The official German point of view emerges clearly from a letter dated July 29, 1941. It is a letter from the Minister of Finance to the Military Commander in Belgium. I shall submit it under No.187, in the Document Book. the motives admitted by the Hague Convention, in the matter of the right of acquisition. Always showing clearly the will of the Germans to enrich themselves, from May 1940, the Germans sought to exert influence over Belgian holding companies. Not being able to directly oppose the international laws, particularly Article 46 of the Hague Convention, they strove to put pressure on the members of the executive boards through persuasion rather than by force. In the course of the conference, which was held May 3, 1940, at the Ministry of Reich Economy, relating to the parts of Belgian and Dutch capital which it would be possible to acquire, it was decided that the Military Commander in Belgium would take all necessary measures to prevent on the one hand the destruction, the transfer, the sale and the illegal holding of all bonds and stocks of these countries, but on the other hand, to incite Belgian capitalists to hand over their foreign securities. The report of this conference is found in the Document Book under No.187. To prevent any capital from thus escaping, an order of June 17, 1940, was promulgated, controlling any exportation of securities without authorization and any acquisition or disposal of foreign securities. From August 2, 1940, the German leaders and the defendant Goering himself took a definite stand on this point. In the course of the general remarks on economic plundering of the occupied countries of Western Europe I have read to you secret directives issued by the defendant Goering, under the No. 105 in the Document Book, page 97.
Despite the desire of the. occupying power to have some appearance of legality, the German desire to absorb certain investments met with serious resistance. The occupation authorities several times had to use force to conclude sales, rights which they had reserved unto themselves in the previously cited decree of August 27, 1945. This is notably the case in the investments held by the Belgian Metallurgical Trust and the electrical industries of Eastern Silesia, and it is still clearer in the stock shares of the Metallurgical Society of Austria, which had been dissolved by the Hermann Goering Werke.
pillage, showed itself more clearly. In his report December 1, 1942, Document 191, the German Kommissar to the National Bank denounces very clearly this will on the part of the German industry to resist. The balance of clearing capital credited in Belgium's favor for the sum of 1.054 millions of German frances, August 31, 1944, represents a forced borrowing imposed upon Belgium without any juridical or logical relation to occupation expenses, except the will of the German Hegemony.
Such a practice, contrary to the principles of international law and to the rules of the, penal laws of civilized nations, falls under Article 6B of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal and constitutes an act of pillage of public or private property such as envisaged in the text of the Charter. legality, there must be pointed out to the Tribunal, the levies made by the German authorities on foreign property, enemy property, and on property held by Jews. In relation to foreign property seized by the Germans, it must be cited that this regulation was applied to French capital in Belgium despite numerous protests by the French Government. In relation to Jewish property, for the years 1943 and 1944, the figures are presented in Document No. 192, and I am going to include them in discussing the economic stripping of Belgium, page 100. The damages caused to the Belgian economy in its principal sectors have largely been submitted to the Tribunal. A part of the statistical data was taken either from German reports or from official reports furnished by the Belgian Government. The evaluations and figures available are not always sufficiently exact to measure exactly the cost of the war, of the occupation and of the economic stripping of Belgium. Certain losses and certain damages can be expressed only in monetary damages. Resulting from the German domination over a great part of food supplies resulting from the special circumstance of billeting and of clothing. This purely material aspect of the question should not lead us to forget the results of the occupation upon public health. For lack of statistical data, it is difficult to be very exact in the final circumstance of the particular situation of public health. One fact, however, must be remembered. recourse to the food service for patients. This number exceeded 2,000 a month in 1941, but went from 2,000 a month in 1941 to 20,000 a month in 1944 - an increase of ten-fold, despite a regulation which became more and more severe in the control of rations.
This increase in the food assistance given to ill persons should merit the attention of the Tribunal, for more than its statistical elements, because it is an indication of the increase of illness in Belgium. This increase is itself the result of the undernourishment of the population during the four years of the occupation. This deplorable state of affairs, however, had not escaped the attention of the occupation authorities, as is clear from the letter already cited of the Military Commander in Belgium, which is found in the Document Book under No. 187. insure either the absolute minimum for existence of the civilian population or the minimum of food for workers who work solely for the needs of the German war economy. This undernourishment of the Belgian population was the inescapable result and the most serious result of the huge levies made by the occupation authorities who willfully failed to recognize the elementary needs of the occupied country to carry out the exclusive Reich war interest. The lowering of the standard of public health and the increase in mortality in Belgium from 1940 to 1945 may then be rightfully considered as the direct result of the spoliations committed by the Germans in Belgium despite all aspects of international law.
I have concluded with the presentation on Belgium. I would like to cake a few brief remarks on the economic pillaging of Luxembourg. present to the Tribunal some information or exact information on the economic pillaging of Luxembourg. accusations which have been lodged with the Tribunal in No. UK-77, and in which an extract covering the role of crimes against property, the economic part -- figures, in the Document Book under the figure One. The Germans shortly after their advance into the Grand Duchy proceeded to annex it in fact. This attitude, which was quite similar to that which they adopted as far as the inhabitants of the Moselle, Bas-Rhin and Haut-Rhin were concerned, merits a few observations.
of the money of Luxembourg at the rate of ten Luxembourg francs for one mark which was the purpose of the ordinance of August 26, 1945, ordinance found in the Document Book under No. 195. This parity, which does not correspond to the respective purchasing power of the two currencies, constituted a considerable levy on the fortune of the nationals and especially insured the Germans an absolute seizure of monetary specie. reserves of raw materials and manufactured products of the country. The acquisitions were settled in depreciated marks and upon the basis of frozen prices imposed by the Germans. introduced as the only legal money. By the ordinance submitted under Number 196, the Luxembourg francs and the notes from the Reichskreditcasse and even Belgian franks, considered up to a point as money of the French-Luxembourg Monetary Union, became a foreign currency, dating from February 5, 1941. among all the countries occupied by Germany, Luxembourg is, with Alsace and with Lorraine, the only country which was totally deprived of its national money. for the prosecution of the war, the ordinance of August 27, 1940 - Document 197 -- prescribes the forced handing over of gold and foreign currencies. The same regulation prescribed, moreover, that shares and foreign bonds were to be submitted for sale to the Reichsbank at rates and under conditions fixed by the occupying power. stocks. In this respect, the report dated May 21, 1940 on the economic situation in Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg informs one concerning the stocks found in the country: 1,600,000 tons of iron ore; 125,000 tons of manganese ore; 10,000 tons of iron; 10,000 tons of Ferro-manganese; 36,000 tons of laminated products and finished products.
The German seizure extended these stocks in the direction of industrial production. the Luxembourg Government, Document 197, the total sum of damages of an economic nature amounts to 5, 884,000,000 Luxembourg francs. This document is in 1938.
This figure may be broken down as follows: Industry and commerce, 1,904,000,000; railroads, 207,000,000; roads and highways, 100,000,000; agriculture, 1,673,000,000; damage to property in general, 1,999,000,000. 33 per cent of the national fortune of Luxembourg, which was estimated before the war to amount to about 5,000,000,000 of Luxembourg francs. exceeded 6,000,000,000 of Luxembourg francs. and the total sum of forced investments in Germany, 4,800,000,000 Luxembourg francs, as well as a supplementary charge imposed upon those who had to contribute to the Grand Duchy resulting from the introduction of the German fiscal system. benefits that we find in the alleged voluntary gifts of every kind imposed upon Luxembourg. In imitation of what was done in other countries, the ordinance of February 21, 1941, Document Number 199 of the document book concerning Luxembourg, prescribes th at German managers may be appointed in great industrial enterprises, in the steel plants particularly -- and this is the text of the ordinance -- which refused to "militate in favor of Germanism under any circumstances." Their mission was to insure for the Reich, within the scope of the Four Year Plan, the high direction, the high management and control of their exploitation in the exclusive interest of the German war effort. of Enemy Fortunes appointed to the greatest metallurgical group in Luxembourg, Burbach, Eich, Dudelange, three German commissioners who assured a total seisure for the society.
Other great societies who did not escape are found under Document No. 10. insurance domain was complete. With the exception of three Swiss companies and a German company, all activity was forbidden the Luxembourg companies, whose assets were transferred to German insurance companies, in official fashion for the nati onal companies and in secret fashion for the foreign companies. fire insurance balance was concerned by the introduction of forced insurance for fire hazards, for which the monopoly was given to German companies. seized and confiscated all the properties of Jews in the Grand Duchy for the profit of the Verwaltung Fuer Judenvermoegen. Elsewhere, in relation to a certain society, 1500 families were deported. The Germans took possession of their wealth. A German fiduciary company, enfolded in the German office for Colonization and germanization was entrusted with their administration. In fact, they set about their liquidation. Important values were thus transferred to the Reich. Germans were, as has been pointed out elsewhere, installed in the buildings of industrial enterprises, commercial enterprises and work shops of the deportees. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was the victim of an economic pillaging as systematically organized as that in Belgium.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Delpech, the Tribunal is greatful to you for the way in which you have performed the task which they asked you to perform last night, a task which is not altogether easy, of shortening the address which you had intended to make. As far as they are able to judge, no essential parts of your address have been omitted. Charter indicates, in an expeditious way, and it was for this reason that the Tribunal asked you, if you could, to shorten your address.
M. DELPECH: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Gerthofer.
M. GERTHOFER: Mr. President, Your Honors, I approach the sixth part of this statement, which is devoted to the economic looting of France.
They went about seizing it very ingeniously and also very ingeniously enslaved the national productivity. When they failed by means of requisitions to attain their ends, they employed hidden methods, using simultaneously craft and violence, striving to mask their criminal actions under the appearance of legality.
To accomplish this, they took advantage of our armistice. These, in fact, did not contain any economic clause and did not include any secret provisions. They were composed only of regulations which were published. Nevertheless, the Germans utilized two clauses to favor their enterprises. Conventions, and I cite article 18, which is thus expressed:
"The expenses of the maintenance of German occupation troops in the French territory will be charged to the French Government." but Germany imposed payment of enormous sums, surpassing by great measure those which were necessary for the needs of the army charged with the occupation of the territory, which permitted them to dispose, without having furnished any compensating consideration, of almost all of the money, which in fact they transformed cleverly into an instrument of pillage.
Article 17 of the Armistice Conventions was thus expressed:
"The French Government agrees to prevent any transfer of valuables or stocks of an economical nature or of material stocks of the territory occupied by the German troops into the non-occupied territory or into a foreign country. Those valuables and stocks which are found in the occupied territory cannot be disposed of except in agreement with the Reich Government, it being understood that the German Government will take account of what is necessary for the life of the population of the non-occupied territories." to England or any of the colonies of things of any kind which might be utilized against Germany, but the occupying power wanted to derive profit from them, to give unto herself the command of production and the distribution of raw materials in all France; since the non-occupied zone could not live without the products of the occupied zone, and in reciprocal fashion the occupation zone needed the products of the zone which was called Free. by the American Army, Number 1741-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal as Number 204. I do not wish to inflict upon the Tribunal a reading of the document, which is long. I shallgive only a short summary. It is a secret report, dated 5 July 1940.
THE PRESIDENT: This is not a document of which we can take judicial notice, is it? I think you must read anything that you wish to put in evidence.
M. GERTHOFER: I shall content myself with citing to the Tribunal one passage of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
M. GERTHOFER: Article 17 grants to Germany the right to keep the values and economic reserve in occupied territory, and any arrangements of the French Government are subject to the approval of Germany. account also of the vital needs of the population of the non-occupied territory.
Each time that it shall issue a statute regarding the requests formulated by the French Government with the purpose of disposing of values and reserves which are found in the occupied territory. I now come to the following document, which is the reply of the German officials who drew up this document, a document which I submit under Number 205, and which is a document found by the American Army. It is areply to the document from which I just cited one passage.
"The conception of the Fuehrer from this point of view is that all negotiations with France are envisaged, not from the political point of view, but from the economic point of view. The doing away with the line of demarcation is envisaged again. It is quite indifferent to us whether the economic life in France and its resumption should be broken or not. The French lost the war, and from this fact must pay damages.
"If one objects that the result would be to transform France into a focus of troubles, we must reply that we shall be doing our duty purely and simply, or that we shall annex these zones which have not been occupied up to now. All concession that we make to the French, the French must pay dearly for by means of deliveries coming from the non-occupied territory or from the colonies. We must stress the fact that any collaboration in the economic domain in France must not be rejected." of the United States which I submit as document 206, signed by Dr.Gramsch, which gives the following information:
"Within the scope of negotiations for relaxing the line of demarcation, it has been proposed to the French Government to seize in France all gold and foreign securities." Further, within this written document, "Foreign securities in occupied France would represent a strengthening of our war potential. This measure could moreover be used in exerting pressure upon the French Government to force them to adopt a conciliatory attitude in other domains."
in scorning all juridical principles to put all the wealth and economic activity of France at their disposal.
Through force the Germans succeeded after one year of occupation in putting almost all or a great part of the French economy under their domination.
This is the notable result of an article, published by Dr. Michel, director of the Economic Office, attached to the military government in France. It is an article of the "Berliner Boersen Zeitung", of April 10, 1942, which I submit under the number 207, from which I shall read one passage:
"For the competent service of the German military authority, it should be considered a result that their task consist of directing a directed economy. Otherwise it is expected to give instructions and to see to it that this be carried out."
THE PRESIDENT: On which page of your dossier are you reading?
M. GERTHOFER: Page 12 of the statement.
"Now that the distribution and utilization of merchandise has been directed and organized in France, it is also important in this country to reduce the consummation unnecessary for the war economy. The restrictions imposed upon the French population have been more rigorous than in the Reich for a long time as far as food supply, clothing, shoes, and heating is concerned."
I terminate here my quotation of the article of Dr. Michel.
After having shown you, Mr. President and gentlemen, in this introduction the economic looting of France, I should give you a few explanations of the methods utilized to arrive at such a result. This will be the purpose of the four following chapters:
One, German seizure of means of payment. Two, secret purchases or the black market. Three, acquisitions of legal appearance. And, finally, levies of services.
First, German seizure of purchasing power or means of payment. This seizure was the result, first, of the paying of occupation indemnities; second, the clearing organization, which only went in one direction; and, third, pure and simple seizure and the levies of gold, bank notes, foreign currency, or the imposition of collective fines.
Page 15, indemnity for the maintenance of occupation troops. I shall not go back to the juridical principles of the matter. I shall merely content myself with giving you a few explanatory remarks, in order that you may appreciate the pressure which was exerted over the leaders at that time to obtain the payment of considerable sums. principle of the maintenance of occupation troops is formulated in a simple way, without the sum and the method of collection being precisely stated. The Germans were going to profit from the situation to deform and amplify this obligation of France, which will no longer be only a pretext for the imposition of an exorbitant tribute.
this point, while the French brought out the fact that they should not be forced to pay an indemnity representing a cost of an army strictly necessary for the occupation of the territory. thesis, declaring that troops which were to fight against England would not be imputed to the expense of France. This fact is found in an extract of the Armistice Commission, which I submit under the number 208. since in the course of a subsequent meeting, July 16, 1940, without expressly going back on his word, he declared in this respect that he could not finish any reply; that this question would no longer be discussed; and that, in short, everything necessary would be done to facilitate for the French Government the establishment of its budget. Wiesbaden, submitted a memorandum to General. Huntzinger, president of the French delegation, in which he stated that considering the impossibility of evaluating the sum of occupation expenses in exact fashion, the French government would have to pay until subsequent directive accounts of at least 20 million Reichsmarks a day, on the basis of the rate of 1 Mark for 20 French francs, that is to say, 400 million French francs a day, accounts in which the expenses of the billeting of the troops was not provided for, which might be reimbursed. This is found in Document 210, which I submit to the Tribunal and which bears the signature of Hemmen. emphasized that the amount of the daily payment did not permit one to believe that it had been fixed in consideration of normal strength of an occupation army and the normal cost of the maintenance of this army; that, moreover, the forces corresponding to the notified figure would be beyond this proportion, out of proportion to any military precedent and the necessity for the moment might reasonably lead one to foresee. Government was ready to pay these accounts, but refused in a categorical fashion to discuss either the sum of the account or the distinction between occupation troops and operation troops.
This is found in Document 212, which I submit to the Tribunal. 15th of August and put it out, and I will cite the passage:
"That to make France pay the expenses of the maintenance of operation troops is a requirement which is incontestably beyond the spirit and the provisions of the Armistice Convention.
"That the expenses that were requested are converted into francs at a rate which notably surpasses the respective purchasing power of the Mark and of the franc; when the purchases of the German army in France are a function of the control of life in this country and they will be, moreover, as the German Government admits, replaced in part by deliveries in kind."
The memorandum is terminated as follows:
"Under these conditions the overwhelming contribution requested from the French government appears arbitrary. It surpasses in a considerable proportion that which it might legitimately expect and hope to be able to request.
"The French Government, always eager to execute faithfully the clauses of the Armistice Convention, can then only appeal to the Reich Government in the hope that it will take account of the arguments which have been expressed above."
THE PRESIDENT: The court will adjourn now, (Whereupon at 1245 hours the hearing of the Tribunal adjourned, to reconvene at 1400 hours.)
M. GERTHOFER: This morning I had the honor of presenting to the Tribunal the fact that the Germans demanded of France an indemnity of 400 million francs a day for the maintenance of their army of occupation. I had indicated that the French leaders of the time, without failing to recognize the principle of their obligation, protested against the sum demanded. France, as in the other occupied countries, for that matter, bills of the Reichskreditkasse and requisition vouchers over which the issuing institute had no control which had currency only in France, This issuance represented a danger, for the cir culation of this currency was capable of being increased at the mere will of the occupant. At the same time, by a decree of 17 May 1940, published in No. 7-Bis, which will appear under No. 214, the occupying power fixed the rate of the Reichsmark at 20 French francs per mark, whereas the real parity was approximately one mark for 10 French francs. scope of the circulation of the Reichskreditkasse notes and of the scope of German purchases, as well as over the rate of exchange of the mark, took the matter up with the German delegation. The German delegation advised the French delegation, on 14 august 1940, that it refused to withdraw these notes from circulation in France. This is to be found in a letter of 14 August, which I Submit under No. 115. of pressure upon the French Government of the time to lead it to yield to its exactions from the point of view of the sums of the occupation indemnity, as well as from that of the pegged rate of the mark and the clearing agreements, which will be the subject of a later chapter, General Huntziger, president of the French delegation, addressed several dramatic appeals to the German delegation in which he asked that France be not hurled over the precipice, as witness a teletype report addressed by Hemmen on 18 August 1940 to his Minister of Foreign Affairs, a report discovered by the Army of the United States, bearing No. 1741-PS 5, which I submit to the Tribunal under the number 207.
Here is the chief passage of this teletype reports "These considerable payments would enable Germany to purchase the whole of France, including its foreign interests and investments, which would mean the ruin of France."
French delegation in a position to make partial payments, specifying that no distinction would be made as concerns the German troops in France -that the strengthening of the German occupation would have to be determined by the necessities of the conduct of the war. In addition, the fixing of the rate of the mark would be inoperative as concerns the launching of the payments, since these would constitute only payments on account (note of the 20th of August of the German Government under No. 217). interview with Hemmen, attempted vainly for the last time to obtain a reduction in the German demands. According to the minutes of this interview, Germany was already considering a narrow economic collaboration between herself and France through the creation of a Kommissar of Control of Exchange and of foreign trade, while at the same time Hemmen pledged elimination of the line of demarcation between the two zones. tion indemnity. In a note of 26 August 1940 the French Government indicated that it considered itself obliged to yield to constraint and protested against the German demands. This note ended with the following passage:
"The French nation fears neither work nor suffering, but it must be allowed to live. This is why the French Government would be unable in the future to continue along the road to which it is being committed if by experience the extent of the demands of the government of the Reich should, should itself to be incompatible with this right to live."
This is submitted under No. 219. The Germans had the unquestionable intention of utilizing the sums demanded as occupation indemnity, not only for the maintenance, the equipment, and the armament of their occupation troops, but also to other ends, which are brought out in particular in a teletype from the Supreme Command of the Army, dated 2 October 1940, discovered by the United States Army, and which I file under No. 220.
There is a passage from this teletype message which I shall read to the Tribunal:
"To the extent to which the amounts paid and marked in francs are not utilized by the troops in France, the Supreme Command of the army reserves for itself the right to dispose later of the currency. In particular, the placing of currency with other services not belonging to the army requires the authorization of the Supreme Command of the army, in order that it may assure itself in an absolute manner, first, that the total needs of the army shall be covered, in French currency, and that thereafter the remainder shall remain at the disposal of the supreme command of the army for important ends of the Four-Year Plan. which I submit under No. 221, I read the following:
"It is very clear that there is no agreement in view with the French as to what must be understood by costs of maintenance of occupation troops in France. If within the limits of the discussion we are in agreement on the fact that at the present moment we must, for practical reasons, leave out all discussion, without any limitation, With the French, on the other hand, there must remain no doubt as to the fact that we have the right to interpret the term 'maintain' in the broadest possible sense."
Further on in the same teletype there is the following:
"In any case, the conclusion is that the concessions demanded by the French on the question of specifying the amount of occupation costs and of the utilization of the francs thus delivered must be rejected."
And then the following paragraph:
"The utilization of sums paid in francs as concerns the utilization of the francs paid, and the fact that their use does not correspond to the costs really involved in the maintenance of occupation troops in France, is a question that must not be discussed with the French officers." tion indemnity and also a modification in the rate of the mark, but the Germans refused all discussion.
At the beginning of the year 1941 negotiations were resumed, page 42.
Before the intransigence of the Germans, the French suspended payments in the month of May, 1941. Then, on the insistence of the occupants, they resumed it, but paid only 300 million francs a day. This is found in document filed No. 222. territory, Germany demanded that the daily figure of 300 million francs be raised to 500 million a day. The sums paid for the occupation troops amount to a total of 631 billion, 866 million francs, or on the imposed rate, 31 billion, 593 million, 300 thousand marks. This amount can be gathered, not only from the information given by the French administrations but also can be verified by German documents, in particular by the report of Hemen. designated as President of the German economic delegation of the Armistice Commission, and he was acting, in fact, under the direct orders of his Minister, von Ribbentrop, as a veritable dictator as concerns economic questions. spoken. While maintaining his functions as chief of the economic delegation of the Armistice Commission of Weisbaden, the same Hemen was to be nominated by a decision of Hitler, under date of 19 December 1942, as a delegate of the Government of the Reich for economic questions, attached to the French Government. This is verified in document filed under No. 223.
Hemen periodically sent secret economic reports to his minister. These documents were discovered by the Army of the United States and they are of a fundamental importance in this part of the trial, since, as you will see, they contain Germany's admission of economic pillaging. These voluminous reports are submitted under Nos. 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, and 229 of the French documentation. It is not possible for me, given their importance, to read them in their entirety to the Tribunal. I shall content myself with giving a few brief extracts therefrom in the course of my presentation. To show their importance, here is the translation of the last volume of the Hemen reports.
26, Hemen recognizes that France has paid a total by way of indemnity for the maintenance of occupation troops of 31 billion, 593 million, 300 thousand marks.
THE PRESIDENT: These documents are in German, are they not?
M. GERTHOFER: I have only been able to have the last report translated into French, because of their length it has not been possible for me to have the translation made, but it is in the last volume, which is translated into French. It is out of this volume that I will make certain very brief quotations by way of proof.
THE PRESIDENT: Then are you confining yourself to the last document, and to certain passages in the last document.
M. GERTHOFER: I'll limit myself solely as to these in my quotations.
THE PRESIDENT: As these are not documents which we can take judicial notice of, only the parts which you read will be regarded as part of the record, and be treated as in evidence.
M. GERTHOFER: Yes. This enormous sum imposed was much greater than what Germany was entitled to demand inspite of the most extraordinary expenses which the Germans may have made in France during the first two years. They were not able to use a sum greater than half of that for which they have asked credit. This is brought out in the Hemmen report, where on page 27, under heading of Indemnity - occupational indemnity, and the German expenses in billion marks corresponding to these expenses. I submit this to the Tribunal, which constitutes a proof which I had used.
1940, French payment in billions, four-thousand. German expenses in billions marks, one-thousand five-hundred sixty-nine. German expenses five-thousand two hundred and five. and seventy-five. German expenses in billions of marks, eight-thousand twohundred and seventy-one. ninety-eight point three. German outlays in billions of marks, nine-thousand five-hundred and twenty-four. forty-five. German outlays, six-thousand seven-hundred forty-eight. ninety-three million three-hundred thousand, and, German expenses thirty-one billions three-hundred seventeen million marks.