of 17 December 1941, published in the _Journal Officiel de L’État Français_, which I submit to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-34. The second text to which I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal is the ordinance of 25 February 1942, issued by the Military Commandant in France. This ordinance appeared in the _Verordnungsblatt des Militärbefehlshabers in Frankreich_. I shall read it to the Tribunal because it seems particularly important, as the principle for the compulsory closing of certain French enterprises is laid down by a decree by the occupying power. I shall read the first and second paragraphs of Document Number RF-35:

“Paragraph I: If the economic situation, especially as regards the use of raw materials and industrial appliances, requires it, establishments and economic enterprises may be partly or completely closed.

“Paragraph II: The closing of these enterprises will be announced by field headquarters by means of a written notification addressed to the establishment or to the industrial enterprise.”

In Belgium I refer to the ordinances of the Military Commandant, 30 March and 3 October 1942, which appeared in the _Verordnungsblatt_ in Belgium. I submit to the Tribunal the ordinance of 30 March under Document Number RF-36.

In Holland the regulating provisions of the occupying authorities were more stringent than elsewhere. I present an ordinance of the Reich Commissioner for the territory of occupied Holland, 15 March 1943. I submit it to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-37.

This ordinance presents a double interest. First, it offers precise information which emphasizes the method with which the German services executed their recruiting plan. It constitutes, on the other hand, the first document I shall submit to the Tribunal accusing the Defendant Seyss-Inquart. The policy of Sauckel was carried out in Holland with the collaboration of Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart. The ordinances regarding compulsory labor in Holland were all issued on the responsibility of Seyss-Inquart, whether they bear his actual signature or not. I ask the Tribunal to note this.

The increase of the legal working hours and the closing of industrial enterprises deprived thousands of workers of their jobs. The defendants did not hesitate to use material constraint to incite the unemployed to work for Germany. They threatened the unemployed that they would do away with their unemployment compensation. This threat was made on several occasions by the local field commandants in occupied France. I find proof in the protest made by the French authorities to the German Armistice Commission. The French document is F-282, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-38. I read the first page, third paragraph of the letter:

“Moreover, the occupation authorities stipulate that the workers who refuse the work offered to them will forfeit their right to unemployment compensation and may be prosecuted by the war tribunal for sabotage of Franco-German collaboration.”

Far from disavowing the initiative of their local authorities, the Central Office for Labor gave them instructions to continue this policy. The proof is furnished by the circular of Dr. Mansfeld, dated 29 January 1942, which I have just submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-26 (Document Number 1183-PS) in which instructions were given that the stopping of unemployment compensation should be utilized as a means of pressure on workers from foreign countries. The circular of Dr. Mansfeld shows that the blackmail of the National Socialist leaders was practiced not only in the granting of unemployment compensation, but also in the issuing of ration cards.

Moreover, the defendants tried to force the inhabitants of the occupied territories to leave for Germany by increasing their food difficulties. The proof of this intention is given in the report of the session of 1 March 1944 of the Conference of the Four Year Plan. This document I referred to a short time ago as Exhibit Number RF-30 (Document R-124). This is a passage which has not yet been read, which the Tribunal will please permit me to read. It is on Page 5 of the French translation, Pages 1814 and 1815 of the German text. The page numbers are at the bottom and on the right. I read on the top of Page 5 of the French text:

“Milch: ‘Wouldn’t the following method be better than . . . to protect the “S” factories, German administration should take over the feeding of the Italians and say to them, “No one shall receive food unless he works in a protected factory (S-Betrieb) or leaves for Germany?’”

“Sauckel: ‘It is true that the French workman in France is better fed than the German workman in Germany. The Italian workman, even if he does not work at all, is better fed in the part of Italy which we occupy than if he worked in Germany.’”

I have shown the Tribunal the economic and social measures which the National Socialist authorities took to force workers in the occupied territories to accept labor contracts offered by the German authorities. This indirect coercion was reinforced by direct pressure which was simultaneously put on the local governments, the employers, and on the workers themselves.

The National Socialist leaders knew that their recruiting policy could be facilitated by the local authorities. That is why they tried to make the pseudo-governments of the occupied territories guarantee or indorse the fiction of voluntary enrollment. I submit to the Tribunal an example of the pressure which the German services placed on the Vichy Government to that purpose. They first arranged that the State Secretariat of Labor should issue a circular to all prefects on 29 March 1941. The German authorities were not satisfied with this circular. They were conscious of the illegality of their recruiting methods and they wished to justify them by an agreement with the _de facto_ government of France.

They required that this agreement be made known by public statement. Negotiations were carried out for this purpose in 1941 and 1942. The violence of the German pressure is substantiated by the letters addressed by Dr. Michel, chief of the administrative staff, to the Delegate General for Franco-German Economic Relations.

I refer especially to his letters of 3 March 1942 and 15 May 1942, which constitute Exhibits Numbers RF-39 and 40 (Documents Numbers F-526 and F-525). I read first to the Tribunal the letter of 15 May, which is under Exhibit Number RF-39 (Document Number F-526):

“Paris, 15 May 1942.

“Subject: The Recruiting of French Labor for Germany.

“As the result of the conversations of 24 January 1942, and after repeated appeals, the first draft of the declaration of the French Government concerning recruiting was presented 27 February. On the German side it was accepted with slight modifications and in written form on 3 March, on the condition that at the time of its transmission to the organizational committees, attention should be directed to the fact that the French Government expressly approved of the acceptance of work in Germany.

“On 19 March attention was drawn to the fact that a draft for a memorandum to the organizational committees should be submitted, whereupon the draft was submitted on 27 March. On 30 March a proposal for modification was delivered to M. Terray, who was to take it up with M. Bichelonne.”

I skip the two following paragraphs, and I will read the last paragraph:

“Although no reason appears for the unusual and incomprehensible delay, the draft has not been presented up to now. As more than 2 months have passed since the first request for the submission of the memorandum, it is requested that the new draft be submitted by 19 May.

“For the Military Commandant; for Chief of the Administrative Staff. Signed, Dr. Michel.”

The Tribunal undoubtedly has observed that Dr. Michel demanded not only the circulation of a public declaration, but also insisted that the text of this statement be officially transmitted to the organizational committees. The pressure which occupation authorities put upon French industrial enterprises to stimulate them to encourage the departure of their workers to Germany was brought about, in fact, through the medium of the organizational committees. The German offices for labor collaborated directly with the organizational committees. They ordered conferences in the course of which they dictated their will to the leaders of these committees. They also insisted that the organizational committees should be informed of all the measures which the French authorities had to take.

The committees could then be associated with these measures in the interests of German policy. The correspondence of Dr. Michel offers numerous examples of the constant efforts of the German authorities to act upon the organizational committees.

I have just offered an example of this to the Tribunal in the document which I have read. I now offer another.

In 1941 the Germans demanded that the circulars, especially the directive of 29 March 1941 addressed to the prefects regarding the recruiting of laborers for Germany, should be officially transmitted to the organizational committees. The occupation authorities obtained satisfaction through a circular of 25 April, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-41 (Document Number F-521). But the terms of this circular did not receive the approval of the German authorities, and on 28 May 1941 Dr. Michel protested in violent terms to the Delegate General for Franco-German Economic Relations. This protest constitutes our Document F-522. I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-42, and read it:

“Paris, 28 May 1941.

“Subject: Recruiting of Workers for Germany.

“Reference: Your letter Number 192 of 29 April 1941.

“From your explanations I gather that even before my letter of 23 April was received a circular for the organizational committees had been drafted and sent on 25 April.

“This circular, nevertheless, does not seem to me adequate to support in an efficacious manner the recruiting of workers carried out by Germany. That is why I consider that it is necessary that, in a further directive, attention may be drawn to the points which were particularly mentioned by me on 23 April and I request you to submit to me as soon as possible the appropriate draft.

“On the German side an impressive contribution toward the creating of a favorable atmosphere has been made by means of the intended release of an additional large number of prisoners of war, which was considered by you at the time of our conversation of 24 March as a primary condition for the success of a reinforced recruiting of workers for Germany. I am therefore probably not wrong in expecting that you will send to the economic organizations a communication so designed that the attitude of expectation, maintained by French economy up until now, will develop also in the field of the release of labor into a constructive co-operation. I therefore expect that you will submit to me your proposals with all possible speed.”

And, finally, the German services placed direct pressure upon the workers themselves.

First, moral pressure. The _opération de la relève_ (prisoner exchange plan) tried in France in the spring of 1942 is characteristic. The occupation authorities promised to compensate for the sending of French workers to Germany by liberating prisoners of war. The return of a prisoner was to take place upon the departure of a worker. This promise was fallacious, and reality was quite different.

I quote in this connection the report on compulsory labor and the deportation of workers, which I submitted this morning to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-22 (Document Number F-515).

I quote Page 51, both in the French original and in the German translation. In the French original it is the third paragraph of Page 51 and in the German translation the first paragraph:

“If the press, inspired by the occupying power, pretends in its commentaries to applaud the replacement plan of one prisoner for one worker, it is undoubtedly done to order and based on calculation; and also it seems because until 20 June 1942, 2 days before the speech cited before”—it was a speech of the chief of the _de facto_ government of France—“it was, indeed, this proportion which the Germans Michel and Ritter had pretended to accept in their reports to the French administrative services.

“The proportion, in fact, of one to five, appears to have been a last-minute surprise of which the press had never breathed a word.”

The pressure of which foreign workers were the victims was also a material pressure. I said that the fiction of voluntary enrollment could not be maintained in view of the arrests. I wish to submit a document to the Tribunal which furnishes a characteristic example of the German mentality and of the methods utilized by the National Socialist administrations. This is a document which in the French archives is Number 527, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-43. This is a letter from the delegate of the Reich Labor Minister in the French department of Pas de Calais. This official enjoins a young French workman to depart for Germany as a free worker under threat of unfavorable consequences. This is in Exhibit Number RF-43 (Document Number F-527), third page:

“Sir:

“The 26th of March last, in Marquise, I ordered you to go to work in Germany in your profession. You were to leave with the convoy of the 1st of April for Germany. You paid no attention to this summons. I warn you that you must present yourself, with your baggage, next Monday, 28 April, before 19 hours, at 51 Rue de la Pomme d’Or in Calais. I call your attention to the fact that you leave for Germany as a free worker, that you will work there under the same conditions, and earn the same wages as the German workers.

“In case you do not present yourself, I must tell you that unfavorable consequences may very well follow.

“Delegate for the Labor Ministry of the Reich”—signed—“Hanneran.”

The proof of the constraint which the German authorities exercised on the workers of the occupied territories to bring about their allegedly voluntary enrollment may be continued. The National Socialist authorities did not merely impose labor contracts tainted with violence on foreign workers, they themselves deliberately failed to honor these contracts.

I find proof of this in the fact that they unilaterally prolonged the duration of the contracts signed by foreign workers. This proof is based on several documents. Some ordinances were issued by the Defendant Göring in his capacity as Delegate for the Four Year Plan; others by the Defendant Sauckel.

I now call the attention of the Tribunal to an order of Sauckel’s, dated 29 March 1943, which I submit to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-44. It is an extract from _Verfügungen, Anordnungen, Bekanntmachungen_, Volume 5, Page 203:

“Extension of work contracts, fixed for a period of time, of foreign workers, who during the time of their contract have, absented themselves from their work without proper excuse.

“The Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor decrees:

“The regular carrying out of the clauses of a contract for a fixed period of time concluded by a foreign worker necessitates that the worker should devote all his energy to the enterprise for the whole duration of the contract. Nevertheless, it happens that foreign workers as a result of idleness, delays in their return to work from visits to their homes,”—I draw the Tribunal’s attention to the following words—“serving terms of prison, internment in a camp of correction, or for other reasons, remain absent from their work . . . without just cause, for a longer or shorter period of time. In such cases foreign workers cannot be authorized to return to their country when the period of time has elapsed for which they agreed to work voluntarily in Germany.

“Such procedure is not in keeping with the spirit of a work contract for a fixed period of time, whose object is not only the presence of the foreign worker, but also the work accomplished by him.”

Kept by force in the German factories which they had entered under compulsion, the foreign workers were neither voluntary workers nor free workers. The exposé of the methods of German recruiting will suffice to show the Tribunal the fictitious character of the voluntary enrollment on which it was supposed to be based. The foreign workers who agreed to work in the factories of the National Socialist war industry did not act through free will. Their number, however, remained limited. The workers of the occupied territories had the physical and moral courage to resist German pressure. This is proved in an admission by the Defendant Sauckel, which I take from the minutes of the meeting of 3 March 1944 of the Conference of the Four Year Plan.

This is from an extract which has already been read by my American colleague, Mr. Dodd, so I will not read it again to the Tribunal. I merely wish to recall that the Defendant Sauckel admitted that out of 5 million foreign workers who came to Germany, there were not even 200,000 who came voluntarily. The resistance of the foreign workers surprised the Defendant Sauckel as much as it irritated him. One day he expressed his surprise to a German general who replied, “The difficulty comes from the fact that you address yourself to patriots who do not share your ideal.”

Indeed, only force could constrain the patriots of the occupied territories to work in behalf of the enemy. The National Socialist authorities resorted to force.

The Germans had, from the first, the possibility of imposing their policy of force on that kind of labor whose particular status guaranteed recruitment and apparent submission—the prisoners of war. From 1940 on, the German military authorities organized labor task forces in prison camps. They constantly increased the importance of these task forces, which were put at the disposal of agricultural economy and the war industry.

The importance of the work required from war prisoners is substantiated by the report on forced labor and the deportation of workers, which I have submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-22 (Document Number F-515). We find on Page 68 of the French and German texts the following estimates: There were, at the end of 1942, 1,036,319 French prisoners of war in Germany; 987,687 had been assigned to the work groups and only the surplus, that is 48,632 prisoners, remained unemployed.

The utilization of prisoners of war in German factories does not constitute a distinct phenomenon which can be dissociated from the general plan for the recruiting of foreign workers; it is, on the contrary, an integral part of this plan.

The National Socialists have always considered that the obligation to work applied just as much to war prisoners as to the civilian workers of the occupied territories. They have on many occasions expressed this conviction. I refer especially to three documents.

The first is the decree of the appointment of the Defendant Sauckel, which I submitted to the Tribunal at the beginning of my explanatory remarks.

The second document to which I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal is the 10th decree of Sauckel, which I submitted some time ago under Document Number RF-17. This decree formulates the principle of the obligation to work and applies to war prisoners, according to the terms of its Article 8.

Finally, Sauckel had, in another document, affirmed that the prisoners of war were to be subject to work in the same manner as civilian workers. This is found in the letter which he wrote to the Defendant Rosenberg on 20 April 1942, some days after his appointment, to explain his project to the latter. This is Document 016-PS, which my American colleague, Mr. Dodd, has already submitted to the Tribunal. I present it as Exhibit Number RF-45. I shall not read from it, but I point out that on Page 20 of the German text the problem of compulsory labor is treated in the general heading entitled, “Prisoners of war and foreign workers.”

These documents bring a double proof to the Tribunal. First of all, they reveal the willingness of the National Socialists to force prisoners to work in behalf of the German war economy within the general frame of their recruiting policy. In the second place, these documents establish that the utilization of prisoners of war was not undertaken only by military authorities; this utilization was ordered and systematized by a civilian organization—that of the Arbeitseinsatz. As well as the responsibility of the Defendant Keitel, it entails also that of the German leaders who conducted the labor policy: the Defendant Sauckel, the Defendant Speer, and the Defendant Göring.

The Tribunal knows that international law regulates the conditions under which prisoners of war may be forced to work. The Hague Convention formulated rules which were closely defined by the Geneva Convention in Articles 27, 31, and 32:

“Article 27: Belligerents may use as workers healthy war prisoners, according to their rank and their capabilities, with the exception of officers and corresponding ranks. Nevertheless, if officers, or those of similar rank, ask for suitable work, it will be supplied for them as far as possible. Noncommissioned officers, who are war prisoners, can be required to work only as supervisors, if they do not expressly request remunerative occupation. . . .

“Article 31: The work furnished by the prisoners of war. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: We consider these documents as official and sufficiently authentic.

M. HERZOG: These rules of international law determine positively the legal powers of the nation having prisoners of war in its custody. It is legitimate to force prisoners of war to work during their captivity, but this includes three legal limitations:

1. It is forbidden to compel noncommissioned officers who are prisoners to work, unless they have expressly requested to do so.

2. War prisoners must not be used for dangerous work.

3. Prisoners must not be associated with the enemy war effort.

The National Socialist authorities systematically neglected these imperative provisions. They exercised violent constraint on noncommissioned officers held in captivity, to force them to join labor crews. They included war prisoners as workers in their factories and in the workyards, without considering the nature of the work imposed upon them. The utilization of war prisoners by National Socialist Germany took place under illegal and criminal conditions. This I affirm and I will prove it to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess for 10 minutes.

[_A recess was taken._]

M. HERZOG: Mr. President, Your Honors. From 1941, the Germans exercised direct pressure on noncommissioned officers to force them to engage in productive work for the Reich war economy. This pressure, after the failure of propaganda methods, took the form of reprisals. Insubordinate noncommissioned officers were subjected to ill-treatment; they were sent to special camps, such as Coberczyn, where they were put under a disciplinary regime. Some incurred penal sentences because of their refusal to work. I submit, as proof, the report of the Ministry of Prisoners, Deportees, and Refugees of the French Government, Document UK-78(2), which is, in my document book, Exhibit Number RF-46. The document is in a white file. I shall read from the bottom of Page 19 in the French original, Page 10 of the German translation:

“Work of noncommissioned officers.

“On this subject the Geneva Convention was explicit: Noncommissioned officers who are war prisoners can be subjected to work only as supervisors, unless they make an express request for a remunerative occupation.

“In conformity with this article a certain number of noncommissioned officers refused to work from the beginning of their captivity. The number of imprisoned noncommissioned officers was, at the end of 1940, about 130,000 and represented later a very important source of labor for the Reich. Therefore, the German authorities strove by every means to induce the greatest possible number of objectors to work. To this effect, during the last months of 1941, the noncommissioned officers who did not volunteer for the work were, in most camps, subjected to an alternating regime. For a few days they had to undergo punishments such as the reduction of food rations, doing without beds, compulsory physical exercises for a number of hours, and particularly the _pelote_ (punishment drill). During another period they were promised work according to their liking, and other material advantages, for example, special regulations for insurance, an extra number of letters, and higher wages. These methods led a certain number of noncommissioned officers to accept work. The noncommissioned officers who persisted in their refusal to work were subjected to a very severe disciplinary regime and to arduous physical exercises.”

The National Socialist military authorities utilized the prisoners of war for dangerous work. The French, British, Belgian, and Dutch prisoners were used to transport munitions, to load bombs on planes, to repair aviation camps, and to construct fortifications. The proof of the use of prisoners of war for the transport of munitions and for the loading of bombs on planes is furnished by the affidavits of repatriated French prisoners of war. These affidavits have been assembled in the report of the Ministry of Prisoners, which I have just quoted and which I shall quote again.

I now quote Page 27 of the French document, Page 14 of the German translation. It is the same document from which I have just quoted, Exhibit Number RF-46, Page 27:

“(b) The requisition of prisoners for the construction of fortifications and for the transport of munitions, very often in the close vicinity of the firing line.

“The war prisoners, Kommando 274 of Stalag II B, complain, December 1944, of being employed on Sundays in the construction of antitank trenches.

“On 2 February 1945 the prisoners of Stalag II D, evacuated on account of the advance of the Russian Army, worked, as soon as they arrived at Sassnitz, at fortification works and antitank works, in particular around the city.

“After falling back from Stalag III B, the war prisoners were engaged until the end of April in earthworks, digging trenches, and in transporting aviation bombs.

“Kommando 553 at Lebus was obliged to carry out work in the front lines under the fire of Russian artillery. Numerous comrades, drawn back to Fürstenwalde, were employed in loading bombs on German bombers. In spite of their protests to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva and to the colonel commanding Stalag III B, about billeting in barns, very bad hygiene, and insufficient food, the latter answered that he was obeying superior orders of the OKW, ordering the prisoners to dig trenches.”

The National Socialist leaders, for that matter, admitted that they used French and British prisoners of war for military work on airdromes exposed to Allied bombardment.

I offer in proof two notes, the first addressed by the OKH to the War Prisoners Section of the Wehrmacht, and the second by “Wilhelmstrasse” to the German representative of the Reich Foreign Office at the Wiesbaden Armistice Commission.

The memorandum of the OKH, dated 7 October 1940, constitutes Document F-549; I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-47, and I read it in full:

“The demand of the French Delegation shall be considered unfounded. The lodging of war prisoners in camps situated in the vicinity of aviation fields is not in contradiction to the rules of the rights of nations.

“According to Article 9, Paragraph 4, of the Convention on the Treatment of War Prisoners, of 27 July 1929, no prisoners of war shall be exposed to the fire of the combat zone. Combat zone in this sense is to be understood as the space in which normally a battle between two armies is carried on, thus extending to a depth of about 20 kilometers from the advance line. Places exposed to possible aerial attacks, however, do not belong to the combat zone. In this age of air warfare there no longer exists any sure shelter. The fact of using war prisoners for the construction of a camp and for the repairing of destroyed runways does not seem to lend itself to any controversy.

“According to Article 31 of the Convention quoted above, war prisoners must not be used in works directly related to war activity. The construction of shelters, houses, and camps is not directly a war act. It is recognized that war prisoners may be employed in the construction of roads. Accordingly their utilization for the reconstruction of aviation camps that have been destroyed is permissible. On the roads, trucks, tanks, ammunition cars, _et cetera_, are driven, and on the aviation fields there are planes. It is all the same.

“On the other hand, it would be illegal to use war prisoners for loading bombs, munitions, _et cetera_ on bombers. This would be work directly related to war activity.

“By reason of the legal position explained above, the OKH has rejected the idea of withdrawing French prisoners of war employed on work in the aviation camps.”

I draw the attention of the Tribunal to this document. It emphasized the bad faith of the leaders of National Socialist Germany, which was two-fold: In the first place, the note of 7 October 1940, which I have read, acknowledges that it is forbidden by international law to use prisoners of war for the loading of bombs and ammunitions on bombers. But I have just brought proof to the Tribunal that the French prisoners of war were used for this purpose. In the second place, the note of the OKH disputes the dangerous character of the work carried out on the aviation fields.

But the note of “Wilhelmstrasse,” to which I shall now refer, and which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-48 (Document Number F-550), recognizes, on the contrary, that prisoners forced to work on an aviation field incur grave danger because of the military purpose of this work.

I will read to the Tribunal a note of the German Foreign Office dated 14 February 1941, Exhibit Number RF-48 (Document Number F-550):

“Article 87 of the Agreement of 1929 on Prisoners of War provides that, in case of difference of opinion on the subject of the interpretation of the Agreement, the protecting powers shall offer their services to settle the dispute. To accomplish this, any protecting power may propose a meeting of representatives of the belligerent powers. . . . France herself assumes the responsibilities of a protecting power in questions on prisoners of war.”

I shall pass on from this quotation to Paragraph 2 of the same document:

“As to the point in dispute, it is well to call attention to the following:

“The French conception, according to which prisoners of war may not be quartered near airfields and may not be employed in repairing runways, cannot be based on the exact content of Articles 9 and 31; but, on the other hand, it is certain that French prisoners of war quartered and employed under these conditions are in a particularly dangerous situation, because the airfields in occupied territories are used exclusively for German military purposes and thus constitute a special objective for enemy air attacks.

“The American Embassy in Berlin has likewise made a protest against a similar use of British prisoners of war in Germany. So far no answer has been made, because a rejection of this protest might result in German prisoners being employed in similar work in England.”

The utilization of war prisoners for the construction of fortifications is substantiated by Document 828-PS, which I file with the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-49. It is a letter of 29 September 1944, addressed by the Chief of the German 1st Army Corps to the OKW, to give an account of work on fortifications accomplished by 80 Belgian prisoners of war. I quote:

“According to the teletype referred to, it is reported that in the territory of Stalag I A, Stablack Einsatzbereich 2-213, Tilsit-Loten near Ragnit, there are 40 Belgian prisoners of war and in Lindbach, near Neusiedel, 40 Belgian prisoners of war, who are employed on fortification work.”

There remains the task of proving that Allied prisoners, forced to work in Reich armament factories, were associated with the enemy war effort. To this end I first offer Document 1206-PS. This document is a memorandum, dated 11 November 1941, concerning a report made 7 November 1941 by the Reich Marshal. The document, consequently, establishes the direct responsibility of the Defendant Göring. The use of Russian war prisoners is treated in a general way in this document, but it deals also with the use of war prisoners of Western European countries. I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-50, and I read:

“Berlin, 11 November 1941.

“Notes on report made by the Reich Marshal at a meeting of 7 November 1941 in the Reich Ministry for Air.

“Subject: Employment of Russian labor in the war economy.”

THE PRESIDENT: Has that already been put in by the United States?

M. HERZOG: I think, Mr. President, that it was presented by the United States Prosecution. I shall, therefore, simply quote an extract, the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the first page, concerning the employment of French and Belgian war prisoners on individual employment in the economy of armament. This use of war prisoners in the Reich munitions factories corresponded to a common plan. It is the result of a systematic policy. The administrative offices for labor deliberately assigned to armament factories all war prisoners who seemed capable of carrying out skilled work. I quote, in this connection, Document 3005-PS, Exhibit RF-51. It is a circular addressed, in 1941, by the Ministry of Labor to the heads of employment offices concerning the use of French and Russian prisoners of war. This document has been submitted and commented upon by my American colleague, Mr. Dodd. I shall, therefore, not read it. I simply point out that this circular deals with the employment of all French war prisoners in the armament factories of the Reich.

After the capitulation of Italy, Italian soldiers who had fallen into the hands of the Germans—they were not called prisoners of war, but rather “military internees”—were forced to work. I offer in this connection, a directive of the Defendant Bormann, of 28 September 1943, Document 657-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-52.

The Italian military internees were in three categories; some asked to continue the struggle on the side of the German army; others desired to keep a neutral attitude; others turned their arms against their former allies. The military internees of the second and third categories were, in the terms of the circular, to be forced to work. I read:

“Circular Number 55/43 G.R.S., top secret. Concerning the treatment and employment of Italian military internees.

“The OKW, in connection with the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor, has regulated the treatment and the employment of Italian military internees. The most important directions of the ordinances of the OKW are the following. . . .”

I shall skip the rest of the first page and proceed to Page 2 of the French translation:

“The Italian internees who, when investigated, do not declare themselves ready to continue the struggle under German command, are put at the disposal of the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor, who has already given the necessary instructions for their employment to the heads of the regional labor offices.

“It is to be noted that Italian military internees must not be employed together with the British and American prisoners of war. . . .”

The prisoners of war offered passive resistance to German force. The National Socialist authorities intervened again and again to attempt to increase their output. I refer to Document 233-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-53. It is a directive of the OKW of 17 August 1944. The purpose is to indicate to the war prisoner bureaus measures capable of increasing the production of the prisoners. I read from the document:

“Subject: Treatment of War Prisoners—Increase in Production.

“The measures taken until now with regard to the treatment of war prisoners and the increasing of their production have not given the hoped-for results. The offices of the Party and those of economy continually complain of the poor labor output of all the war prisoners. The object of this circular is to make known the directives for prisoners of war made in agreement with all interested offices of the Party and State. Accordingly all guard companies and their auxiliaries are to be given detailed instructions.

“1. Collaboration with the Hoheitsträger of the NSDAP.

“The co-operation of all officers in charge of war prisoners with the Hoheitsträger of the Party must be intensified to an even greater extent. To this end the commanders of the prisoners-of-war camps shall immediately detail, for all the Kreise in their command, an energetic officer acquainted with all questions concerning prisoners of war, to act as liaison officer to the Kreisleiter. This officer shall have the duty of settling in closest collaboration with the Kreisleiter, according to the instructions of the camp commander, all questions concerning prisoners of war which might be of public interest.

“The aim of this collaboration must be: (a) To increase the labor output of war prisoners; (b) to solve all arising difficulties quickly and on the spot; (c) to organize the employment of war prisoners in the Kreise in such a way that it meets with the political, military, and economic requirements.

“The Chancellery of the Party will give the necessary orders to the Gauleiter and the Kreisleiter.

“2. Treatment of prisoners of war. The treatment of prisoners of war shall be dictated, within limits compatible with security, by the sole purpose of increasing the labor output to the utmost extent. In addition to just treatment, providing the prisoners with the food due them according to stipulations, and with proper billets, supervision of the labor output is necessary to achieve this highest possible production.

“Available means must be employed with extreme rigor as regards lazy and rebellious prisoners.”

The resistance of war prisoners caused the German labor bureaus to use a subterfuge to force them to work. I refer to the operation called the transformation of war prisoners into free workers. It consisted in transforming prisoners of war into so-called free workers, to whom a labor contract was offered. The operation was perfected by the Defendant Sauckel in the course of one of his trips to Paris on 9 April 1943. To Germany it offered the advantage of permitting the use of transformed prisoners in armament factories without directly violating the Geneva Convention. For the prisoners it presented only an illusory advantage, the decrease of the surveillance to which they were subjected. In reality the length and the nature of the work imposed upon them was in no way changed; their housing conditions and the quality of their rations remained unchanged. Moreover, this operation, presented by German propaganda as a special measure to war prisoners, brought about a deterioration of their legal status.

The prisoners of war were not fooled; in most cases they refused to co-operate with this German maneuver. Some agreed to do it, but a number of these took advantage of the first leave granted them because of their change in status, and fled. The report of the Statistical Institute on Forced Labor, which I submitted to the Tribunal this morning under Exhibit Number RF-22, (Document Number F-515) gives in this connection the following information. I quote it, Page 70 of the French text, Page 70 of the German translation. I shall read the second paragraph:

“The transformation of prisoners into ‘free’ workers, which was realized or carried out as the second Sauckel act and which because of this fact must be counted in the present list as dating from 25 April 1943, was decided by him, Sauckel, in the course of a trip to Paris on 9 April 1943. It was to afford, after the prisoner had signed his contract, leave to go to France which was dependent on the return of the men who had gone on leave before. Two attempts were made to carry out this plan. As of 24 April 1943, out of 1,000 on leave, 43 did not return. In the month of August following, out of 8,000 on leave, 2,000 did not return. A last appeal directed to them was published in the press of 17 August without result. There is no third experiment, and the transformation in practice limited itself to the removal of sentinels and of camp guards, but did not change either the nature or the duration of the work or the housing conditions or the rations. On the other hand, it entailed loss of rights to receive packages from the International Red Cross and loss of the diplomatic protection of prisoners of war.”

The forced utilization of war prisoners did not permit the German authorities to solve the labor problem of the war economy. That is why they applied their policy of force to the civilian populations of the occupied territories.

The National Socialist authorities systemized their policy of force, from 1942 on, by instituting compulsory labor in the different occupied territories. From the end of 1941 it has been confirmed that neither the recruiting of voluntary workers nor the utilization of prisoners led to a solution of the problem of the labor required for the war economy. The Germans then decided to proceed to the forced enrollment of civilian workers. They decreed a veritable civilian mobilization, the execution of which characterizes their criminal activity.

I refer to a circular of 29 January 1942, issued by Dr. Mansfeld on the responsibility of the Defendant Göring. I remind the Tribunal that I have submitted this Document Number 1183-PS already under Exhibit Number RF-26. I read the passage from the document where I stopped this morning, Page 2, last paragraph of the French translation, Page 2; last paragraph also of the German original:

“In order to avoid effects detrimental to the armament industry, all considerations must yield to the necessity of filling in every case the gaps in the labor supply caused by extensive drafting into the Wehrmacht. To this end the forced mobilization of workers from the occupied territories must not be overlooked if voluntary recruitment should not succeed. The mere possibility of compulsory mobilization will, in many cases, facilitate recruiting.

“Therefore I ask you to take immediate steps in your district to promote the employment of workers in the German Reich on a voluntary basis. I herewith request you to prepare for publication, regulations to render possible forced mobilization of labor in your territory for Germany, so that they may be decreed at once in case recruiting on a voluntary basis remains without the success necessary to relieve labor in the Reich.”

The appointment of the Defendant Sauckel may be considered as preparatory measure for the establishment of compulsory labor. It was necessary that a central authority be set up in order to co-ordinate the activity of the different labor departments to proceed to the mobilization of civilian workers. The terms explaining the motives of the decree of appointment are explicit: The mission of the Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor consists in satisfying the labor needs of the German economy through the recruiting of foreign workers and the utilization of war prisoners. The decree of Sauckel dated 22 August 1942, which I have submitted to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-17, expresses, moreover, the will of the defendant to set about recruiting by means of coercion.

The institution of compulsory labor represents deliberate violation of international conventions. The deportation of workers is forbidden by several stipulated regulations which have the value of actual law. I shall quote, first of all, Article 52 of the Annex to the Fourth Convention of the Hague. I have already given a commentary on it to the Tribunal to demonstrate that the requisitioning of labor effected by the occupation authorities was illegal. Much more, the institution of compulsory labor was prohibited by Article 52. Compulsory labor was imposed upon foreign workers in the interest of the German war economy. It was carried out in armament factories of National Socialist Germany. It deprived the occupied territories of labor necessary for the rational exploitation of their wealth. It therefore is not within the framework of that labor requisition which Article 52 of the Hague Convention authorizes.

The prohibition of forced labor is, moreover, affirmed by another international convention. It is a question of the Convention of 25 September 1926 on slavery, of which Germany is a signatory. This treaty makes forced labor equivalent to slavery in its Article 5. I ask the Tribunal to refer to it.

Deportation of workers is the subject of a formal prohibition. Forced labor in German war factories was, therefore, instituted in flagrant violation of international law and of all pledges subscribed to by Germany. The National Socialist authorities transgressed positive international law; they likewise violated the law of nations. The latter guarantees individual liberty, on which the principle of forced recruitment is a characteristic attack.

The violation of treaties and the contempt of the rights of individuals are the tenets of National Socialist doctrine. Therefore, the defendants proceeded not merely to the mobilization of foreign workers; they proclaimed the necessity and the legitimacy of forced labor. I shall, first of all, indicate to the Tribunal certain declarations made by the defendants which amount to admissions. I shall thereupon indicate how the occupation authorities introduced the service of compulsory work in the different occupied territories. I shall demonstrate, finally, that the Germans took measures of violent coercion in an attempt to assure the execution of the civilian mobilization which had been decreed.

The legitimacy of forced enrollment has been upheld by Hitler. The proof of this can be found in the report of the Führer conferences held on 10, 11, and 12 August 1942. It is contained in Document R-124 which I presented this morning under Exhibit Number RF-30. I shall not read it to the Tribunal, because my American colleague, Mr. Dodd, has done so during his presentation on forced labor. I point out that the document to which I refer indicates that the Führer was in agreement with the exercise of all the necessary compulsion in the East as well as in the West, if the question of recruiting foreign workers could not be regulated on a voluntary basis.

The necessity of making use of compulsory labor was expressed in identical terms by certain defendants.

I shall not stress the numerous statements of the Defendant Sauckel to which I have already drawn the attention of the Tribunal. The explanatory statement of his decree of 22 August 1942, the program included in his letter of 24 April 1942, and the policy advocated in his speech at Posen in February 1943, reproduce faithfully the determination of the defendant to justify the principle of forced recruiting. I shall not revert to this.

I present to the Tribunal the declaration of the Defendant Jodl. This declaration is an extract from a long speech made by General Jodl, 7 November 1943 at Munich before an audience of Gauleiter. This speech is Document L-172. I offer it in evidence to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-54. I shall read Page 2 of the French translation, Pages 38 and 39 of the German original:

“The dilemma of manpower shortage has led to the idea of making more thorough use of the manpower reserves in the territories occupied by us. Here right and wrong conceptions are mixed together. I believe that as far as labor is concerned, the utmost has been done, but where this is not yet the case, it would appear preferable from the political point of view to abstain from compulsory measures and instead to aim at order and economic effort. In my opinion, however, the time has now come to take steps with remorseless vigor and resolution in Denmark, Holland, France, and Belgium to compel thousands of idle persons to carry out fortification work, which takes precedence over all other tasks. The necessary orders for this have already been given.”

The German Labor Service had not waited for the appeal of General Jodl to decree the mobilization of civilian foreign workers. I am going to show the Tribunal how compulsory labor was instituted and organized in France, Norway, Belgium, and Holland.

I should like to remind the Tribunal that in Denmark there was never any legal regulation for forced labor and that forced labor was carried out as a simple _de facto_ measure.

I also wish to remind the Tribunal that compulsory labor was introduced in a special form in Luxembourg and in the French departments of Alsace and Lorraine. The occupation authorities incorporated the citizens of Luxembourg and the French citizens residing in the departments of Bas-Rhin, Haut-Rhin, and Moselle, in the labor service of the Reich. This incorporation was carried out by ordinances of Gauleiter Simon and Gauleiter Wagner. The ordinances constitute an integral part of the Germanization plan for territories of Luxembourg, Alsace, and Lorraine. Their scope exceeds that of the measures of forced enrollment which were taken in other occupied territories. That is why I refer the Tribunal, on this point, to the explanation which will be given in the trial brief of M. Edgar Faure.

Two German texts of a general nature serve as a foundation for the legislation on forced labor in the occupied territories of Western Europe.

The first is the decree of Sauckel of 22 August 1942, to which I have drawn the attention of the Tribunal on several occasions. This decree prescribes the mobilization of all civilian workers in the service of the war economy. Article 2 prescribes that this decree is applicable to occupied territories. This decree of 22 August 1942 thus constitutes the legal charter of the civilian mobilization of foreign workers. This mobilization was confirmed by an order of the Führer of 8 September 1942. It is Document 556(2)-PS, Exhibit Number RF-55, which I submit to the Tribunal and from which I shall read:

“The Führer and Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht; General Headquarters of the Führer: 8 September 1942.

“The extensive coastal fortifications which I have ordered to be erected in the area of Army Group West necessitate in the occupied territory the utilization of all available workers to the fullest extent and to their utmost capacity. The assignment of indigenous workers, made up to now, is insufficient. In order to increase it, I order the introduction of compulsory labor and the prohibition of changing the place of employment without permission of the authorities in the occupied territories.

“Furthermore, in future, the distribution of food and clothing ration cards to those subject to compulsory labor shall depend on the possession of a certificate of employment. Refusal to accept an assigned job, as well as leaving the place of work without the consent of the authorities in charge, will result in the withdrawal of the food and clothing ration cards.

“The GBA”—that is, the office of the Defendant Sauckel—“in agreement with the military commanders or the Reich Commissioners, will issue the appropriate directives.”

The forced enrollment of foreign workers was preceded by preliminary measures to which the order of 8 September 1942 refers—which I have just read. I am speaking of the freezing of labor. To carry out the mobilization of workers it was necessary for the public services to exercise strict control over their use in the industrial enterprises of occupied territories. This control had a double purpose: It was to facilitate the census of workers suitable for work in Germany and to prevent workers from avoiding the German requisition by alleging a real or fictitious employment. The National Socialist authorities exercised this control by restricting the liberty of hiring and discharging, which they had given to the authorities of the labor bureaus.

In France, the freezing of labor was brought about by the law of 4 September 1942. I shall shortly explain to the Tribunal the conditions under which this law was formulated. I shall, for the moment, simply submit it to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-56 and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.

In Belgium, the freezing of labor was carried out by the ordinance of the military commanding officer of 6 October 1942. I submit Document Number RF-57, of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice.

Finally, in Holland, where compulsory labor was instituted as early as 1941, an ordinance of the Reich Commissioner, dated 28 February 1941, which I offer to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-58, organized the freezing of labor.

The immobilization of labor was brought about under an economic pretext in all countries. In reality it constituted a preliminary measure for the mobilization of workers, which the National Socialists immediately proceeded to carry out.

In France compulsory labor was established by the legislation of the pseudo-government of Vichy, but this legislation was imposed upon the _de facto_ French authorities by the defendants, and especially by Sauckel. The action which Sauckel brought against the Government of Vichy, to force it to favor the deportation of workers into Germany, was exercised in four phases: I shall briefly review for the Tribunal the history of these four Sauckel actions.

The first Sauckel action was initiated in the spring of 1942, soon after the appointment of the defendant as Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor. The German armament industry had an urgent need of workers. The service of the Arbeitseinsatz had decided to recruit 150,000 skilled workers in France. Sauckel came to Paris in the month of June 1942. He had several conversations with French ministers. Otto Abetz, German ambassador in Paris, presided over these meetings. They brought about, the following results:

In view of the reluctance of French authorities to establish compulsory labor, it was decided that the recruiting of 150,000 skilled workers should be carried out by a pseudo-voluntary enrollment. This was the beginning of the so-called exchange operation, to which I have already drawn the attention of the Tribunal.

But the Tribunal knows that the exchange operation was a failure and that, despite an intensification of German propaganda, the number of voluntary enrollments remained at a minimum. The German authorities then put the Vichy Government under the necessity of proceeding to forced enrollment. I offer in evidence the denunciatory letter of 26 August 1942, addressed by the German, Dr. Michel, Chief of the Administrative Staff, to the Delegate General for Franco-German economic relations. This is French Document F-530, which I shall submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-59:

“Paris, 26 August 1942.

“Military Commander in France, economic section; to M. Barnaud, Delegate General for Franco-German Economic Relations; Paris.

“President Laval promised Gauleiter Sauckel, Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor, to make every effort to send to Germany, to help German armament economy, 350,000 workers, of which 150,000 should be metal workers.

“The French Government intended at first to solve this problem by recruitment, especially of the _affectés spéciaux_. This method has been abandoned and that of voluntary enrollment has been attempted with a view to the liberation of prisoners. The past months have shown that the end in view cannot be achieved by means of voluntary recruitment.

“In France, German armament orders have increased in volume and urgency. Moreover, special tasks have been set, the accomplishment of which depends upon the supply of a very considerable number of workers.

“In order to assure the realization of the tasks for which France is responsible in the sphere of the Arbeitseinsatz, the French Government must now be asked to put into execution the following measures:

“1) The publication of a decree, concerning change of place of work. By virtue of this decree, leaving the place of employment and engaging labor depends on the approval of certain specified authorities.

“2) The institution of compulsory registration of all persons out of work, as well as of those who do not work full-time or are not permanently employed. This compulsory registration is to ensure the fullest recruitment possible of all the reserves still available.

“3) The publication of a decree for the mobilization of workers for tasks important to the policy of state. This decree is to ensure: (a) The necessary labor for Germany; (b) the workers necessary in France for the carrying out of orders which have been transferred there and the workers needed for special tasks.

“4) Publication of a decree ensuring an adequate supply of apprentices. This decree is to impose upon French enterprise the duty of turning out, by means of apprenticeship and systematic training, young workers possessing adequate qualifications.

“For the Military Commander, the Chief of the Administrative Staff.”—signed—“Dr. Michel.”

Dr. Michel’s letter forms the basis for the law relative to the utilization and the allocation of labor. It is the law of 4 September 1942, which I have submitted to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-56.

In application of the law, all Frenchmen between 18 and 50 who did not have employment for more than 30 hours a week, were forced to state this at their local town hall. A decree of 19 September 1942 and a directive of 22 September provided regulations as to how this declaration had to be made.

Sauckel’s first action was achieved through a legislative plan; the defendant had merely to dip into the labor resources which were established by it. But the resistance of the French workers caused his recruiting plan to fail. This is why Sauckel undertook his second action, beginning in January 1943.

The second Sauckel action is marked by the introduction of compulsory labor, properly speaking. Until then workers had been the only victims of the policy of force of the defendants. The latter understood the demagogic argument which they could derive from this _de facto_ situation. They explained that it was inadmissible that the working classes of the occupied territory should be the only ones to participate in the German war effort. They demanded that the basis of forced labor be enlarged by the introduction of compulsory labor.

This was established by two measures. A directive of 2 February 1943 prescribed a general census of all French males born between 1 January 1912 and 1 January 1921. The census took place between 15 and 23 February. It had just been put in force when the law and decree of 16 February 1943 appeared. These regulations introduced compulsory labor for all young men born between 1 January 1920 and 31 December 1922. I submit them to the Tribunal under Documents Numbers RF-60 and 61, of which I ask the Court to take judicial notice.

The action carried out by the defendants to impose this exceptional legislation is substantiated by numerous documents. I particularly draw the attention of the Tribunal to four of these, which permit us to retrace the activities of the Defendant Sauckel during the months of January and February 1943. On 5 January 1943 Sauckel transmitted to the different departments of his administration an order of the Führer, which the Defendant Speer had communicated to him. This is Document 556(13)-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-62. I shall read its first paragraph:

“On 4 January 1943, at 8 o’clock in the evening, Minister Speer telephoned from the general headquarters of the Führer giving the information that, by virtue of a decision of the Führer, it was no longer necessary, when recruiting skilled and unskilled labor in France, to have any particular regard for the French. Recruitment could be carried on there with pressure and more severe measures.”

On 11 January 1943 the Defendant Sauckel was in Paris. He attended a meeting which brought together at the Military Commander’s all responsible officials of the labor service. He announced to them that new measures of compulsion were to be taken in France. I refer you to the minutes of the meeting which constitute Document 1342-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-63. I shall read from Page 2 of the French translation; Page 1, fourth line, of the second paragraph of the German original:

“Gauleiter Sauckel likewise thanks the various services for the successful carrying out of the first action. Immediately after the beginning of the new year, he is obliged to announce further severe measures. There is a great new need of labor for the front as well as for the Reich armament industry.”

I skip to the end of the paragraph. I shall read from the next paragraph:

“The situation at the front calls for 700,000 soldiers fit for front-line service. The armament industry would have to lose 200,000 key workers by the middle of March. I have received an order from the Führer to find 200,000 foreign skilled workers as replacements and I shall need for this purpose 150,000 French skilled workmen, while the other 50,000 can be drawn from Holland, Belgium, and other occupied countries. In addition, 100,000 unskilled French workers are necessary for the Reich. The second action of recruitment in France makes it necessary that by the middle of March 150,000 skilled workers and 100,000 unskilled workmen and women be transferred to Germany.”

The Defendant Sauckel went back to Germany a few days later. On 16 February he was in Berlin at the meeting of the Central Planning Board. He gave a commentary on the law which was to appear that very day and revealed that he was the instigator of it. I refer once more to the minutes of the conferences of the Four Year Plan, included under Document Number R-124, which I submitted this morning to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-30. I shall read an extract from this document, which my American colleagues have not mentioned. It is Page 7 of the French translation of the document, Page 2284 of the German original; this is the situation in France:

“My collaborators and I having succeeded, after difficult discussions, in persuading Laval to introduce the law of compulsory labor in France, this law has now been so successfully extended, thanks to our pressure, that by yesterday three French age-groups had already been called up. So we are now legally qualified to recruit in France, with the assistance of the French Government, workers of three age-groups whom we shall be able to employ henceforth in French factories, but among whom we shall also be able to choose some for our own needs in the Reich and send them to Germany.”

The Defendant Sauckel returned to France on 24 February. I offer in evidence to the Tribunal the letter which he addressed to Hitler before his departure, to inform him of his journey. It proves the continuity of the action of Sauckel. The letter constitutes Document 556(25)-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-64, and I shall read it:

“Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor, to the Führer; general headquarters of the Führer.

“My Führer:

“I beg herewith to take leave of you before my intended journey to France. The purpose of my journey is:

“1) To put at the disposal of the Reich, within the given time, skilled labor to replace German key workers being drafted into the Wehrmacht. May I add that Field Marshal Keitel and General Von Unruh received a communication from me yesterday to the effect that half of these replacements for key men, that is 125,000 French qualified skilled men, have already arrived in the Reich on 1 January 1943 and that a corresponding number of soldiers can be called to the colors. I shall now make sure in France that the second half shall arrive in the Reich by the end of March, or earlier if possible. The first French program was executed by the end of December.

“2) To assure the necessary labor for the French dockyards for the carrying out of the programs drawn up by Grand Admiral Dönitz and Gauleiter Kaufmann.

“3) To assure the necessary labor for the programs of the Luftwaffe.

“4) To assure the necessary labor for the other German armament programs which are in progress in France.

“5) To make available supplementary labor in agreement with State Secretary Backe, with a view to intensifying French agricultural production.

“6) To have discussions, if necessary, with the French Government on the subject of the carrying out of the labor service, the calling up of age-groups, and so forth, with a view to activating the recruitment of labor for the benefit of the German war economy.”

THE PRESIDENT: I think that is a good time to break off.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 19 January 1946 at 1000 hours._]

THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY Saturday, 19 January 1946

_Morning Session_

M. HERZOG: Mr. President, Your Honors, at the end of yesterday’s session I was expounding to the Tribunal the conditions under which the compulsory labor service was progressively imposed in France. I reached the second action of the Defendant Sauckel as set out in the laws and decrees of 16 February 1943. Sauckel’s second action accelerated the enforced enrollment of Frenchmen during the months of February and March 1943. Several tens of thousands of young men of the 1940 and 1942 classes were deported to Germany by the application of the law of 16 February. The tempo of these deportations slowed down in the month of April, but the Arbeitseinsatz immediately formulated new requirements. On 9 April 1943 the Defendant Sauckel asked the French authorities to furnish him with 120,000 workers during the month of May and 100,000 during the month of June. In June he made it known that he wished to effect the transfer of 500,000 workers up to 31 December.

Sauckel’s third action was about to begin. It was to be marked, on 3 June 1943, by the total mobilization of the 1942 class. All exemptions provided by the law of 16 February and subsequent texts were withdrawn, and the young men of the 1942 class were tracked down throughout France.

In reality, Sauckel’s third action was especially manifested by a violent pressure on the part of the defendant, tending towards a mass deportation by forced recruiting. I offer in evidence three documents which testify to the action taken by Sauckel in the summer of 1943.

The first document is a letter from Sauckel to Hitler, dated 27 June 1943. Drafted by the defendant upon his return from a trip to France, it contains an outlined plan for the recruiting of French workers for the second half of 1943. Its object was, on the one hand, to secure 1 million workers to be assigned in France to French armament factories and, on the other hand, 500,000 French workers to be deported to Germany. This letter constitutes Document 556(39)-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-65. I quote:

“Weimar, 27 June 1943.

“My Führer:

“Herewith I beg to report my return from my official trip to France.

“Inasmuch as the free labor reserves in the territories occupied by the German Armed Forces have been, numerically, absorbed to saturation point, I am now carefully examining the possibilities of mobilizing additional labor reserves in the Reich and the occupied territories to work on German war production.

“In my reports of 20 April I was allowed to point out that intensive and careful utilization must be made of European labor forces in territories submitted to direct German influence.

“It was the purpose of my recent stay in Paris to investigate the possibilities still existing in France for the recruitment of labor by extensive conferences and my own personal inspection. On the basis of a carefully established balance sheet I have come to the following decision:

“1. Assuming that war economy measures are carried out in France which would at least prove partially effective or approximately approach, in efficacy, the measures carried out in Germany, a further million workers, both men and women, could be assigned to the French war and armament industries up to December 1943 for work on German orders and assignments. In this case additional German orders might be placed in France.

“2. In consideration of these measures and given a careful study of the subject together with the co-operation of our German armament services and the German labor recruiting offices, it should be possible to transfer a further 500,000 workers, both men and women, from France to the Reich between now and the end of the year.

“The prerequisites for the realization of this program, drafted by me are as follows:

“1. Closest collaboration between all German offices especially in dealing with the French services.

“2. A constant check on French economy by joint commissions, as already agreed upon by the Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production Party Member Speer, and myself.

“3. Constant, skillful, and successful propaganda against the cliques of De Gaulle and Giraud.

“4. The guarantee of adequate food supplies to the French population working for Germany.

“5. An emphatic insistence on this urgency before the French Government, in particular before Marshal Pétain, who still represents the main obstacle to the further recruiting of French women for compulsory labor.

“6. A pronounced increase in the program which I have already introduced in France, for retraining workers to trades essential to war production.”

I skip the next and read the last paragraph:

“I therefore beg you, my Führer, to approve my suggestion of making available 1 million French men and women for German war production in France proper in the second half of 1943 and, in addition, of transferring 500,000 French men and women to the Reich before the end of the current year.

“Yours faithfully and obediently,”—Signed—“Fritz Sauckel.”

The document to which I would now like to call the Tribunal’s attention proves that the Führer gave his approval to Sauckel’s program. A note drawn up on 28 July 1943 by Dr. Stothfang, under the letterhead of the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor (Arbeitseinsatz), gives a report on a discussion between Sauckel and the Führer. It is Document 556(41)-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-66. I shall limit myself to reading the last paragraph:

“d) The transfer envisaged for the end of the year of 1 million French workers to the war industries in France, and the intended transportation of 500,000 other French workers to the interior of the Reich has been approved by the Führer.”

Finally a document establishes that the Defendant Sauckel, on the strength of Hitler’s approval, attempted to realize his program by working on the French authorities. This document is a letter from Sauckel to Hitler. It is dated 13 August 1943, upon the defendant’s return from a trip to France, Belgium, and Holland. It is Document 556(43)-PS. I shall read it to the Tribunal. It is Exhibit Number RF-67:

“Weimar, 13 August 1943.

“My Führer:

“I beg to report my return from my official trip to France, Belgium and Holland. In tough, difficult, and tedious negotiations I have imposed upon the occupied Western territories, for the last 5 months of 1943, the program set forth below and have prepared very detailed measures for realizing it: In France—with the military commander, the German Embassy, and the French Government; in Belgium—with the military commander; and in Holland with the offices of the Reich Commissioner.

“The program provides:

“1. In France the transfer of 1 million French workers, both men and women, from the civilian to the German war industries in France. This measure will enable further considerable placing of German orders in France.

“2. Soliciting and recruiting of 500,000 French workers for work in Germany. This figure should not be made known publicly.

“3. In order to stalemate any passive resistance from large groups of French officials, I have ordered, in agreement with the military commander in France, the introduction of labor recruiting commissions for each two French departments and placed them under the supervision and direction of the German Gau offices. Only in this manner can the complete recruitment of the French labor potential and its intensive utilization be made possible. The French Government has given its approval.”

If the Tribunal will allow me, I shall quote the rest of this letter; the following paragraphs concern Belgium and Holland. It will allow me to refer to this document later without reading it again:

“4. A program was secured in Belgium for the employment of 150,000 workers in the Reich and, with the approval of the military commander in Belgium, an organization for compulsory labor corresponding to that in France was decided upon.”

I skip and proceed to the fifth paragraph:

“5. A program has likewise been prepared for Holland, providing for the transfer of 150,000 workers to Germany and of 100,000 workers, men and women, from Dutch civilian industries to German war production.”

Such was Sauckel’s program in 1943. His plan was partly thwarted by the resistance of officials and patriotic workers. Proof of this is furnished by an admission of the defendant. I am referring to the report on a conference of the central office for the Four Year Plan held on 1 March 1944. I submitted this document to the Tribunal yesterday as Exhibit Number RF-30 (Document R-124). I shall read from the first page of the French translation, second paragraph, German text, Page 1768:

“Last autumn, as far as foreign manpower is concerned, the labor recruiting program has been severely battered. I do not wish to elaborate on the reasons here. They have been discussed at length; all I have to say is: The program has been wrecked.”

Sauckel, however, was not discouraged by the difficulties encountered in 1943. In 1944 he attempted to realize a new program by the trick of his fourth action.

The National Socialist authorities decided to secure, in 1944, the transfer of 4 million foreign workers to Germany. This decision was made on 4 January 1944 during a conference at the headquarters of the Führer and in his presence. The report on this conference constitutes Document 1292-PS. I submit it herewith to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-68, and I read from Page 3 of the French translation, Page 6 of the German original, last paragraph:

“Final results of the conference:

“1. The Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor shall procure at least 4 million new workers from the occupied territories.”

The details concerning the contingents demanded from each occupied territory must have been determined on 16 February 1944, during a conference of the central office for the Four Year Plan. I submitted the report of this session at the outset of my explanations, under Exhibit Number RF-20. I am quoting the conclusions today. They will be found in Document Number F-675, first page of the translation, third page of the German original.

“Results of the 53rd session of the Central Planning Board. Labor recruiting in 1944.

“1. About 500,000 new workers might be mobilized from German home reserves by extraordinary efforts. . . .”

I skip the rest.

“2. Recruiting of Italian labor to the number of 1,500,000; of these—1 million at the rate of 250,000 per month from January to April and 500,000 from May to December;

“3. Recruiting of 1 million French workers at equal monthly rates from 1 February to 31 December 1944 (approximately 91,000 per month);

“4. Recruiting of 250,000 workers from Belgium;

“5. Recruiting of 250,000 workers from the Netherlands.”

I abstain from quoting since the other paragraphs concern the Eastern European countries.

The Tribunal has seen that France was called upon to furnish a large contingent of workers. After the 15th of January, Sauckel went to Paris to dictate his demands to the French authorities.

The fourth Sauckel action consisted of two distinct measures: The adoption of the procedure known as the combing of industries, and the publication of the law of 1 February 1944, which widened the sphere of application of compulsory labor. The system of combing the industries led the labor administration to carry out direct recruiting in the industrial enterprises. Mixed Franco-German commissions were set up in each country. They determined the percentage of workers to be deported. They proceeded to requisition and transfer them.

The practice of combing the industries represents the realization of the projects elaborated by Defendant Sauckel as early as 1943. In the documents which I have read to the Tribunal Sauckel announced, in fact, his intention of creating mixed labor commissions.

The law of 1 February 1944 marked the culminating point of Sauckel’s actions in the field of legislation. It extends the scope of application of the law of 4 September 1942. As from February 1944 all men between the ages of 16 and 60 and all women between the ages of 18 and 45 were subject to compulsory labor. I submit to the Tribunal the law of 1 February 1944 under Exhibit Number RF-69 (Document RF-69) with the request judicial notice be taken of it.

The proof of the pressure that Sauckel exerted on the French authorities in order to impose on them the publication of this law is furnished by a report of the defendant to Hitler. This report is dated 25 January 1944. It was, therefore, drafted during the negotiations which characterized the fourth Sauckel action. It constitutes Document 556(55)-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-70. I shall read this document:

“My Führer:

“On the 22d of January 1944 the French Government, together with Marshal Pétain, accepted to a large degree my demands for increasing the working week from 40 to 48 hours as well as for extending the compulsory labor law in France and utilizing French manpower in Germany.

“The Marshal did not agree to the compulsory labor for French women in the Reich; but he did agree to compulsory labor for women inside France, limited to women between the ages of 26 and 45. Women between 15 and 25 are to be employed only at their place of residence.

“Since this, nevertheless, represents appreciable progress in comparison with the extremely difficult negotiations which I had to conduct in Paris, I approved this law in order to save further loss of time, on condition that the German demands were energetically met and carried out.

“The French Government has likewise accepted my demand that French officials sabotaging the enforcement of the compulsory labor law should be punished by severe penalties including the death penalty. I have left no doubt that further and more rigid measures will be adopted if the demands for the manpower required are not fulfilled.

“Your ever obedient and faithful, Fritz Sauckel.”

I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the problem of compulsory labor of women referred to in the two preceding documents. For a long time the French authorities categorically opposed the introduction of female labor. In return the Defendant Sauckel did not cease to exercise violent pressure.

On the 27th of June 1943, in a letter to Hitler, he suggested that an energetic statement of German needs be made before the French Government. I have already quoted this letter to the Tribunal, Exhibit Number RF-65 (Document 556(39)-PS). I shall not revert to it, but I emphasize the fact that the law of 1 February did not satisfy Sauckel and did not in the least appease his demands at all. His dissatisfaction and his determination to pursue his policy of compulsion become apparent from a report of 26 April 1944, bearing his signature; that the report has been forwarded is certified by Berk, one of his assistants.

There actually were four reports submitted jointly under Document Number 1289-PS, Exhibit Number RF-71, and I quote from the second page:

“1) France. The problem of women.

“At the time of the promulgation of the French compulsory labor law, the French authorities (Marshal Pétain in particular) have urgently desired that women be exempted from performing compulsory labor in Germany. In spite of serious objections the G.B.A. approved of this exemption. The reservation was made, however, that the approval was given on condition that the contingents imposed were met; or else the G.B.A. would reserve himself the right of taking further measures. Inasmuch as the contingents are far from being met, the demand for extending the compulsory labor service to women must also be addressed to the French Government.”

The fourth Sauckel action, therefore, was led in such a manner as to utilize all of France’s manpower. The French resistance and the development of the military operations hindered the execution of the Sauckel plan. The defendant, in the meantime, had contemplated extraordinary measures to be taken on the day the allied armies were to land. I quote again Document 1289-PS, Exhibit Number RF-71; and I read on Page 3:

“Measures concerning compulsory labor in the case of invasion:

“To some extent precautions already have been taken to evacuate the population of those areas invaded and to protect valuable manpower from being seized by our enemies. In view of the actual situation of labor utilization in Germany, it is necessary to induct efficient workers to the greatest extent possible into efficacious employment within the Reich. Orders to this effect on the part of the Wehrmacht are indispensable for carrying out these measures.

“The following text might be proposed for an order by the Führer. . . .”

I shall not read the text of the order proposed by Sauckel.

The Allied victory, however, came so quickly that Sauckel did not have the chance to realize fully his plan of mass deportation. All the same, he started to carry it out, and deportations of workers went on up to the day of liberation of the territory. Several hundred thousand French workers were finally stationed in Germany as a result of the various Sauckel actions. Will the Tribunal please bear this in mind.

The compulsory labor service was introduced in Norway in the same manner as in France. The defendants imposed upon the Norwegian authorities the publication of a law instituting the compulsory registration of Norwegian citizens, and prescribing their enrollment by force. I quote in this respect the preliminary report on the crimes of Germany against Norway, a report prepared by the Norwegian Government and submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number UK-79. I now submit it as Exhibit Number RF-72, and I quote from the first page, third paragraph:

“The result of Sauckel’s order as to Norway was that on 3 February 1943, a Quisling ‘law’ relating to compulsory registration of Norwegian men and women for so-called ‘national labor effort’ was promulgated. Terboven and Quisling openly admitted that the law was promulgated in order that the Norwegian people should use their manpower for the benefit of the German war effort. In a speech on 2 February Terboven stated, among other things, that he himself and the German Reich stood behind this law; and he threatened to use force against anyone who tried to prevent its execution.”

In Belgium and in the Netherlands the German authorities used a direct procedure. The compulsory labor service was organized by ordinances of the occupying power.

In Belgium these were ordinances of the military commander and in the Netherlands ordinances of the Reich Commissioner. I remind the Tribunal of the fact that the authority of the military commander in Belgium extended to the north of France.

An ordinance of 6 March 1942 established the principle of compulsory labor in Belgium. It was published in the Belgian _Verordnungsblatt_ of 1942, Page 845. I submit it to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-73, and I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. The ordinance of 6 March excluded the possibility of forced deportation of workers to Germany. However, such deportation was ordered by a decree of 6 October 1942, which was published in the Belgian _Verordnungsblatt_ of 1942, Page 1060. I submitted it to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-57 in the course of my explanations.

These carryings-on in Belgium gave rise to interventions and protests by leading Belgian personalities, among others the King of Belgium and Cardinal Van Roay.

The ordinances instituting compulsory labor in Belgium and the north of France bore the signature of General Von Falkenhausen, but the latter proclaimed his ordinance of 6 October on the order of Sauckel. I refer once more to the testimony of General Von Falkenhausen, which I have submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-15. I ask your permission to quote the following passages, first page, fifth paragraph:

“Q: ‘On 6 October 1942 a decree was published which instituted compulsory labor in Belgium and in the departments of northern France for men between the ages of 18 and 50 years and for single women from 21 to 25 years.’

“A: ‘I was Commander-in-Chief for northern France and Belgium.’

“Q: ‘Does the witness recall having promulgated this decree?’

“A: ‘I do not remember exactly the text of this decree because it was issued following long arguments with the labor deputy Sauckel.’

“Q: ‘Did you have any trouble with Sauckel?’

“A: ‘I was fundamentally opposed to the establishment of compulsory labor, and consented to promulgating the decree only after receiving orders.’

“Q: ‘Then this decree was not issued on the initiative of Von Falkenhausen himself?’

“A: ‘On the contrary.’

“Q: ‘Who gave instruction in this matter?’

“A: ‘I suppose that at that time Sauckel was already responsible for manpower and that at that time he gave me all instructions on Hitler’s orders.’”

I skip and take up the quotation again on Page 3 of the French translation, fourth paragraph:

“Q: ‘Since you were opposed to the idea of compulsory labor, didn’t you protest when you received these instructions?’

“A: ‘There were unending quarrels between Sauckel and myself. In the end this contributed greatly to my resignation.’”

The violence of the pressure exerted by the Defendant Sauckel in Belgium in order to impose his plan of recruitment by force is also demonstrated by the document which I have just submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-67 (Document Number 556(43)-PS). The Tribunal will remember that it is the report addressed on 13 August 1943 by Sauckel to Hitler on his return from France, Belgium, and Holland.

Finally, I have to deal with the introduction of compulsory labor in the Netherlands. I request the Tribunal to charge the Defendant Seyss-Inquart as well as the Defendant Sauckel with the institution of compulsory enrollment in the occupied Dutch territories.

As a matter of fact, the deportation of the Dutch workers was organized by ordinances of the Reich Commissioner. They established all the more the responsibility of the defendant, who in his quality as Reich Commissioner, derived his powers directly from the Führer.

The Defendant Seyss-Inquart introduced the compulsory labor service in the Netherlands by an ordinance of 28 February 1941, published in the Dutch _Verordnungsblatt_ of 1941, Number 42. I have referred to this ordinance as Document Number RF-58 in the course of my explanation and asked the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.

As in Belgium the compulsory labor service could originally be enforced in the interior of the occupied territories only; but just as in Belgium, it was soon extended in order to permit the deportation of workers to Germany. The extension was put into realization by an ordinance of Seyss-Inquart of 23 March 1942, which appeared in Number 26 of the _Verordnungsblatt_, 1942. I submit it to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-74, and I ask the Tribunal to add it to the Record.

The Defendant Seyss-Inquart has thus paved the way on which the Defendant Sauckel was to be enabled to proceed to action. Sauckel actually utilized all the human potential of the Netherlands. New measures were soon necessary—measures which Seyss-Inquart adopted.

An ordinance dated 6 May 1943, _Verordnungsblatt_, 1943, Page 173, ordered the mobilization of all men from 18 to 35 years of age. I submit this decree to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-75.

Moreover, as soon as 19 February 1943 Seyss-Inquart had issued a regulation which permitted his services to take all measures in the utilization of labor which they considered to be opportune.

This ordinance, which appeared in the _Verordnungsblatt_ of 1943, is submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-76.

The extent of deportation from Holland in 1943 is attested to by a letter of 16 June 1943 from Sauckel’s representative in the Netherlands. This letter, which bears French Document Number F-664, is submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-77. I quote:

“In conformity with the census decree of 7 May 1943, the 1920 to 1924 classes have been registered on filing cards. Although this involved very much work it was nevertheless possible to send 22,986 workers to the Reich, and in addition the prisoners of war put at our disposal. During the month of June the deficiency of the month of May will be made up.

“These classes include, according to the Statistical Service of the Kingdom of Holland, 80,000 each. It is from these classes that transfers to the Reich have been made so far. Up to 1 June 1943, 446,493 persons have been transferred to the Reich and a number of them have returned from there. The figures as per index are as follows: 1921 class, 43,331; 1922 class, 45,354; 1923 class, 47,593; 1924 class, 45,232.

“As up to 80 percent have been deferred, it is now imperative to begin transporting entire classes to the Reich. The Reich Commissioner has given his agreement to this action. The other authorities involved—of economy, armament, agriculture, and the Armed Forces—pressed by necessity, have given their approval.”

At the end of the year 1944, the German authorities increased their pressure on the Netherlands. During that period tens of thousands of persons were arrested within 2 days in Rotterdam. Systematic raids took place in all the larger cities of Holland, sometimes improvised, sometimes after the population had been publicly summoned to appear in designated places. I submit to the Tribunal various proclamations of this kind. They form Document 1162-PS and have already been submitted to the Tribunal by Mr. Dodd. I shall not read them again. I use them in support of my argument and submit them as Exhibit Number RF-78.

These documents do not reveal isolated facts; they show a systematic policy which the defendants were to pursue up to 5 May 1945, when the capitulation of Germany brought liberation to the Netherlands.

I still owe the Tribunal a supplementary explanation. The defendants did not stop at introducing compulsory labor service in the occupied territories. I have said that they proceeded to criminal coercion in order to ensure that the mobilization of foreign workers was carried out. I am going to prove this fact.

The measures taken by the National Socialist authorities to guarantee the forced enlistment of foreign workers cannot be disassociated from the procedures they applied to ensure the so-called voluntary enlistment. The pressure was more violent, but it sprang from the same spirit. The method was to deceive, and where this proved unsuccessful to use coercion. The defendants very soon realized that no kind of propaganda would lend the cloak of justice to compulsory labor in the eyes of their victims. If they had any doubts in this respect, these would have been dissipated by the reports of the occupation authorities. The latter were unanimous in their reports of the political trouble provoked by this compulsory enlistment and of the resistance encountered by it. That is why the defendants once again used force in their attempt to ensure that the civilian mobilization decreed by them was carried out.

First in line among the coercive measures to which the Germans took recourse, I mention the withholding of the ration cards of the recalcitrants. The Tribunal knows from the circular letter of Dr. Mansfeld, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-26 (Document 1183-PS), that this measure had been proposed ever since January 1942, and will recall that by decree of the Führer of 8 September 1942, which I submitted as Exhibit Number RF-55 (Document 556(2)-PS), this measure was put into effect. This order provided that food and clothing ration cards were not to be issued to persons incapable of proving that they were working, nor to those who refused to do compulsory work.

Hitler’s order was put into effect in all occupied territories. In France circulars imposing decrees by the occupation authorities prohibited the renewal of ration cards of those French people who had eluded the census of 16 February 1943. In Belgium the forfeiture of ration certificates was regulated by an order of the military commander. It is the order of 5 March 1943, published in the _Verordnungsblatt_ for Belgium, which I submit to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-79.

General Von Falkenhausen, the signatory of this order, admitted its grave significance during the interrogation, which I have submitted to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-15 and to which I refer again. General Von Falkenhausen declared that the Defendant Sauckel was the originator of this order and that he had refused to grant an amnesty proposed by his services. I quote, Page 4 of the French translation, fifth paragraph:

“Q: ‘Does the witness remember an order of 5 March 1943, by which those refusing to enter the compulsory labor service had their ration cards withdrawn?’

“A: ‘I do not remember. At the time when the order was issued for men from 18 to 50 years old the implementing orders were not given by myself but by my offices, and I am not conversant with the details of the application of reprisals. I was not the executive head of the administration. I was above it.’

“Q: ‘But at that time you were informed of the means of pressure and manner of treatment which the authorities thought fit to employ?’

“A: ‘I do not wish to deny my responsibility for all that happened. After all, I was aware of many things. I remember in particular the order regarding ration cards, because on various occasions I proposed that an amnesty be declared for persons who were obliged to live illegally and who did not have a ration card.’

“Q: ‘To whom was this proposal made?’

“A: ‘To Sauckel, with the consent of President Revert.’

“Q: ‘What was the attitude taken by Sauckel at that time?’

“A: ‘He refused to grant such an amnesty.’”

In Holland, likewise, the renewal of ration certificates which did not bear the stamp of the labor office was prohibited.

The defendants, however, used a method of coercion even more criminal than the forfeiture of ration cards. I refer to the persecution directed against the families of those who refused to do compulsory labor. I call this method criminal, because it is based on the concept of family responsibility which is contrary to the fundamental principles of the penal law of civilized nations. It was, nevertheless, sanctioned by several legislative texts issued or imposed by the National Socialists.

In France, I quote the law of 11 June 1943, which I submit to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-80 with the request that it take judicial notice thereof.

In Belgium, I refer to the order of the military commander of 30 April 1943, which appeared in the _Verordnungsblatt_ for Belgium of 6 May 1943, and particularly to Paragraphs 8 and 9. I submit this order to the Tribunal as Document Number RF-81, with the request that it take judicial notice thereof.

Judicial action by the defendants was likewise directed against the employers and against the officials of the employment bureaus. In France the action was initiated by two laws of 1 February 1944. I emphasize that these laws were issued on the same day as the compulsory labor law, and I affirm that they were imposed at the same time. In support of my statement, I submit the admission of the Defendant Sauckel, in his letter of 25 January 1944, which I read a while ago to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-70 (Document 556(55)-PS). I submit to the Tribunal the laws of 1 February 1944 as Document Number RF-82 with the request that it be added to the Record.

There were still other measures of coercion. One of these, for instance, was the closing of the faculties and schools to defaulting students. It was decreed in Belgium on 28 June 1943; in France, on 15 July 1943. In Holland the students were victims of a systematic deportation in February and March 1943. I quote in this connection a letter of 4 May 1943, which brings proof of the action carried out through Holland towards a systematic deportation. This is Document F-665, which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-83 of my book.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this is a good time to break off.

[_A recess was taken._]

M. HERZOG: Mr. President, Your Honors, at the suspension of the session I was about to read to the Tribunal the letter of 4 May 1943, which gives evidence of the action taken in Holland towards a systematic deportation of the students. I quote:

“Subject: Action against students.

“The action will start on Thursday morning. As it is now too late to have this published in the press today, an announcement by the Higher SS and Police Leader will be made over the radio beginning tomorrow at 7 o’clock; it will be published tomorrow in the morning and the evening papers. Besides that, we will follow the directives given in yesterday’s telegram.”

Following is the text of the proclamation:

“Ordinance on the registration of students.”

I will skip the first paragraph and I quote:

“1. All persons of the male sex who have attended a Dutch university or academy during the years 1942-43 and have not yet finished their studies according to the curriculum—referred to below as ‘students’—are to report between 1000 and 1500 on 6 May 1943 to the commander of the sector of the SS and the Security Police competent for their respective residence for the purpose of their induction into the compulsory labor service.”

I now skip Paragraphs 2 and 3 and quote:

“4. (1) Persons violating this ordinance or trying to circumvent it, particularly such persons who do not comply with their duty to register or either intentionally or through negligence state any false data will be punished by imprisonment and/or unlimited fine, unless other laws providing a more severe penalty are applicable. . . .

“(4) Those exercising paternal authority or guardianship over the students are co-responsible for their reporting as prescribed. They are subjected to the same penalties as the offenders themselves.

“5. This ordinance becomes effective on promulgation.”

Signed—“The Higher SS and Police Leader with the Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Dutch Territories.”

Since no measures whatsoever succeeded in intimidating the workers in the occupied territories, the defendants finally resorted to their police forces to ensure the arrest of those workers destined for deportation to Germany. This intervention by the police had been demanded by the Defendant Sauckel.

I submit two documents in evidence. The first consisted of the minutes of a conference which took place on 4 January 1944 at the headquarters of the Führer. I have just submitted this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-68 (Document 1292-PS). I quote, French translation, Page 2, last paragraph; German original, middle of Page 4:

“The Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor (GBA) Sauckel, declared that he would try with fanatical determination to obtain this manpower. Up to now he had always kept his promises regarding the number of workers to be provided; with the best will in the world, however, he was not in a position to make a definite promise for 1944. He would do anything possible to provide the manpower required for 1944. The success would depend mainly on the number of German police put at his disposal. If he had to rely on the indigenous police his project could not be carried out.”

I refer now to the statements made by Sauckel at the conference of the central office for the Four Year Plan on 1 March 1944. It is Exhibit Number RF-30 (Document R-124), to which I repeatedly have called the attention of the Tribunal. The passage which I am about to quote has not yet been referred to before the Tribunal. Page 3 of the French translation, German text, from Page 1775 on:

“The term ‘S-factory’”—S-Betrieb—“in France is actually nothing else but a protection against Sauckel’s grasp. That is how the French look at it, and they certainly cannot be expected to think differently. They are Frenchmen in the first place, who are faced with a German point of view and German actions different from theirs. It is not up to me to decide whether the protected factories (Schutzbetriebe) are useful and necessary. I have described the situation only from my point of view. Nevertheless, I still hope to succeed eventually by using my old organization of agents on the one hand and, on the other hand, by those measures which I have fortunately been able to wrest from the French Government.

“In the course of negotiations lasting 5 to 6 hours I wrested from M. Laval the concession that the death sentence may be imposed on officials who sabotage the recruitment of labor and other measures. Believe me, it was very difficult. I had to fight hard to succeed, but I did succeed. And I am requesting, especially of the Armed Forces that, in case the French Government does not really put its mind to it, most drastic action be taken now by the Germans in France. Please do not resent my following remark: Several times, when in company of my assistants, I have faced situations in France which caused me to ask, ‘Is there no respect in France for the German lieutenant and his 10 men?’ For months on end everything I said was paralyzed by the reply, ‘What do you want, Mr. Gauleiter? Don’t you know that we have no police forces at our disposal? We are powerless in France.’

“This was the reply given over and over again. How, in the face of these facts, am I to achieve labor recruitment in France? The German authorities must co-operate; and if the French, despite all their promises, do not remedy the situation, we Germans must make an example of one case and, on the provisions of this law, put some prefect or mayor against the wall if he does not co-operate, else not a single Frenchman will go to Germany.”

By such means the deportation of workers to Germany finally was achieved, by arresting them, and by the threat of reprisals. It was a logical consequence of the National Socialist system that the policy of recruiting foreign workers was accomplished by police terror.

I have told the Tribunal that the resistance offered by the prisoners of war and by the workers of the occupied territories against the activities of the defendants, which were in turn insidious and brutal, wrecked the plan for the recruitment of foreign workers. The Defendant Sauckel encountered the greatest difficulty in carrying out the programs which he had persuaded Hitler and the Defendants Göring, Speer, and Funk to accept.

From this it does not follow that Nazi Germany did not succeed in carrying out mass deportations of foreign workers. The number of native workers from the occupied territories of Western Europe who were deported into Germany is very high. More numerous still were those workers compelled to work at home in factories and workyards under the control of the occupation authorities.

I shall give the Tribunal statistical information which will enable it to verify my statements. These statistics are fragmentary. They are excerpts from reports compiled by the governments of the occupied countries after their liberation and from reports sent during the war by the Arbeitseinsatz office to its superiors.

The statistics of Allied origin are incomplete. The records on which they are based have been partially destroyed. On the other hand, the administrations of the occupied territories are in possession of second-hand information only whenever the requisitions of workers were made directly by the occupation authorities. As to the German statistics, they are also incomplete since the Allied authorities have not yet discovered all the records of the enemy.

It is, however, possible to give to the Tribunal an exact evaluation of the extent of the deportations effected by Germany. This evaluation will furnish proof that the violations of international law committed by the defendants did not remain in the tentative stage characterized by a beginning only—though reprehensible as such; they brought about social disorder such as, under penal law, constitutes the perpetration of the crime.

I shall first submit to the Tribunal the statistics furnished by the official reports of the French Government. The French Government’s report has been published by the Institute of Market Analysis. It contains numerous statistical tables from which I quote the total figures. The figures are as follows: 738,000 workers were pressed into compulsory labor service in France; 875,952 French workers were deported to German factories; 987,687 prisoners of war were utilized for the Reich war economy. A total of 2,601,639 workers of French citizenship thus were pressed into work serving the war effort of National Socialist Germany.

From the official report of the Belgian Government it appears that 150,000 persons were pressed into compulsory labor; and the report of the Dutch Government gives a figure of 431,400 persons; but it should be noted that this figure does not take into account the systematic raids undertaken during November 1944, nor the deportations carried out in 1945.

I am submitting to the Tribunal exact figures which cover all the stages of the policy of recruiting foreign labor. These figures are taken from the reports of the Defendant Sauckel himself or of various administrative offices concerned with the deportation of labor. The extent of labor utilized in the occupied territories is demonstrated by the statistics concerning workers who were used in constructing fortifications of the so-called Atlantic Wall as part of the Organization Todt, which I recall was directed by the Defendant Speer after the death of its founder. These statistics are to be found in a teletype message sent to Hitler by the Defendant Sauckel on 17 May 1943. It is Document 556(33)-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-84. I quote:

“The Delegate for the Four Year Plan. The Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor, Berlin, to the Führer, headquarters of the Führer.

“My Führer! I beg to submit to you the following figures on the manpower employed in the Todt Organization:

“In addition to the manpower assigned to the entire German industry by the Allocation of Labor since I took office, fresh workers have also been constantly supplied to the Todt Organization. The total figure of the workers employed by the Todt Organization was as follows: End of March 1942, 270,969; end of March 1943, 696,003.

“It should be noted that the Allocation of Labor has with great speed and energy assigned workers preferably to the Todt Organization in the West for the purpose of completing the work on the Atlantic Wall. This is all the more remarkable because in France, Belgium, and Holland. . . .”

I skip a few lines and quote from Page 2:

“Despite the difficulties involved, the manpower strength of the Todt Organization in the West was increased from 66,701 workers at the end of March 1942 to 248,200 workers at the end of March 1943.”

The number of foreign workers deported to Germany by 30 September 1941 is furnished by a report which was found in the archives of the OKW. It is Document 1323-PS, which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-85. According to this document, 1,228,686 foreign workers were employed in Germany on 30 September 1941. Of that number 483,842 came from the occupied Western territories. I quote from this document the number of labor deportees by country of origin. I shall confine myself to the columns of interest to the Western states, since the statistics of workers deported from the East of Europe come within the province of my Soviet colleagues:

“Denmark, 63,309; Holland, 134,093; Belgium, 212,903; France, 72,475; Italy, 238,557.”

Finally, on 7 July 1944, Sauckel, in one of his last reports, informed the National Socialist Government of the results of his campaign during the first half of 1944. I quote the document, which bears the Number 208-PS and which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-86. I read from the second page:

“C. The foreigners came from. . . . France except the north, 33,000; Belgium, including the north of France, 16,000; Netherlands, 15,000; Italy, 37,000.”

This is the fresh manpower put at the disposal of German industry during the period of 1 January to 30 June 1944.

I have furnished the proof I owed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will, moreover, remember Sauckel’s admission at the 58th conference of the Four Year Plan, which I have read to you previously. Sauckel admitted that there were 5 million foreign workers in Germany, of whom 200,000 were actually volunteers.

The materiality of the crime exposed is at the same time established by the circumstances of its perpetration and by the multitude of the victims affected. To prove the gravity of its effect, I have but to recall the treatment to which foreign workers were subjected in Germany.

German propaganda always claimed that foreign workers deported to Germany were treated on equal basis with German workers: the same living conditions, the same labor contracts, and the same discipline. This contention, as such, is not conclusive. My American colleagues have furnished proof of the blows which the National Socialist conspirators have dealt to the dignity and decency of the life of the German worker. The reality is worse yet. Foreign workers did not enjoy the treatment in Germany to which they were entitled as human beings. I affirm this and I will prove it to the Tribunal.

But before going into that I wish to call the Tribunal’s attention to the significance of the new crime which I am denouncing. It does not only make the crime of deportation complete but provides its true meaning also. I said that the policy of the defendants in the occupied territories could be summed up as follows:

Utilization of the productive forces and extermination of the unproductive forces. This is the principle representing one of the favorite concepts of National Socialism, on the basis of which the treatment inflicted on foreign workers by the defendants should be judged. The Germans have exploited the human potential of the occupied countries to the extreme limit of the strength of the individuals concerned. They showed some consideration for foreign workers only insofar as they wished to increase their output. But as soon as their capacity for work decreased, the foreign workers shared the common lot of deportees.

I shall prove my argument by expounding to the Tribunal the working and living conditions and rules of discipline which were imposed on foreign workers deported to Germany.

I request the Tribunal to charge the Defendant Sauckel with the facts I am going to denounce. He was put in charge of the working conditions for foreign workers, following an agreement to which he freely consented. The text of this agreement, made with Ley, the Chief of the German Labor Front, on 2 June 1943, was published in the _Reichsarbeitsblatt_, 1943,