Chapter XXVII: Part I: , Page 180. I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-12 (1)

(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: