dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
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.
M. HERZOG: 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 11 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.
M. HERZOG: Numerous comrades, drawn back to Furstenwalde, 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.
M. HERZOG: 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 EF-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....
M. HERZOG: 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 IA, 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.
M. HERZOG: The document, consequently, establishes the direct responsibility of the Defendant Goering 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.
M. HERZOG: 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. "I. Collaboration with the Hoheitstrager of the NSDAP. "The co-operation of all officers in charge of war prisoners with the Hoheitstrager 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.
M. HERZOG: 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; 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.
M. HERZOG: 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 Red. 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.
M. HERZOG: 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 Goering 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.
M. HERZOG: It was necessary that a central authority be set up in order to coordinate 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 EF-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. 1 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.