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.
admission of the exhorbitance of the indemnity for the maintenance of occupational troops, since Germany was able to utilize the credit put at its disposal, and was unable to utilize this credit, especially as most of these served to finance expenses relative to armament, operational troops, and feeding of Germany, which is shown by document EX 232, which I submit under No. 230 of the French Documentation. maximum sum of the indemnity which might have been exacted amounted to seventyfour billion five-hundred thirty-one million eight-hundred thousand francs; taking as a basis the medium daily price of upkeep per troop unit in the course of the entire Allied occupation of the Rhineland in 1919, mainly the sum of seventeen francs increased to twenty-one francs, taking into account the billeting, which was at that time furnished by the German Government, and according to the report of the average indices of living cost of 3.14, the sum of 21 francs should correspond to 66 francs, taking it at the 1939 value of standard; and, applying the co-efficient of depreciation of the franc during the occupation, that is 2.10 per cent, or a daily average price at 139 francs per day, granting that the real expense of the occupational army, probably speaking, were half of those expenses according to Hemmen's accounts, that is to say, twenty-seven billion thirty-two million two-hundred seventynine thousand one-hundred twenty marks. This sum is still lower with seventyfour billion five-hundred million proposed by the Economic Analysis Institute; from this accepting the most favorable solution of the accused which would be estimated, the indemnity imposed without justification amounted to sixhundred thirty-one billions eight-hundred sixty-six millions, less seventyfour billions five-hundred fifty-one millions eight-hundred thousand, or, five-hundred fifty-seven billions three-hundred thirty-four millions fourhundred and twenty thousand francs. Hemmen writes, "during the four years which have passed since conclusion of the Armistice, there has been paid an occupational cost and parity costs, thirty-four billions Reichmarks, or six-hundred eighty million francs. That France at best contributed forty per cent approximately of the total cost of occupations, and war contributions raised in all the occupied and Allied countries.
Per Head this represents a charge per cost of eight-hundred thirty Reichmarks, or sixteen-thousand six-hundred Francs. of Clearing. The Tribunal acquainted with the next chapter, the function of Clearing device, we shall not revert to this. I shall indicate under what condition the French Government at the time was ready to fight agreements which were imposed upon it. of occupational troops, discussions were entered into relative to the Clearing Agreement. would shortly submit a project. On 8 August 1940, Hemmen submitted to the French Delegation a regulation project of the francs -- a German regulation project of payment by compensation. This project, which I submit under No.231 of the French documentation, shows drastic rules, which could not indeed be freely accepted. out any equivalent in financial transfer from Germany to France. In the second place, it fixed the rate of conversation of twenty francs for one Reich Mark by a unilateral, and clearly an arbitrary decision, whereas the rate on the Berlin Exchange was approximately 17.65, reparity of 2.35 limit taken, and for their respective purchasing power the two marks was approximately ten francs for one mark.
I shall pass on: The French Delegation of the Armistice Commission submitted unsuccessfully on 20 August 1940, a counter project, and attempted to obtain a modification of the most unfavorable clauses. I submit this project under No. 232 of the French documentation. brought up in detail the question of the franc-reichmark parity, and it called attention to the fact of the prohibition of the financial transfer from Germany to France creating a profound inequality, whereas the transfer in the other direction were organized, and which for the French Government meant giving its agreement to real expropriation of French credit. Extract from this report is presented and submitted under No. 232.
argument as to the rank of the Franc-Reichmark parity. I submit this letter under No. 234. a modification of the most unfavorable clauses of the projected Clearing Agreement, but it encountered an absolute refusal. The German Delegation meant to impose under the appearance of a bilateral agreement a project established by it alone. I quote a passage from the report, from the statement of Monsieur Schone. I can not -- I am not - "I am unwilling to reopen discussion of this question. I can make no concession. I examined the FrancReichmark parity on 4 October 1940." Hemmen notified the French Delegation that the Reich at twenty francs used to be considered as the definity, and according to his own works this is no longer to be discussed. He added that when on the. French side there was a refusal, to conclude the payment, agreed that it should be a drastic contract imposed by Germany, it would advise the Fuehrer of this, and that all facilities for the line of demarcation would be suppressed. I submit this under No. 236. I submit the passage of this report. 1940, the French Delegation attempted once more to obtain a modification of the drastic condition which was imposed upon it, but the terms remained invariable.
THE PRESIDENT: Do these negotiations lead up to a conclusion, because if they do would it not be sufficient for your purposes to give us the conclusion without giving all the negotiations which lead up to it?
M. GERTHOFER: I am just finishing the statement with the last quotation, in which the Tribunal may see what was the pressure -- what was the threats made upon the French, who were then in contact with the Germans. I shall conclude the discussion of the Clearing with this quotation, if the Tribunal will allow it. My last quotation concerning this point, in the last meeting 10 October 1940, in the course of which Hemmen declared the following; I submit this under No. 237: "But you are attempting to make the rate of the Mark irregular, I beg you to warn your government we shall break off negotiations. I have in fact foreseen that you would be unable to prevent the prices from rising, but now you are systematically causing them to rise in export.
We shall find other means of achieving our aim, We shall go and take the Bauxite." This is the end of the quotation.
If the Tribunal will allow me a very brief commentary. At the Armistice Commission an attempt on the questions was made to negotiate, and at the time the French Delegate resisted, for Germany wanted immediately to take, or to seized the Bauxite resources, which were in the unoccupied zone. This last sentence is a threat. "If you do not accept our agreement -our Clearing Agreement, we shall go and help ourselves to the Bauxite." That is to say, "We shall occupy militarily the free zone." The socalled compensation agreement functioned as a socalled protective of Germany. The result of the agreement is the following. At the moment of liberation the total of the operation made from France to Germany amounts to twohundred twenty-one billions one-hundred fourteen million francs, while the total of the operation made in the other direction, from Germany to France, amounts to five-hundred millions francs. The difference, that is, onehundred seventy bi llions six-hundred forty millions francs, credit amount on the French account, representing the means of payment which Germany without justification obtained through the functioning of the Clearing Account, which it had imposed.
brief. These are the seizure of the current specie under collective fines. Aside the fact from the operations that were carried on, the Germans proceeded to make seizure on imposed collective fines in violation of the principles of International Law. Israelites, 17 December 1941. There is no pretexts. This is testified to by document submitted uner No. 239.
Secondly, the certain number of collective fines were imposed. The sum actually verified by service of the Finance Ministry amounted to four-hundred twelve millions six-hundred thirty-six thousand five-hundred fifty francs.
Thirdly: Germans proceeded to make immediate seizure of gold stock. Hemmen recognized in his last secret report, on pages 33 and 34, 72 of the French translation, that on the 24 September 1940, the Germans seized 257 kilogram gold in from the Bayonne, which represented that the 1939 rate of twelve million three-hundred thirty-six thousand francs. to thirty-five millions. Still following the secret report of Hemmen for the period between, or beginning from 1st January to the 30th of June 1942, Germany had seized in currency two-hundred twenty-one thousand seven-hundred thirty kilograms gold belonging to the Belgium National Bank, which represents at the 1939 rate the sum of nine billions five-hundred million francs. It is not possible for me to present in detail the conditions under which these Belgium gold was delivered to the Germans. This question by itself would cause me to go into explanation which would bely several questions. The fact, however, is recognized by Hemmen in his undeniable report. I shall simply indicate that from the month of September 1940 -- I follow up, the month of September 1940 in violation of the International Law Hemmen had adopted the delivery of this gold. It had been confided after the month of May 1940, by the Belgium National Bank to the Bank of France. These facts are, for a matter of fact, a part of the grief, which relates to ex-minister of the Government of Vichy put before the High Court of Justice in Paris. The result from this procedure we know were frequent discussions that took place by the Armistice Commission, and an accord was concluded 29 October 1940, but was not carried out by reason of the difficulty raised by the French and Belgians.
the pressure of the German Occupied Force became stronger and stronger. Laval who was then determined to pay at any costs the conversion, goes to Berlin where he was anxious for the wholesale liberation of prisoners, and the reduction of the occupational costs, as well as the elimination of the line of demarcation, yielded to the German demands. Thus, on 11 December there was delivered to the Reichbank, and there was requisitioned an order on the Four-Year Plan. The document relative to this question is submitted under No. 240. French Republic submitted to the National Bank of Belgium, an equal quantity of gold equal to that which the Belgium Bank bad confided to the Bank of France in the month of May 1940. Germany was unable to obtain the gold resources of France since these had been prior put in safekeeping in time. Still, according to the secret report of Hemmen, page 29, and page 47 of the French translation, at the moment of retreat the Germans seized without any right in the French -- the Bank of France of Nancy, the sum of six billions eight-hundred twenty-seven millions. seized great quantities of gold. seized great quantities of gold which they caused to be brought by private citizens. I cannot set a figure to this. I simply the question for the record. France, we shall reach--taking still the solution most favorable to the defendants and taking the maximum representing the cost of maintaining occupation troops--a minimum total of 745,833,312 frans, in round figures 750,000,000 francs. I shall skip the details in my brief. I think that it's unnecessary to go into these in the session.
sums and, first of all, the black market organized by the occupying power. Here again I don't want to take advantage of your good nature. I have had the honor of presenting to you the mechanism of the black market in all the occupied countries. I have indicated how it arose, how the Germans utilized it, how, under the orders of the defendant Goering, it was localized and exploited, I do not wish to revert to this, and I shall pass over the whole part of my written expose which was devoted to the black market in France.
I come to page 69 of my written expose, chapter 3: Acquisitions of regular outward appearance. Under the pressure of the Germans, the Government of Vichy was forced to be willing to reserve for them a percentage of products of all kinds in exchange. The Germans undertook to furnish raw materials, the quantities of which were determined by themselves. But these raw materials, when they were delivered, which was not always the case, were for the most part absorbed by the industry which was forced to furnish than finished products. In fact, there was no compensation since the occupant recouperated in manufactured objects the deliveries of raw materials without in reality giving any equivalent. submitted under No. 107, the following example may be noted which I shall read to the Tribunal:
"An agreement permitted the purchase in the free zone of 5,000 trucks destined for the German G.B.K. against the Reich furnishing five tons of steel per vehicle or a total of 25,000 tons of steel destined to the French industry. In view of the habitual destination of products of our metallurgy at this period, this was obviously a fool's exchange. Indeed, if our information is exact, the compensations in steel were not even expected and they were partially employed for the defense of the Mediterranean coast, anti-tank rails, etc." of the levies in kind were the object of no regulation whatever, either because the Germans remained debtors in these transactions or that they considered without justification that these levies constituted war booty. In this regard the documents are lacking. However, the Army of the United States had discovered a secret report of one Kraney representing the R.O.G.E.S., an organ ization which was both charged with the bringing together of acquisitions in the black market and of war booty.
It appears from this report that in September, 1944, the R.O.G.E.S. had resold to Germany for 10,858,499 marks, or 217,169,980 francs, objects seized in the southern zone as war booty. I submit this document under No. 224. regulated or not regulated by her, France was literally despoiled. Enormous quantities of things of all kinds were removed by the occupants, according to information given by the French statistical services; provisional estimates of these levies have been made. These estimates do not include damage resulting from military operations but solely the German spoliations computed in cases of doubt at a minimum figure. They will be summarized in the eight following sections.
1. Seizures, levies of agricultural produce.
I submit under No. 245, a report of the Ministry of Agriculture on the statistical table established by the statistical commission, summarizing the official German levies which include neither individual purchases nor black market purchases which were both considerable. It is not possible for me to read to the Tribunal a table as long as this is. I shall limit myself to give a brief resume of this statistical table. Here are some of the chief agricultural produce which have been seized:
Cereals: 8,900,000 tons; in round figures, evaluation in thousands of francs: 22,000,000.
Meats: 900,000 tons; estimate: 29,000,000 francs.
Fish: 51,000 tons; estimate: 1,000,000 francs.
Wines; liquors: 13,000,000 hectolitres; estimate: 18,000,000 francs.
Colonial products: 47,000 tons.
Horses and mules: 690,000 heads.
Wood: 36,000,000 cubic meters.
I shall pass over the details. The Germans have regulated by clearing and by indemnity arrangements 133,700,000 francs. This has been subject to no regulation. To be sure of these estimates, these estimates do not include considerable damage caused to the reduction of forests in the area under cultivation. There is no mention, either, in the reduction in live-stock and damage caused by extensive cultivation. This is a brief summary of the percentage of official levies of agricultural produce in relation to the total of French production:
Wheat: 13% Oats:
75% Hay:
80% Meat:
21% Eggs:
60% Butter:
20% Preserved fish:
30% Champagne:
56% Wood for industrial uses:
50% Forest fuels:
50% Alcohol:
25% These percentages, I repeat, do not include quantities of produce which the Germans obtained either by individual purchases or on the black market. tions had a considerable scope and amounted for France to several hundred billions of francs. The quantities of agricultural produce thus taken from French consumers are incalculable. I shall simply indicate that aside from certain privileged persons. Wines, champagne, alcoholic beverages of all kinds, meat, butter and eggs were the object of a very considerable secret traffic to the benefit of the Germans and that the French population was almost entirely deprived of these products. levies of raw materials.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be a good time for us to adjourn for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken from 1526 to 1530 hours)
M. GERTHOFER; I will summarize briefly the content from the statistical procedure in the chart of which I shall not inflict the reading upon the Tribunal. I will lodge it under No. 246 and point out that the total sum of these supplies reaches the sum of 38,000,000,000; on page 77 I will make a summary of this chart and I consider it is not possible to read the summary because the figures are underneath. According to the information provided by the French authorities, the Germans paid that sum for occupation purposes through clearing a sum of 59,254,639,000 Francs. The difference then charged to the French Treasury was 19,506,109,000 Francs. The percentage of the German levies in their relation to the whole French production can be summarized in a chart which I have reproduced and I shall ask the Tribunal for permission to read it. Page 82.
"The percentage of levies of raw materials relating to French production, Coal 29% Electric power 22% Crude oil and motor fuel 80% Iron ore 74% and half finished.
51% Copper 75% Lead 43% Zinc 38% Tin 67% Nickel 64% Mercury 50% Platinum 76% Bauxite 40% Aluminum 75% Magnesium 100% Sulphur Carbonate 80% Industrial soap 67% Vegetable oil 40% Carbazol 100% Rubber 38% Paper and cardboard 16% Wool 59% Cotton 33% Flax 65% Leather 67% Cement 55% Lime 20% Acetone 51% materials seized officially by the occupying power; that these statistics must be qualified in two ways: