These rules very strictly limit the rights of the occupier, who may solely exercise the right of requisition of property and services for the needs of the army of occupation. I here allude to the regulation attendant to the convention concerning the laws and customs of war signed at the Hague on the 18th of October 1907, Section III and in particular to the Articles 46, 47, 49, 52, and 53. If it please the Tribunal, I shall merely cite the paragraph of Article 52 which defines in a perfectly exact manner the lawful conditions of requisition of persons and property.
"Requisitions in kind and of services may only be demanded of communities or from inhabitants for the needs of the army of occupation. They will be proportionate to the resources of the country and of such a nature that they do not imply for the population the obligation of taking a part in war operations against their native country." defined in the general preamble of the Convention, from which I take the liberty of reading the last paragraph to the Tribunal:
"Until such time as a more complete code of the laws of war can be enacted, the high contracting parties deem it opportune to state that in cases not included in the regular steps adopted by them, populations and belligerents remained under the safeguard and direction of the principles of the law of people derived from the established usages among civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the exigencies of public conscience." total exploitation of the resources of occupied countries for the benefit of the enemy's war economy is absolutely contrary to the rights of nations and to the exigencies of public conscience. that she made no reservations at that time except with regard to Clause 44, which relates to the supply of information to the belligerents. She made no reservation with regard to the Clauses which we have cited nor with regard to the preamble. These clauses and the preamble moreover reproduce the corresponding texts of the previous Hague Convention of the 28th of July, 1899.
of September, 1900 and the 27th of November 1909. I have purposely recalled these well-known facts in order to emphasize that the Germans could not fail to recognize the constant principles of International Law to which they subscribed on two occasions, long before their defeat in 1918 and consequently outside the alleged pressure which they invoked in regard to the Treaty of Versailles. the agreement signed at Versailles on the 28th of June, 1919, in connection with the military occupation of the territories of the Rhine, reference is made, in Article 6, to the Hague Convention in the following terms:
"The right of requisition in kind and in services as formulated by the Hague Convention of 1907 will be exercised by the allied and associate armies of occupation." occupiers is confirmed by a new international agreement subscribed to by Germany, who in regard to the occupation of her own territory is here the beneficiary of this limitation. factual situation, which comprises the power and temptation and of the legal situation which involves a limitation? of the American prosecution, that the conduct of the Germans was to profit through fact and to ignore the law. of nations both by forced labor and by spoliation. Detailed illustrations of these acts in the western countries will be laid before you in the briefs which will follow my own. For my part I propose to concentrate for a moment on the actual concepts which the Germans laid down from the outset. In this connection I shall submit to the Tribunal three complementary proposals of which I shall formulate the proof.
First Proposal. From the very beginning of the occupation the Germans decided, in the interests of their war effort, to seize all the resources, both material and human, of the occupied countries. Their plan was not to take any account of legal limitations. It is not under the spur of occasional necessity that they subsequently perpetrated their illicit acts, but in pursuance of a deliberate intention. Second Proposal. However, the Germans took pains to mask their real intentions. They did not announce that they rejected international juridical rules. On the contrary, they gave assurance that they would be respected.
The reasons for this dissimulation are easy to understand. The Germans were anxious from the beginning not to upset public opinion in the occupied territory. Brutal proceedings would have aroused immediate resistance which would have hampered their actions. They also wished to deceive world opinion and more particularly American public opinion since the United States of America had not yet entered the war.
Third Proposal.
the first two. As the German contemplated achieving their aims and masking their intentions, they were of necessity bound to organize a system of round-about means, whilst maintaining an appearance of legality. The complexity and the technical character of the procedure they used enabled them easily to conceal the real state of affairs from the uninitiated or the merely uninformed. These disguised means turned out, in fact, as efficient and possibly just as efficient and perhaps even more so than would have been brutal siizure. They moreover enabled the Germans to have recourse to such brutal action the day they deemed that this would yield them more advantages than disadvantages. interest to the Tribunal for, on the one hand, it demonstrates not only that the illegal acts were premeditated, but that their officers were aware of their reprehensible character. Furthermore, it enables one party to understand the scope and extent of these acts, despite the precautions taken to mask them. documentary proofs regarding the three proposals which I have just formulated. These proofs refer naturally to the second and third proposals, for as regards the first, I should say, the delictual intention and premeditation. This will be shown by the desparity between the facade and reality. tion to observe the rules of the law of the people. Here is, by way of example, a proclamation to the French population, signed by the Commander in Chief of the German Army: This is a public document which is reproduced in the Official Journal, containing the decrees made by the military governor for occupied French territories, No. 1 dated 4 July 1940.
I submit to the Tribunal this document which will bear No. 1 of the French documentation and from it I cite merely the following sentence:
"The troops have received the order to treat the as long as the population remains calm."
I therefore submit to the Tribunal the text of the same proclamation, dated 10 May 1940, which was published in the Official Journal of the Commander in Chief in Belgium and in the north of France, No. 1, page 1, under the title:
Proclamation to the population of Belgium. The German text, as well as the Flemish text, bear the morecomplete title ...... Proclamation to the Population of Holland and Belgium. In view of the identical nature of these texts, this copy bears No. 1 B of the French documentation.
I now submit another proclamation entitled "To the Inhabitants of Occupied Countries", dated June 20, 1940, and signed "The Military Governor of France." This is likewise published in the Official Journal of German decrees. This will be Document No. 2 of the French documentation. I will cite the first two paragraphs:
"The Commander in Chief of the German Army has given me full authority to announce the following: Firstly, the German Army guarantees the inhabitants full personal security and the safeguard of their property. Those who behave peacably and quietly have nothing to fear."
I also quote passages from paragraphs V, VI, and VII:
V -- "The administrative authorities of the state, communities, the police and schools must continue their activities. They therefore remain at the service of their own population."
VI -- "All industrial enterprises, commercial houses, and banks will continue their work in the interest of the population."
VII -- "(Finally) producers of goods of prime necessity, as well as merchants, must pursue their activities and place their goods at the disposal of the public." tion of international conventions, but they reflect their spirit. Repetition of the terms: "At the service of the population", "In the interest of the population," "At the disposal of the public," must necessarily be construed as an especially firm assurance that the resources of the country and its manpower will be preserved for that country and not diverted in favor of the German war effort.
I now submit, under Document No. 2b, the text of the same statement signed by the Commander in Chief of the army group and published in the Official Journal of the Commander in Chief in Belgium.
, numbered as above, page 3. by the representatives of the actual authority constituting the Government of France. This convention is likewise a public document. It will be submitted to the Tribunal at a later stage as Document L.D.F. Eco. 1. At this time I merely wish to cite the first sentence of paragraph 3, which reads as follows:
"In the occupied districts of France, the German Reich exercises all the rights of an occupying power." Moreover, the German plenipotentiaries gave in this respect complementary oral assurances. At this stage I submit to the Tribunal, in the form of French Document No. 4, an extract from the deposition made by Ambassador Leon Noel in the course of proceedings before the French high court of Justice. This extract is reproduced from an account in extenso of the hearings of the trial of Marshal Petain, printed at Paris in 1945 at the printing works of the Official Journals, and constitutes a document acceptable in proof in accordance with the Charter of the Tribunal, Article 21. I will now give the statement of Mr. Leon Noel, of which I respectfully request the Tribunal to take notice. Mr. Leon Noel was a member of the armistice delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to present these documents to us?
M. FAURE: This document has been presented to the Tribunal. We have given to the Tribunal the transcript of the proceedings, and you will find the document therein.
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't actually got them in our hands. I don't know where they are.
M. FAURE: I think that possibly this document was handed to the Secretariat of the Tribunal rather late, and possibly it didn't reach you today. I merely intend to read a short extract, and the document will be presented to the Tribunal later.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have it tomorrow, I hope?
M. FAURE: Certainly, Mr. President.
(quoting) "I have also obtained a certain number of replies which, I believe, could have been subsequently used from German General Jodl, who in the month of May last signed at Rheims the unconditional surrender of Germany, and from General, subsequently Marshal, Keitel, who a few weeks later was to sign in Berlin the ratification of this surrender. In this way I got them to declare in the most categorical manner, that in no event would they meddle with administration, that the rights which they claimed for themselves under the convention were purely and simply those which in similar circumstances international law, and international usage, concede to occupation armies, that is to say, those indispensable for the maintenance of security, transportation, and the food supply needs of these armies. In the same way, with Alsace and Lorraine in mind, I had them admit --" therefore formal. The Prosecution will show that they were not kept. Indeed, not only did the Germans subsequently violate them, but from the very beginning they organized a system whereby they were enabled to accomplish these violations in the most efficacious manner and at the same time in a manner which enabled them to some extent to hide them--to mask them. from a very simple idea. It consisted in supervising production at its beginning and at its end.
requisitioning of all raw materials and all goods in the occupied countries. materials to national industries. They were thus in a position to develop one branch of production rather than another, to favor certain undertakings, and, conversely, to oblige other undertakings to close down. As events and opportunities demanded, they organized this appropriation of raw materials, principally with a view to facilitating their distribution in their own interest. This principle was continously maintained. They thus held, in a way of speaking, the entry key to production. finance. By taking over the financial resources in the currency of an occupied country, the Germans were able to purchase products and to acquire, under the cloak of a semblance of legality, the output of the economic activity of the country. In point of fact, the Germans obtained for themselves from the beginning such considerable financial means that they were easily able to absorb the entire productive capacity of each country.
(Whereupon at 1700 hours the hearing of the Tribunal adjourned to reconvene at 1000 hours, 18 January 1946.)
Military Tribunal, in the matter of: The
M. EDGAR FAURE: Mr. President, your Honors. At yesterday's session I explained and showed to the Tribunal the principle of the provisions made by the Germans to ensure the seizure of raw materials and the manner of financing in the occupied countries. These provisions will be demonstrated by numerous documents which will be presented to the Tribunal in the course of the presentation of the case on economic spoliation and forced labor. out yesterday, the purpose of my discussion is limited to the initial concepts of the Germans in these matters. I shall only cite one document which reveals the true intentions of the Germans in the very first period. This document bears the number 3-Bis, and I offer it in evidence to the Tribunal. It particularly relates to Norway. It consists of a photostatic copy, certified and authenticated. It is a transcript of a conference in Oslo, the 21st of November, 1940.
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall we find it?
M. FAURE: I have just filed this document with the Tribunal and you have it in the book which was just given you, the text of the extract which I am going to quote in French:
"Oslo, 21 November 1940."
THE PRESIDENT: Are the documents in our books marked in any way?
M. FAURE: As there are only five documents in this book, we have put no numbers upon them. This is the fourth document in the book.
THE PRESIDENT: Conference under the presidency of the Reichs Kommissar?
M. FAURE: Yes, that is the one.
THE PRESIDENT: Something of November 1940?
M. FAURE: That is the one, yes, sir,
THE PRESIDENT: When you file a document as an exhibit, it will be given a number, will it not?
M. FAURE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of this one?
M. FAURE: No. 3-Bis.
THE PRESIDENT: Number 3-Bis?
M. FAURE: Bis, b-i-s.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What is the date? The date on mine is undecipherable.
M. FAURE: November 21, 1940. presiding officer of the Kommissar of the Reich. I shall point out to the Tribunal that we file this document as particularly significant because Norway is a country which was occupied at a very early date by the Germans. The date of November 21, 1940, which you see, is naturally during the very earliest period of the German occupation, and in the text of the conference there is allusion to the fact which took place in that month. You will find there exactly the psychology of the occupation troops or occupation authorities as it existed in the period of April 1940 and November 1940. Germans were invading other countries, they made a reassuring proclamation which I read to the Tribunal yesterday. Secretary, Dr. Landfried, who represented the Ministry of Reich Economy, was present. Here is how the Kommissar of the Reich expresses himself:
To-day's conference is the result of a conference which was held in Berlin or the continuation of a conference which was held in Berlin. On this occasion I would like to first stress and establish definitely that the collaboration between the Wehrmacht and the Reichs Kommissar is exemplary. I must protest against the concept or notion according to which the Wehrmacht carried out its financial task in a confused and irresponsible manner. We must also point out the particular circumstances which were present in Norway and which are still partially present. Certain tasks were fixed here which were to be executed without delay.
"At the time of the Berlin conference, the following points were fixed, which we can take as a point of departure for the conference of to-day. There is no doubt that the country of Norway was utilized for the execution of the tasks of the Wehrmacht during the last seven months, in such a way that a new drain or stripping of the country without certain compensation is no longer possible. If we wish to accomplish the future tasks of the Wehrmacht, I consider it from the beginning as being my evident duty in my capacity as Reichs Kommissar to see, first of all, my task in this purpose, to mobilize all the economic and material forces of the country for the interest of the Wehrmacht, and not to appeal to the resources of the Reich as long as I am in a position to organize the same resources in the country." and now I shall cite the terms of the reply of Dr. Landfried, which you will find a little lower down in the document:
"I am very grateful to be able to verify that you have succeeded here in Norway in mobilizing the economic forces of Norway for German needs, and] that in a way which was not possible to attain in all the other occupied countries. I must thank you especially in the name of the Minister of Economy who succeeded in stimulating the Norwegians to accomplish every possible carrying out of their task." are quite characteristic, which are used in this document. The Kommissar of the Reich, or Reich Kommissar, says, "From the very beginning, my duty to mobilize all the economic and material forces of the country for the interest of the Wehrmacht," and Dr. Landfried says, "We succeeded in mobilizing the economic forces of Norway in a way which it was not possible to attain in all the other occupied territories."
Thus, Dr. Landfried doesn't say that the Germans had, in Norway, a particular notion or concept of occupation and that in other countries they were going to go about it in another way. He said it was not possible to do as well in other countries. The only limitation he recognizes is in the opportunity, but in no wise a limitation of law. The idea of a legal limitation never comes to his mind, any more than it comes to the mind of any of the 40 persons present.
Here we are not talking about an opinion or initiative of a regional administrative authority, but rather of the official doctrine of the Reichs Cabinet of the High Command, since 40 high officials were present at this conference, and especially the representatives of the Ministry of Economy.
means on the mobilization of the resources of the occupied countries necessarily extend to the labor of the inhabitants. I said yesterday that the Germans ensured, from the very beginning, the two keys of production. By that very fact, they have had within their power the capital, which was labor. It depended on their decision whether labor worked or should not work, whether there should be or should not be unemployment. This explains in a general way the action the Germans took only after a certain time, the brutal measures such as displacement and the mobilization of workers. occupied countries stocks and raw materials, the Germans had every interest in utilizing labor in the region where they were, at least for a great part. This labor permitted then to produce for their benefit, with the wealth of the country, finished products which they seized. Besides the ethical advantage of safeguarding appearances, they avoided the initial transportation of raw materials. The considerations or difficulties of transportation were always very important in the German war economy. countries were impoverished in their raw materials and truly ruined, at that moment the Germans no longer had any interest in permitting labor to work. there. They would have had to furnish theraw materials themselves, and consequently that would involve double transportation, that of raw material in one direction and that of the finished products in the other direction. At that moment it became more advantageous for them to export workmen. the economic situation of Germany at that time, and with political considerations. On the relation of this country, that is to say, the use of labor, I shall read to the Tribunal a few sentences of a document which I offer under the number 4. It is a document which is a continuation of the one which I have just read. The note which you will find in the document book reproduces the sentence which concerns articles which appeared in the newspaper Pariser Zeitung on July 7, 1942. I offer at the same time to the Tribunal a photostatic copy, which has been authenticated, of the page of the newspaper, from the collection from the Bibliotheque Nationale.
This article is signed by Dr. Michel, who was the Chief of the Economic Administration in France. Its title is "Years of Directed Economy in France". It concerns an article written with a propaganda purpose, since it appeared in a German newspaper which was published in Paris, and naturally I wish to point out to the Tribunal that we shall accept in no wise the whole of the ideas which are presented in this article, but we should like to stress several sentences of Dr. Michel as revealing the same sort of procedure about which I spoke a short time ago, which consisted of utilizing labor first on the spot, as long as there was raw material, and then exporting this labor to Germany.
I quote: -
THE PRESIDENT: Have you given the Tribunal a number?
M. FAURE: No. 4. I quote:
"The third phase is characterized by the transfer of orders from the Reich to France in order to utilize the productive force of French industry."
THE PRESIDENT: You were reading from "Afin D'Utiliser", weren't you?
M. FAURE: Yes, "Afin D'Utiliser", in the other book, in the text.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; I understand. You read another sentence, other than that which is set out in this book.
M. FAURE: Yes, it is a mistake in my brief. I begin:
"In order to utilize the productive force of such industry, the Reich began by transferring to France its orders for industrial articles which were of use to the war effort. One figure alone is adequate to show success of the transfer of German orders. The value of the transactions made up to this day are expressed in a figure surpassing hundreds of billions of francs. A new blood circulates, flows in the veins of such economy, which works to the very limit of its capacities." like to read the following sentence:
"As the covering of raw materials tended to grow slim as the war was prolonged, they began to hire French labor which was available."
Dr. Michel uses here very elegant formulas or ways of expressing himself, which cover the real intent, that is to say, the beginning of the transfer of workmen at the very moment when raw material, which the Germans had appropriated from the beginning of occupation, had begun to be exhausted.
exposition is the following: that the Germans have always considered labor, human labor, as a material thing in their service. This consideration existed even before the initial imposition of forced, or compulsory, labor, of which we will speak to you presently. For Germans the work of others has always been compulsory and for their profit. On the other hand, I should like to mention now that it has been estimated that even after the end of the war - This is the last point that I would like to emphasize, but it shows the amplitude and the seriousness of the German conception and of the German projects. I shall quote in relation to this a document, which will bear the No. 5 in our document book. Here is the document, which I file with the Tribunal, a work edited in French in Berlin in 1943 by Doctor Dadieu entitled "Work for Europe." Socialist Party. It begins with an introduction, or preface, by the defendant Sauckel, whose signature is reproduced through printing. I shall cite to the Tribunal a paragraph from this work, which is the last page of my brief. This is Document No. 5 and this sentence is found on page 23. I quote:
"A great percentage of foreign workers will remain even after victory on our territory to finish afterwards, after having been readapted to construction work, what the war had prevented them from finishing, and to carry out those projects which up to now had remained as projects." great prudence and with the intention to seduce, we find nevertheless this central admission by the Germans, that they intended to keep even after the war the laborers of other countries, to insure the greatness of Germany, without any limitation. Hence this concerns a policy of perpetual exploitation. Mr. Herzog will present the brief relating to forced labor in France.
MR. HERZOG: Mr. President and your Honors: to the idea of the State, by the contempt in which it holds individuals and personal rights, contains a conception of work, which agrees with the principles of its general philosophy. Work is not, for it, one of the formers of the manifestation of individual personalities, it is a duty imposed by the community on its members.
"The relationship of labour", according to National-Socialist ideas; a German writer has said, "is not a simple judicial relationship between the worker and his employer, it is a living phenomenon in which the worker becomes a cog in the National-Socialist machine for collective production". The conception of compulsory labour is thus, for National-Socialism, necessarily complementary to the conception of work itself. people. German Labour Service was instituted by a law of 26 June 1935 which bears Hitler's signature and that of the defendant FRICK, Minister of the Interior. This law was published in the Reich Official Gazette, Part I, page 769. I submit it to the Tribunal as Document No. 6. labour service. Decrees were promulgated to that effect by the Defendant GOERING in his capacity as delegate of the Four Year Plan. I do not stress this point which arises from the conspiracy entered into by the accused to commit their crime against peace, and of which my American colleagues have already informed the Tribunal. I merely point out that the mobilization of workers was applicable to foreigners resident in German territory, because I find in this fact the proof that the principle of compulsory recruitment of foreign workers existed prior to the war. industry, the compulsory recruitment of foreign workers is the putting into practice of a concerted policy. I lay before the Tribunal a document which proves this.
It is document 382, which I offer as Exhibit No. 7. This is a memorandum of the High Command of the German Armies of 1st October 1938; the memorandum, drawn up in anticipation of the invasion of Czecho-Slovakia, contains a classification of violations punishable under International Law; the explanation which the High Command of the Armed Forces thinks it possible to give, appears in connection with each violation. The document appears in the form of a list in four columns; in the first is a statement of the violations of International Law; the second gives a concrete example; the third contains the point of view of International Law under two headings, on the one hand the provisions of International Law, and, on the other hand, the conclusions which can be drawn from them. The fourth column is reserved for the explanation of the Propaganda Ministry. I submit this document to the Tribunal and I read the passage which deals with the forced labour of civilian and prisoners of war which is found on page 6 of the German original, page 7 of the French translation, the document which is referred to in my document book as No.7.
I read at the bottom of page 7, of the French translation:
"The use of prisoners of war and civilians in war works, constructions of roads, country construction, and the sending of munitions: Soldiers and civilians are commanded to construct roads and to load munitions." concerning the treatment of war prisoners, and the works which are directly in relation to war measures, being forced to work, contrary to international law: the war prisoners and civilians who are used on highway construction and in the loading of munitions.
In the last column: "The use of these measures may be based on war needs or by declaring that the enemy has acted in the same way first. with National-Socialist doctrine, one of the elements of the policy of German domination. Hitler himself recognized this on several occasions. I quote in this connection his speech of 9 November 1941 which was printed in the Voelkischer Beobachter of 10 November 1941, No.314, page 4, which I submit to the Tribunal under No. 8. I read the extract of this discourse, columns 1 and 2 and the first paragraph below, in the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 8, is it not?
MR. HERZOG: Yes, your Honor.
"The territory which now works for us contains more than 250,000,000 men, but the territory which works indirectly for us includes now more than 350,000,000. In the measure in which it concerns German territory, the domain which we have taken under our administration, it is not doubtful that we shall succeed in harnassing the very last man to this work." manner. It constitutes the putting into practice of the political principles as applied to all the territories occupied by Germany. These principles, the concrete development of which in other departments of German criminal activity will be pointed out to you by my colleagues, are materially of two kinds; employment of all active forces of the occupied territories, domination over and extermination of all their non-productive forces. These are the two justificatory reasons which the defendants have given for the establishment of the recruitment of foreign workers. There are many documents to this effect; I confine myself to the most explicit. of the necessity for associating the enslaved peoples with the German war effort is found, in the first place, in the exposition of the motives of the decree of 21 March 1942.
DR. STAHMER (Counsel for Goering): Mr. President, I should like to point out that the translation into German is faulty. Whole sentences are omitted. This is apparently the result of the fact that the Prosecutor is speaking too rapidly.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you go a little more slowly?
MR. HERZOG: Yes.
account of the necessity for associating the enslaved peoples with the German war effort is found, in the first place, in the exposition of the motives of the decree of 21 March 1942, appointing the defendant Sauckel as plenipotentiary for the employment of labour. The Decree was published in the Reich Official Gazette 1942, Part 1, page 179. I submit it and will read its complete text to the Tribunal, which is Document No. 9.
"The decree of the Fuehrer concerning the creation of a plenipotentiary for the employment of labor, dated March 21, 1941. To assure to the whole of the war economy, and in particular the armament industry, necessary labor, it is important to establish a direction which unified, answering the needs of the war economy for the use of available labor, including foreigners, hired and war prisoners, as well as the mobilization of all labor, skilled and unemployed, in the Great German Reich, including the Protectorate as well as the general government of the occupied regions.