Thirty-Seventh Day:
Friday, January 18th, 1946
[Page 392]
Sauckel forces the inhabitants of the conquered countries to
participate in the war of Germany against their Fatherland.
It is not only a violation of International Law, it is a
crime against the rights of nations. I submit the decree to
the Tribunal as Exhibit RF 17, and I shall read it:
In order to mobilise the labour of the occupied
territories in the new organisation of the
Arbeitseinsatz within the European framework, one must
submit these forces to one central authority; it is
necessary to assure a maximum return as well as a useful
and rational distribution of this force, in order to
satisfy the labour needs of the Reich and of the
occupied territories. By virtue of the full powers which
are conferred upon me, I order:
(2) This ordinance extends to all the territories
occupied during the war by the Wehrmacht, if they are
under a German administration.
(3) The labour available in the occupied territories
must be utilised in the first place to fulfil the
primary war needs of Germany.
This labour must be utilised in the occupied territories
in the following order:
[Page 393]
Designated by Hitler and by the defendants Keitel and
Goering, in order to pursue, under the control of the
latter, the policy of recruitment of compulsory labour, the
defendant Sauckel has consequently carried out his task in
virtue of the responsibilities which he had assumed. I
request that the Tribunal bear this in mind.
I request the Tribunal, likewise, to note that the policy of
recruitment of foreign workers involves the responsibility
of all German Ministers responsible for the economic and
social life of the Reich. An interministerial office, or at
any rate, an interadministrative office, the Central
Planning Board for the Four Year Plan, has proceeded to
formulate the programme for the recruitment of foreign
workers.
All departments interested in the labour problem were
represented at the meetings of the Central Office. General
Milch presided at the meetings, in the name of the defendant
Goering.
The defendant Sauckel and the defendant Speer took part, in
person, and I shall submit to the Tribunal certain
statements made by them. The defendant Funk also took part;
he therefore knew of, and approved, the programme for the
deportation of workers. He even collaborated in its
formulation. As proof thereof I produce three documents
inculpating him.
The first is a letter of 9th February, 1944, in which Funk
is summoned to a meeting of the Central Planning Board. It
is Document 674, which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit
RF 19. I read:
In the Appendix I transmit to you some statistics on the
subject of the development of the utilisation of labour.
These statistics will serve as a basis for the
discussion at the meeting."
I now produce as Exhibit RF 21 the letter in which Funk
excuses himself to Marshal Milch because of his inability to
be present at the meeting.
Unfortunately the meetings of the Central Planning Board
have always been set for dates on which I am already
engaged by other important meetings. So it is to my
great regret that I shall be unable to be present on
Saturday at the meeting of the Central Planning Board,
inasmuch as I have to speak on that day in Vienna in the
course of a great demonstration in honour of the
Anniversary of the day of the Anschluss.
Secretary Hayler will likewise be in Vienna on Friday
and Saturday, where there will be an important South-
European Conference, in which foreign delegates will
participate and at which I must also speak.
Under these conditions I beg you to allow Ministerial
Director and
[Page 394]
M. HERZOG: This document, Mr. President, was given to me by
my American colleagues, who asked me to use it in the case
on compulsory labour, because they have not had time to use
it in their charge against Funk. It is presented to the
Tribunal to prove that Funk was following the meetings of
the Central Planning Board and that he had permanent
representatives there to represent him on all occasions who,
by their report, kept him in touch with the work of the
Central Planning Board. That is why we present to the
Tribunal this document on defendant Funk.
I shall continue to quote:
I wish here to thank the members of the French delegation
and of the foreign delegations who have come to my aid in
the preparation of my work, in particular, my colleague M.
Pierre Portal, a Lyons barrister.
The brief which I have the honour of presenting to the
Tribunal will be limited to the account of the recruiting of
foreign labour in occupied territories of Western Europe,
since the deportation of workers coming from Eastern Europe
will be dealt with by my Soviet colleagues.
Throughout the occupation the local field commanders imposed
requisitions of labour on the populations of the occupied
territories. Fortification works considered necessary for
the furtherance of military operations, and guard duties for
the security of the occupation troops were carried out by
the inhabitants of the occupied areas. The labour
requisitions affected not only isolated individuals but
entire groups.
In France, for instance, they affected, in turn, groups of
Indo-Chinese workers, workers from North Africa, foreign
workers, and Chantiers de Jeunesse (Youth workyards). I
produce in evidence an extract from the report on forced
labour and the deportation of workers drawn up by the
Institute of Statistics of the French Government. This
report bears the number 515 and I submit this to the
Tribunal as Exhibit RF 22. This document, because of its
size, has been taken out of the document book. I quote first
of all Page 17 of the French text and 17, likewise, of the
German translation.
I read the second paragraph before the end -
THE PRESIDENT: Is this it? [indicating].
M. HEROG: No, it is the document in the blue cover, on Page
17.
(a) Indo-Chinese Labour (M.O.I.): This formation of
colonial workers had been intended from the beginning of
the hostilities to satisfy the needs
[Page 395]
(c) Foreign labour: The law of 11th July, 1938,
concerning the organisation of the nation in time of war
provided for the cases of foreigners living in France,
and obliged them to render services; under-officers and
non-commissioned officers transformed into civilian
functionaries by the law of the 9th October, 1940, the
foreign labour was progressively subjected by the
Germans to direct forced labour."
What does Article 52 of the Appendix to the Fourth Hague
Convention say? It is worded as follows:
2. Services demanded by way of requisition must not
entail an obligation to take part in military operations
against the country of those rendering them. The
rendering of any service exacted in the interests of the
war economy of the occupying power, all guard duties or
exercise of military control are forbidden.
3. Services rendered in a given area must be in
proportion to its economic resources, the development of
which must not be hampered. It follows that any
requisitioning of labour is contrary to International
Law if it results in the impeding or prevention of the
normal utilisation of the riches of the occupied
country.
4. Finally, labour requisitions must, under the
provisions of the second paragraph of Article 52, be
carried out in the area of the locality under the
[Page 396]
This violation of international agreements is a flagrant
one; it called forth repeated protests from General Doyen,
delegate of the French authorities with the German Armistice
Commission. I ask the Tribunal to accept as evidence the
letter of General Doyen, 25th May, 1941. This letter
constitutes Document 283, and it is placed before the
Tribunal as Exhibit RF 23. I read:
On several occasions, and notably in my letters No.
14,263/A.E. and 14,887/A.E. of 26th February and 8th
March, I respectfully protested to you against the use
for which French labour has been employed within the
framework of the Todt organisation in the execution of
military work on the coast of Bretagne.
I have to-day the duty of calling your attention to
other cases in which the occupation authorities have had
recourse to the recruiting of French civilians to carry
out services of a strictly military character, cases
which are even more serious than those which I have
already called to your attention.
If, indeed, in the case of the workers engaged by the
Todt organisation, it could be argued that certain
workers among them accepted voluntarily an employment
for which they are being remunerated (although in
practice most often they were not given the possibility
of refusing this employment), this argument can by no
means be invoked when the prefects themselves are
obliged, at the expense of the departments and the
communities, to set up guard services at important
points, such as bridges, tunnels, works of art,
telephone lines, munitions depots, and areas surrounding
aviation fields.
The accompanying note furnishes some examples of the
guard services which have been imposed upon Frenchmen in
this way, services which before this were assumed by the
German Army and which normally fall to the latter, since
it is a question of participating in watches or of safe-
guarding the German Army against risks arising from the
state of war existing between Germany and Great
Britain." [
Previous |
Index |
Next ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
(Part 3 of 9)
"Ordinance No. 10 of the General Plenipotentiary for the
Employment of Labour regarding the Arbeitseinsatz in the
occupied territories under date of 22nd August, 1942.
A second document shows the willingness of the defendant
Sauckel to take the responsibility for the treatment of
foreign workers. It is an agreement concluded on 2nd June,
1943, with the Chief of the German Labour Front. I shall not
read this document to the Tribunal. The document has been
(1) By virtue of the decree of the Fuehrer, under date
of 21st March, 1942, relative to the General
Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labour and by
virtue of the ordinance of the Trustee for the Four Year
Plan, under date of 27th March, 1942, relative to the
application of this decree, I likewise have powers to
employ, when necessary, the labour of occupied
territories, as well as to take all the measures
necessary to increase its production. Those German
offices which dealt with Arbeitseinsatz and for the
policy of wages or my commissioners will, according to
my directives, carry out this employment of labour and
take all measures necessary to increase production.
(a) For the needs of the army, of the services of
occupation and of the civilian services.
(b) For the German armament needs.
(c) For the food and agriculture.
(d) For industrial needs other than those of
armament, in which Germany is interested.
(e) For industrial needs of the population of the
territory in question." "Sir: In the name of the Central Planning Board, I
invite you to a meeting concerning the question of the
utilisation of labour. It will take place on Wednesday,
the 16th February, 1944, at 10 o'clock, in a board-room
of the Secretaries of State at the Air Ministry,
Leipziger Strasse, in Berlin.
Funk was unable personally to attend the meeting, but he
arranged to be represented by Undersecretary of State
Hayler. He received the minutes of the meeting and, on 7th
March, 1944, he wrote to General Milch, in order to excuse
his frequent absences from the meetings of the Board. I
submit this document to the Tribunal. It is Document 675,
which I submit as Exhibit RF 20. It is the report of the
fifty-third meeting of the Planning Board. The Tribunal will
note on Page 2 of the French translation that Minister Funk
received a report of this meeting. He is mentioned on the
second line of the distribution list: Reich Minister Speer
first and on the second line Reich Minister Funk.
"Very honoured and very dear Field Marshal:
THE PRESIDENT: Does this document tell us anything more than
that the defendant Funk was unable to be present?
"Under these circumstances, I beg you to allow the Major-
General of Police, Brigadefuehrer of the S.S.,
Ohlendorf, who is the permanent deputy of State
Secretary Hayler, to attend as my representative. Herr
Ohlendorf will have Ministerial Director Koelsen as a
consultant for questions of consumer goods, and
Counsellor of State Janke for questions concerning
foreign trade."
The policy of the Central Planning Board for the Four Year
Plan pursued by the defendant Sauckel is shown by the mass
deportation of workers. The principle of this deportation is
a criminal one, but the manner of its execution was even
more criminal. I shall give the proof of this to the
Tribunal by submitting, in succession, the methods of
compulsory recruitment, its results and the conditions of
deportation.
"Paragraph 6: The Forced Labour Recruitment of
Constituted Groups: Finally, a last procedure adopted by
the Germans on a number of occasions during the whole
course of the occupations for direct forced labour, as
well as for indirect forced labour: the 'requisition' of
constituted groups already trained and disciplined and
consequently an excellent contribution.
I leave out the table on Page 16 and I read:
"(b) The North African work: Between 17th August and 6th
November, 1942, the home country received two
contingents of workers from North Africa; one was
composed of 5,560 Algerians, the other of 1,825
Moroccans. These workers were immediately obliged to do
direct forced labour which brought the number of North
African workers enrolled in the Todt organisation to
17,582.
I leave out the table and I read:
"(d) Youth workyards (Chantiers de Jeunesse): On 29th
January, 1943, the labour staff of the German Armistice
Commission in Paris announced that the Commander-in-
Chief 'West' was examining whether and in which way the
formations of French workers might be called upon to
perform tasks important for both countries. This
resulted in partial recruiting and was followed by
demands for young people from the workyards to supply
direct labour."
Similar requisitions took place in all the other territories
of Western Europe. These requisitions were illegal: they
were carried out by virtue of Article 52 of the Appendix to
the Fourth Hague Convention. In reality they systematically
violated the letter and the spirit of this text of
International Law.
"Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded
from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs
of the Army of Occupation. They shall be in proportion
to the resources of the country and be of such a nature
that the populations will not be obliged to take part in
operations against their own country. These requisitions
and services shall only be demanded on the authority of
the commander of the locality occupied."
Thus the terms in which Article 52 authorises the
requisition of services by an Army of Occupation are
expressly formulated. These terms are four in number:
1. The rendering of services can be demanded only for
the needs of the Army of Occupation. All requisitions
made for the general economic needs of the occupying
power are thus forbidden.
Labour requisitions exacted by German civilian and military
authorities in the occupied areas did not conform to the
spirit of Article 52. They were carried out to satisfy
either the needs of German economy or even the needs of
military strategy of the enemy forces. They deliberately
refused to acknowledge the need of ensuring facilities for a
reasonable utilisation of local resources; they finally took
the form of migrations of workers. The case of those workers
who were conscripted from all countries of Western Europe,
and formed an integral part of the Todt organisation to help
in building the system of fortifications known under the
name of the "Atlantic Wall," may be taken as a typical
example.
"Wiesbaden, 25th May, 1941. From the General de Corps
d'Armee Doyen, President of the French delegation at the
German Armistice Commission to Monsieur le General der
Artillerie Vogl, President of the German Armistice
Commission.