dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M. HERZOG: 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 1 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remember an order of 5 March 1943, by which those refusing to enter the compulsory labor service had their ration cards withdrawn?'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 mot 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.
M. HERZOG: 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. 1 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 I February 1944 as Document Number RP-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 Mardi 1943. 1 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.
M. HERZOG: 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 Fuehrer. 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 I 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.
M. HERZOG: 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 cooperate; 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 cooperate, 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.
M. HERZOG: 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 Goering, 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.
M. HERZOG: 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 Fuehrer. headquarters of the Fuehrer.
M. HERZOG: "My Fuehrer: 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, 721,475; 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. 1 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 ....
M. HERZOG: 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.
M. HERZOG: 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 d enounce. 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, Part I, Page 558. 1 submitted this to the Tribunal at the beginning of my presentation as Exhibit Number RF-18. This agreement shows that the treatment of foreign workers was subject to control by the inspection department of the Allocation of Labor (Arbeitseinsatz). The Defendant Sauckel could therefore not ignore the mistreatment to which foreigners were subjected. If not prescribed it was tolerated by him. The working conditions of workers deported to Germany provided the first evidence of the determination of the defendants to exploit the human potential of the occupied territories to the extreme limit of its strength. First I call the attention of the Tribunal to the working hours imposed on foreign workers. The working hours were legally set at 54 hours per week by Sauckel's decree of 22 August 1942. Actually, most foreign workers were subjected to still longer working hours. Rush work, which necessitated overtime, was mostly assigned to foreigners. It was not unusual for the latter to be forced to work 11 hours a day, that is, 66 hours a week, provided they had one day off per week.
M. HERZOG: For this purpose I quote the report of the Minister for Prisoners, Deportees, and Refugees, Document UK-78(3), which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-87. I quote Paragraph 2: "Working Hours: The average number of working hours was 11 and sometimes 13 a day in certain factories, for example, Maschinenfabrik, Berlin (31). In Berlin-Spandau, the Alkett factory imposed 101/4 hours work on day shift and 12 hours on night shift. At Konigsberg the caterpillar-tread factory, Krupp, imposed 12 hours a day." The work of foreign workers was remunerated by wages identical with those of the German workers. I call the attention of the Tribunal to the illusory character of this equality. The policy of freezing wages was a permanent element of the wage and price policy pursued by the National Socialist Government; consequently, the wages of the workers employed in Germany remained limited. They were, moreover, heavily burdened with impositions and taxes. Finally and above all, they were encroached upon by fines which the German employers had the right to impose upon their workers. These fines could reach the amount of the weekly wage for slight breaches of discipline. I submit in evidence Document D-182. These are two drafts of speeches to foreign civilian workers. One of them is intended for Russian and Polish workers. I leave this to be dealt with by my Soviet colleagues. I submit the other to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-88, and I quote: "Draft of an address to foreign civilian workers, 'Maintenance of Labor Discipline,' January 1944. "I must inform you of the following: "The increasing lack of punctuality and absenteeism have caused the competent authorities to issue stricter regulations to ensure labor discipline whereby the competence of the employers to impose penalties has been extended. Violations of labor discipline, such as repeated tardiness, being absent without cause or excuse, leaving a job without authorization, will in the future be punished by fines up to the average daily wage.
M. HERZOG: In more serious cases, for example, for repeated absences without cause or excuse, or insubordination, fines up to the average weekly salary will be imposed. In such cases, moreover, the additional ration cards may be taken away for a period up to 4 weeks...." The precariousness of wages which, after these various cuts, were actually received by the foreign workers did not allow them to raise their standard of living in the places to which they had been deported. I maintain that this standard was insufficient and that the attitude of the Arbeitseinsatz in this matter constitutes a characteristic violation of the elementary principles of the rights of man. I will confirm this by submitting to the Tribunal proof of the inadequacy of food, lodging, and medical care to which the foreign workers were entitled. The German propaganda services issued, in France, illustrated pamphlets in which the accommodations for foreign workers were represented as being comfortable. It was quite different in reality. I will not dwell on this point. Mr. Dodd, my American colleague, has already submitted and commented upon Document D-288, an affidavit by Dr. Jager, chief medical officer in charge of the work camps in the Krupp factories. I will not reread this document to the Tribunal, but I would like to repeat that in this document Dr. Jager stated that French workers-prisoners of war working in the Krupp factories-had been billeted for more than half a year in kennels, urinals, unused ovens. The kennels were 3 feet high, 9 feet long, and 6 feet wide, and the men had to sleep there five in a kennel. I submit this document, which is to support my argument, as Exhibit Number RF-89. To this unsanitary accommodation often inadequate food was added. In this respect I wish to explain the following to the Tribunal: I do not, claim that the foreign workers deported to Germany were systematically exposed to starvation, but I do maintain that the leading principle of National Socialism finds its expression in the food regulations for foreign workers.