Chapter XXIX: Part I: , Page 180. I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-12 (3)

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

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

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

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

“My Führer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY
Saturday, 19 January 1946

_Morning Session_

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

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

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

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

“Weimar, 27 June 1943.

“My Führer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I skip the next and read the last paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

“Weimar, 13 August 1943.

“My Führer:

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

“The program provides:

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

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

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

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

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

I skip and proceed to the fifth paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

“Final results of the conference:

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

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

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

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

I skip the rest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“My Führer:

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

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

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

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

“Your ever obedient and faithful, Fritz Sauckel.”

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

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

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

“1) France. The problem of women.

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

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

“Measures concerning compulsory labor in the case of invasion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A: ‘On the contrary.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Q: ‘To whom was this proposal made?’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[_A recess was taken._]

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

“Subject: Action against students.

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

Following is the text of the proclamation:

“Ordinance on the registration of students.”

I will skip the first paragraph and I quote:

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

I now skip Paragraphs 2 and 3 and quote:

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

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

“5. This ordinance becomes effective on promulgation.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I skip a few lines and quote from Page 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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