dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M. JACQUES B. HERZOG (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Member of the National Socialist Party since its formation, member of the Diet of Thuringia, and member of the Reichstag, Obergruppenfuehrer of the criminal organizations SS and SA, the Defendant Sauckel was Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter of Thuringia. On 21 March 1942 he was appointed Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor by a decree of the Fuehrer This decree is countersigned by Lammers in his capacity as Reichsminister and Chief of the Chancellery and by the Defendant Keitel; the responsibility of these latter is confirmed by this countersigning. The Defendant Keitel has associated himself with the policy of compulsory labor through the appointment of Sauckel, the principles and methods of whom he approved. I have already read this decree to the Tribunal. I would remind you that it placed Sauckel, in his capacity as Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labour, under the immediate orders of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the Defendant Goering The latter bears a direct responsibility in pursuing the plan of recruitment of compulsory labor. I shall produce numerous proofs of this. I ask the Tribunal to authorize me to produce as first proof the decree signed by the Defendant Goering the day after the appointment of the Defendant Sauckel. This decree, dated 27 March 1942, was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1942, Part I, Page 180. 1 submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-12 (Document Number 1902-PS). Goering by this decree did away with all the administrative offices of the Four Year Plan which had been charged with the recruitment of labor; he transmitted their powers to Sauckel's department, thus confirming his appointment. The powers of Sauckel between 1942 and 1944 were considerably strengthened by decrees of Hitler and Goering These' decrees gave full significance to the Defendant Sauckel's title of Plenipotentiary. They gave him administrative autonomy and even legislative competency such as he could not have aspired to had he confined himself to executive tasks.
M. JACQUES B. HERZOG (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): The importance of the political part which he played during the last 2 years of the war increases to this extent the weight of the responsibility devolving upon him. I draw the attention of the Tribunal very especially to the decrees of the Fuehrer of 30 September 1942 and of 4 March 1943 and to the decree of the Defendant Goering of 25 May 1942. 1 will not read these decrees, which have been commented on by my American colleague, Mr. Dodd. I submit them in support of my argument. I will first refer to the decree of the Defendant Goering of 25 May 1942. It was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1942, Part I, Page 347. He delegated to Sauckel part of the powers relating to labor held by the Minister of Labor. I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number EF-13 (Document Number 1905-PS). Hitler's decree of 30 September 1942 gave Sauckel considerable power over the civil and military authorities of the territories occupied by the German Armed Forces. It made it possible for the defendant to introduce into the staffs of the occupying authorities personal representatives to whom he gave his orders direct. The decree is countersigned by Lammers and by the Defendant Keitel and appears in the Collection of the Decrees, Directives, and Notices of 1942, second volume, Page 510. 1 submit it under Exhibit Number RF- 14 (Document 1903-PS). In the carrying out of this decree representatives of Sauckel's department were in fact introduced into the headquarters staffs of the military commands. The interrogation of General Von Falkenhausen, Military Governor of Belgium and Northern France, gives in this connection a proof which I would ask the Tribunal to be good enough to remember. General Von Falkenhausen was interrogated on 27 November 1945 by the head of the Investigation Section of the French Delegation. I submit his evidence to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-15.
M. JACQUES B. HERZOG (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): I read the following extract-Page 3, the first paragraph, of the French text, and Page 2, the fifth paragraph, of the German translation: "Q: 'Can the witness tell us what was the line of demarcation between his own powers and the powers of the Arbeitseinsatz?' "A: 'Up to a certain moment there existed in my department a labor service which was engaged in the hiring of voluntary workers. I no longer remember the exact date perhaps autumn 1942-when this labor service was placed under the order of Sauckel, and the only thing I had to do was to carry out the orders which came through this way. I don't remember, but Reeder, who is also in prison"'Reeder was a civilian official on the staff of General Von Falkenhausen-"'is very well informed about the dates and can undoubtedly give them better than I can.' "Q: 'Before the question of labor was entirely entrusted to Sauckel's organization, did there exist in the General Staff or in its services an officer who was in charge of this question? Afterwards was there a delegate from Sauckel's service in this department?' "A: 'Until Sauckel came into power there was, in my service, Reeder, who directed the Bureau of Labor in my office. This labor office functioned as an employment office in Germany, that is to say, it concerned itself with demands for labor which would naturally be voluntary.' "Q: 'What took place when the change happened?, "A: 'After the change the office continued to exist, but the orders were given directly by Sauckel to the Arbeitseinsatz and passed through my office."' [A recess was taken.]
M. HERZOG: I have just reminded the Tribunal of the legislative framework through which the activity of the Defendant Sauckel was exercised. This framework was strengthened by the varied decrees of the defendant. The first document shows that Sauckel deliberately assumed the responsibility of the general policy for the recruitment of foreign workers. It is his decree of the 22d of August 1942, which appeared in the Reichsarbeitsblatt, 1942, Part 1, Page 382. This decree lays down the principle of forced recruitment and makes the necessary provisions for the whole human potential of the occupied territories to be placed at the service of the German war machine. Sauckel forced the inhabitants of the invaded countries to participate in the war of Germany against their own fatherland. It is not only a violation of international law, it is a crime against the law of nations. I submit the decree to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-17 and I shall read it: "Decree Number 10 of the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor, concerning the employment of labor in the occupied territories, under date of 22 August 1942. "In order to mobilize the labor force of the occupied territories under the new organization for the Allocation of Labor within the European area, this force must be subjected to a rigid and uniform control. The maximum production, as well as the useful and rational distribution of this force, must be assured in order to satisfy the labor requirements of the Reich and the occupied territories. By virtue of the full powers which are conferred upon me, I order: "I) By virtue of the decree of the Fuehrer, under date of 21 March 1942, concerning the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor and by virtue of the ordinance of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, under date of 27 March 1942, concerning the application of this decree, I likewise am competent to employ, as may be necessary, the labor of occupied territories, as well as to take all the measures necessary to augment its efficiency.
M. HERZOG: Those German offices competent for the tasks of the Arbeitseinsatz and for the policy of wages, or my commissioners, will carry out this Allocation of Labor and take all measures necessary to increase efficiency, according to my instructions. "2) This decree extends to all the territories occupied during the war by the Wehrmacht, as far as they are under German administration. "3) The labor available in the occupied territories must be utilized in the first place to satisfy the primary war needs of Germany herself. "This labor must be utilized in the occupied territories in the following order: "a) For the needs of the army, the occupation services, and the civilian services; b) for the needs of German armament; c) for the tasks of food supply and agriculture; d) for industrial needs other than those of armament, in which Germany is interested; e) for the industrial needs concerning the population of the territory in question." A second document demonstrates the willingness of the Defendant Sauckel to take the responsibility for the treatment of foreign workers. It is an agreement concluded on 2 June 1943 with the Chief of the German Labor Front. I shall not read this document to the Tribunal; it has been discussed by Mr. Dodd. I point out that it was published in the Reichsarbeitsblatt, 1943, Part I, Page 588. 1 submit it in support of my statement under Exhibit Number RF-18 (Document Number 1913-PS). Designated by Hitler and by the Defendants Keitel and Goering in order to pursue, under the control of the latter, the policy of recruitment of compulsory labor, the Defendant Sauckel carried out his task by virtue of the responsibilities which he had assumed. I request that the Tribunal bear this in mind. I request the Tribunal, likewise, to note that the policy of recruitment of foreign workers involves the responsibility of an German ministers responsible for the economic and social life of the Reich.
M. HERZOG: An inter-ministerial office, or at any rate an interadministrative office, the Central Office for the Four Year Plan, proceeded to formulate the program for the recruitment of foreign workers. All departments interested in the labor problem were represented at the meetings of the Central Office. General Milch presided at the meetings, in the name of the Defendant Goering The Defendant Sauckel and the Defendant Speer took part, in person, and I shall submit to the Tribunal certain statements made by them. The Defendant Funk also took part; he therefore knew of, and approved, the program for the deportation of workers. He even collaborated in its formulation. As proof thereof 'I produce two documents inculpating Funk. The first is a letter of 9 February 1944, in which Funk is summoned to a meeting of the Central Office of the Plan. It is Document F-674 which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-19. I read: "Sir: In the name of the Central Office of the Plan, I invite you to a meeting concerning the question of the Allocation of Labor, to take place on Wednesday, 16 February 1944, at 10 o'clock in the committee room of the Secretary of State at the Ministry of Aviation, Leipziger Strasse, in Berlin. "In the enclosure I transmit to you some statistics on the subject of the development of the Allocation of Labor. These statistics will serve as a basis for discussion at the meeting." Funk was unable personally to attend the meeting but he arranged to be represented by Undersecretary of State Hayler. He received the minutes of the meeting, and on 7 March 1944 he wrote to General Milch to excuse himself for his frequent absences from the meetings of the Office. I submit this document to the Tribunal. It is Document F-675, which I submit under Exhibit Number RF-20. It is the account of the 53rd meeting of the Central Office of the Plan- The Tribunal may see on Page 2 of the French translation that Minister Funk received an account of this meeting.
M. HERZOG: He is mentioned on the second line of the distribution list Reich Minister Speer first and on the second line Reich Minister Funk. I now produce under Exhibit Number RF-21 (Document Number F-676) the letter by which Funk excuses himself to Marshal Milch because of his inability to be present at the meetings: "Very honored and dear Field Marshal: "Unfortunately the meetings of the Central Office of the Plan are always set for dates when I am already engaged by other important meetings. So it is to my great regret that I shall be unable to be present Saturday at the meeting of the Central Office of the Plan, inasmuch as I have to speak on that day in Vienna in the course of a great demonstration commemorating the anniversary of the day of the Anschluss. "State Secretary Dr. Hayler will also be in Vienna on Friday and Saturday, where at the same time there will be an important southeast European conference, in which foreign delegates will participate and at which I must likewise speak. "Under these circumstances I beg you to allow Ministerial Director and General of Police, SS Brigadefuehrer Ohlendorf, who is the permanent deputy of State Secretary Hayler, to participate as my representative...."
THE PRESIDENT: Does this document tell us anything more than that the Defendant Funk was unable to be present?
M. HERZOG: This document, Mr. President, was given to me by my American colleagues, who asked me to use it in the matter of compulsory labor, because they have not had the necessary time to include it in their charge against Funk. It is presented to the Tribunal to prove that Funk followed the meetings of the Central Office of the Plan and that he had permanent representatives there. He was represented at all meetings, and by the minutes he received he was kept in touch with the work of the Central Office of the Plan. That is why we present to the Tribunal this document on Defendant Funk. I shall continue to quote: "Under these circumstances, I beg you to allow Ministerial Director and General of Police, SS Brigadefuehrer Ohlendorf, who is the permanent deputy of State Secretary Hayler, to participate as my representative. Mr. Ohlendorf will have Ministerial Director Dr. Koelfen as a consultant for questions concerning goods for consumption and Counsellor of State Dr. Janke, for questions concerning foreign trade." The policy of the Central Office pursued by the Defendant Sauckel is shown by the mass deportation of workers. The principle of this deportation is a criminal one, but the manner of its execution was even more criminal. I shall submit proof of this to the Tribunal and explain in succession, the methods of compulsory recruitment, its results, and the conditions of deportation. I wish here to thank the members of the French Delegation and of the foreign delegations who have come to my aid in the preparation of my work, in particular, my colleague M. Pierre Portal, attorney at the bar of Lyons. The statement which I have the honor of presenting to the Tribunal will be limited to the account of the recruiting of foreign labor in the occupied territories of Western Europe, since the deportation of workers coming from Eastern Europe will be dealt with by my Soviet colleagues. During the whole duration of the occupation the local field commanders imposed conscription of labor on the populations of the occupied territories.
M. HERZOG: Fortification works considered necessary for the furtherance of military operations and guard duties made necessary by the need of maintaining the security of the occupation troops were carried out by the inhabitants of the occupied areas. The labor requisitions affected not only isolated individuals but entire groups. In France, for instance, they affected, in turn, groups of IndoChinese workers, workers from North Africa, foreign workers, and Chantiers de Jeunesse (youth workyards). I produce in evidence an extract from the report on forced labor and the deportation of workers drawn up by the Institute of Statistics of the French Government. This report bears the Document Number F-515 and I submit it to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-22. This document, because of its importance, has been taken out of the document book. I quote first of all Page 17 of the French text and 17, likewise, of the German translation, second paragraph before the end: "Paragraph 6: The forced labor recruitment of constituted groups: "Finally, a last procedure employed by the Germans on a number of occasions during the whole course of the occupation, for direct forced labor as well as for indirect forced labor: the 'requisition! of constituted groups already trained and disciplined and consequently an excellent contribution. "(a) Indo-Chinese labor (M.O.I.): This formation of colonial workers had been intended from the beginning of hostilities to satisfy the needs of French industry in unskilled labor. Under the control of officers and noncommissioned officers of the French Army, who became civilian officials after the month of July 1940, Indo-Chinese labor was, from 1945 on, compelled to do partial forced labor, directly as well as indirectly." I skip the table on Page 18 and I read: "(b) North African labor: Between 17 August and 6 November 1942 the home country received two contingents of workers from North Africa; one composed of 5,560 Algerians, the other of 1,825 Moroccans.
M. HERZOG: These workers were immediately compelled to do direct forced labor, which brought the number of North African workers enrolled in the Todt Organization to 17,582. "(c) Foreign labor: The law of 11 July 1938, concerning the organization of the nation in time of war, provided for the cases of foreigners living in France, obliging them to render service. Under French officers and noncommissioned officers who by the law of 9 October 1940 had assumed the status of civil servants, foreign labor was progressively subjected by the Germans to direct forced labor." I skip the table and I read: "(d) Youth workyards: On 29 January 1943 the labor staff of the German Armistice Commission in-Paris made known that the Commander-in-Chief 'West' was examining whether and in what ways the formations of French labor might be called upon for the accomplishment of tasks important for both countries. There followed partial recruiting and demands for young people from the workyards for direct labor." Similar requisitions took place in all the other territories of Western Europe. These requisitions were illegal. They were carried out by virtue of Article 52 of the Appendix to the fourth Hague Convention . In reality they systematically violated the letter and the spirit of the text of this international law. What does Article 52 of the Appendix to the fourth Hague Convention say? It is worded as follows: "Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country and be of such a nature that they do not imply for the populations the obligation to take part in war operations against their country. Such requisitions and services shall be demanded only on the authority of the commander of the area occupied." The terms in which Article 52 authorizes the requisition of services by an army of occupation are expressly formulated. These terms are four in number: 1.
M. HERZOG: The rendering of services can be demanded only for the needs of the army of occupation. All requisitions made for the general economic needs of the occupying power are thus forbidden. 2. Services demanded by way of requisition must not entail an obligation to take part in military operations against the country of those rendering them. The rendering of any service exacted in the interests of the war economy of the occupying power, all guard duties, or exercise of military control are for bidden. 3. Services rendered in a given area must be in proportion to its economic resources, the development of which must not be hampered. It follows that any requisitioning of labor is contrary to international law if it results in the impeding or prevention of the normal utilization of the riches of the occupied country. 4. Finally, labor requisitions must, under the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 52, be carried out in the area of the locality under the administration of the occupation authority who has signed the requisition order. The transfer of conscripted workers from one part of the occupied area to another and, even more, their deportation to the country of the occupied power, are prohibited. Labor requisitions exacted by German civilian and military authorities in the occupied areas did not honor the spirit of Article 52. They were carried out to satisfy either the needs of German economy or even the needs of the military strategy of the enemy forces. They deliberately refused to acknowledge the need of ensuring facilities for a reasonable utilization of local resources. They finally took the form of migration of workers. The case of those workers who were conscripted from all countries of Western Europe and formed an integral part of the Todt Organization, to help in building the system of fortifications known under the name of the "Atlantic Wall," may be taken as a typical example.
M. HERZOG: This violation of international agreements is a flagrant one; it called forth repeated protests from General Doyen, Delegate of the French authorities at the German Armistice Commission. I ask the Tribunal to accept as evidence the letter of General Doyen, dated 25 May 1941. This letter constitutes Document F-283 and it is placed before the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-23, I read: "Wiesbaden, 25 May 1941. General de Corps d'Armee Doyen, President of the French Delegation at the German Armistice Commission, to General of Artillery Vogl, President of the German Armistice Commission. "On several occasions, and notably in my letters Numbers 14,263/AE and 14,887/AE of 26 February and 8 March, I protested to you against the use made of French labor within the Todt Organization in the execution of military work on the coast of Brittany. "I have today the duty of calling your attention to other cases in which the occupation authorities have had recourse to recruiting French civilians to carry out services of a strictly military character, cases which are even more grave than those which I have already called to your attention. "If, indeed, as concerns the workers engaged by the Todt Organization, it may be argued that certain ones among them accepted voluntarily an employment for which they are being remunerated (although in practice most often they were not given the possibility of refusing this employment), this argument can by no means be invoked when the prefects themselves are obliged at the expense of the departments and the communities, to set up guard services at important points, such as bridges, tunnels, works of art, telephone lines, munitions depots, and areas surrounding aviation fields.