Chapter XXVIII: Part I: , Page 180. I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-12 (2)

“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.”