A note drawn up on 28 July, 1943, by Dr. Stothfaug, under the stamp of the Delegation of Employment Fuehrer.
It is the report of a discussion Sauckel had with the Fuehrer.
It is document 566-PS-41, which I bring forward to the Tribunal under the French document number 66.
I shall limit "Paragraph D. The transfer provided for the end of the year Fuehrer."
on the strength of Hitler's approval, attempted to realize his program by working on the French Government.
This document is a letter from Sauckel to Hitler.
It is dated 13 August, 1943, upon the Defendant's return from a trip to France, Belgium and Holland.
It is document 556-PS-43. I shall read it to the Tribunal. It "Weimar, August 13, 1943.
"My Fuehrer:
"I will allow myself to inform you of my return from France, Belgium and Holland, where I have made a trip.
In the course of its carrying out:
in France with the military commandant, the embassy of Germany, the French Government; in Belgium with the "The progran provides:
"1. The transfer to France of one million workers, men and industry in France.
This measure is to permit a new and important "2. The taking on of 500,000 French workers for Germany.
"3. In order to make futile any passive resistance of of labor services of the German Gau.
It is only in this manner potential and to obtain its full activity.
The French Government has accepted."
"4. A program was established in Belgium for the employment has been done in agreement with the military commandant in Belgium."
"A program has likewise been worked out for Holland, providing from the Dutch civil industries."
Such was Sauckel's program in 1943. His plan was partly for the Four Year Plan on March 1, 1944.
The Tribunal will remember that it concerns document R-124., which I read yesterday.
I shall
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of that?
M. HERZOG: Document number 30, second paragraph, first page.
"In autumn of last year the recruiting program, to the extent great extent.
I need not give the reasons in this circular. We has been smashed."
he had encountered in 1943. In 1944 he attempted to realize a the transfer of four million foreign workers to Germany.
This latter.
The report on this conference makes up document 1292-PS.
"The results of the conference:
"1. The Plenipotentiary for Employment of Labor shall procure at least four million new workers from occupied territories."
conference of the Central Office for the Four Year Plan. Yesterday explanation, under the document number 20.
I read today from page 2 "Conclusion of the 53rd session of the Office of the Central
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say document 20?
M. HERZOG: Yes, document 20.
"Campaign of labor recruiting in 1944.
"1. Among the German internal reserves one might, with an extraordinary" effort, mobilize approximately 500,000."
"2. Recruiting of Italian labor to the number of 1,500,000, "3. Recruiting of French labor in monthly quantities.
, to "4. Recruiting of labor in Belgium 250,000.
"5. Recruiting of labor in Low Countries 250,000."
an important contingent of workers. Since the 15th of January measures:
the adoption of the procedure called the combing of appropriate to deport.
They proceeded to claim them and to have the legislative plan of the actions led by Sauckel.
It extends No. 69, and I request that it take judicial note of it.
furnished by a report of the Defendant to Hitler. This report bears the date of 25 January, 1944.
It was, therefore, prepared during Sauckel action.
It constitutes document 556-PS-55. I present it before the Tribunal No. 70.
I shall read this document.
"25 January, 1944.
"My Fuehrer:
"The French Government, as well as Marshal Petain, have on the "The Marshal did not express himself in agreement on the subject "Inasmuch as this constitutes nevertheless a great progress, "The French Government likewise accepted my demand that might even include the death sentence.
I have not allowed a doubt "Your ever devoted and faithful, Fritz Sauckel."
reference. For a long time the French authorities expressed categorical opposition to the introduction of feminine labor.
The the French Government.
I have already read this letter to the Tribunal, No. 65.
I shall not revert to it, but I do wish to did not appease his demands.
His miscontent and his will to constitute 1289-PS.
I present them under French document "(1) The problem of women.
At the time of the promulgation After long hesitation the G.B.A. responsible for the work gave its "This agreement was granted under the reservation, however, that the provisions of contingents demanded were met.
In the contrary case the G.B.A. would reserve to itself the right of taking new measures.
Inasmuch as the contingents were far from order that it extend the service of obligatory labor to women."
as to utilize all of France's manpower. The French resistance execution of the Sauckel plan.
The Defendant, however, had planned of the landing of the allied armies.
I quote again document 1289-PS, "Measures for the utilization of labor in the case of invasion.
reserve. In view of the actual situation of labor in Germany, it "Orders for the Wehrmacht to assure the security in the carrying out of these measures are indispensable.
For an ordinance of the Fuehrer the following text is proposed."
deportation. However, he undertook its execution. The deportations territory.
Several hundred thousand French workers were at that same manner as in France.
The Defendants imposed upon the Norwegian by force.
I cite in this respect the preliminary report on the of Norway.
I submit it to the Tribunal, and I quote an excerpt from it that bears the number UK-19.
It is French document number 72, "The result of Sauckel's order in Norway has been the "Terboven and Quisling have openly admitted that the law had "In a speech of 2 February Terboven declared among other things attempt to oppose its execution."
use of a direct procedure. The compulsory labor service was organized by decrees of the occupying power.
In Belgium these are the Reich Commissar.
I remind the Tribunal of the fact that the principle of compulsory labor in Belgium.
It appeared in the Belgium Verordnungsblatt of 1942, page 845.
I submit it to the deportation of workers to Germany.
This deportation was ordered by Verordnungsblatt of 1942, page 1060.
I submitted it to the Tribunal "Q On 6 October, 1942, there appeared an ordinance which "A I was commander-in-chief for Northern France and Belgium.
"Q Does the witness recall having promulgated this ordinance?
"A I do not remember exactly the text of this ordinance because it was made following a long dispute with the labor deputy Sauckel.
"Q Did you have any trouble with Sauckel?
"A I was fundamentally opposed to the establishment of compulsory labor, and consented promulgating the ordinance only after receiving orders.
"Q Then this ordinance was not brought up on the initiative of von Falkenhausen himself?
"A On the contrary.
"Q Who gave instructions in such matters?
"A I suppose that at that time Sauckel was already in possession of the responsibility for manpower and that at that time he gave me all instructions on Hitler's orders." translation, the fourth paragraph:
"Q Since you were opposed to this idea of compulsory labor, didn't you react when you received these instructions?
"A There were unending battles between Sauckel and myself. In the end this contributed to a large extent to my resignation." tors in Belgium by the defendant Sauckel in order to impose on them his plan of recruitment by force is equally demonstrated by two documents which I have produced to the Tribunal. Under Number 67 the Tribunal will remember that it is the report addressed on the 13th of August 1943 by Sauckel to Hitler on his return from France, from Belgium and from Holland. the Netherlands. I request the Tribunal to retain the institution of forced enrollment in the occupied Netherland territories for the accusation of the defendant Seyss-Inquart just as well as for the accusation of Sauckel. of the Netherland workers. Whether they bear his signature of were issued at his order they established all the more the responsibility of the defendant who in his quality as Reich Kommissar derived his powers directly from the Fuehrer.
Netherlands by a decree of February 18, 1941, promulgated in the Dutch Verordnungsblatt of 1941 under Number 42. I have already produced this decree in the course of my explanation under Number 58, which I ask the Tribunal to kindly take under judicial notice. in the interior of the occupied countries, but, just as in Belgium, it was soon extended in order to permit the deportation of workers to Germany. The extension was put into realization by a decree of SeyssInquart of March 23, 1942, which appeared in Number 26 of the Verordnungsblatt, 1942. to add this to the brief. defendant Sauckel was to proceed to action. Sauckel utilized, in a way, all the human potential of the Netherlands. New measures were soon necessary, measures which Seyss-Inquart adopted. ordered the mobilization of all men from 18 to 35 years of age. I produce this decree as Document 75. which permitted his services to take all measures in the utilization of labor considered to be opportune. 77, has been submitted to the Tribunal as Document Number 77. a letter of 16 May 1943 from the representative of Sauckel in the Netherlands. This letter, which bears the Number 74, is placed before the Tribunal under Number 77. I shall read it.
THE PRESIDENT: 77 or 74?
MR. HERZOG: 77.
"In conformity with the census decree of 7 May, the classes 1920 to 1924 have been registed on filing cards. Aside from this work and in spite of its very great importance, 22,986 workers have been sent to the Reich. It has been possible to send them to the Reich without counting the war prisoners that have been transferred.
"During the month of June the figure that had not been completely reached in the month of May will be compensated. These classes include, according to the statistical service of the Kingdom of Holland, 80,000 persons, and the transferring of these classes to the Reich has already begun.
"446,493 persons have been transferred to the Reich up to June 1, 1943, and some of them have once more returned from there. The figures on the indexes appear as follows:
"Class 1921, 43,331. Class 1922, 45,354. Class 1923, 47,593. Class 1924, 45,232.
"As there have been up to 18 percent of escapes from this labor recruiting it is indispensable to begin immediately to transport workers to the Reich in entire classes. The Kommissar of the Reich has given his agreement to this action. The other services of economy, of armament, of agriculture, and of the Army, pressed by necessity, have given their agreement." pressure on the Netherlands. At that time - this was the time when tens of thousands of persons were arrested within two days in Rotterdam systematic roundups took place in all the larger cities of Holland, sometimes improvised, sometimes after proclamations made to the population to appear in certain given places. I submit to the Tribunal various proclamations of this kind. They form Document 1162-PS. They have already been presented to the Tribunal by Mr. Dodd. I shall not read them again.
I use them in support of my argument and submit thorn as Document 78.
These documents do not report isolated facts; they show a systematic policy which the accused persued up to May 5, 1945, when the capitulation of Germany brought the liberation of the Netherlands.
I still owe to the Tribunal a supplementary explanation. The accused did not limit themselves to introduce the service of forced labor into the occupied territories. I have said that they took criminal measures of coercion to assure the execution of the mobilization of foreign workers. I shall bring evidence of this. the forced enlisting of foreign workers cannot be disasociated from the procedures they applied to assure the so-called voluntary enlistment. The pressure was stronger, but it originated from the same spirit. The method was to deceive, and, if this proved unsuccessful, to coerce. The accused very soon realized that no kind of propaganda would succeed in justifying in the mind of the victims the forced labor. If they did have any doubts in this regard, those would have been dissipated by the reports of the occupation authorities. The latter were unanimous in their reports of the political troubles and difficulties which were provoked by this forced enlistment and on the resistance against which it ran. Therefore, the accused had to use force in order to assure the execution of the civilian mobilization which they had decreed. quote the witholding of the ration cards of the obstinates. The Tribunal will recall the Fuehrer's decree of 8 September 1942, which I submitted under No. 55, in which it was ordered that this measure should be executed. According to this order, food and clothing ration cards were not to be handed to persons incapable of proving that they were working, nor to those who refused to do obligatory work. Hitler's order was carried into effect in all occupied territories. In France, circulars enforced by the occupation authorities prohibited the renewing of food and clothing cards of the French people who had eluded the census of the law of 16 February, 1943.
In Belgium, the cancelling of ration certificates was regulated by an order of the Military Commander. It is the order of 5 March 1943 which was published in the Verordnungsblatt for Belgium and Northern France in 1943, and which I present under No. 79. General von Falkenhausen, the signatory of this order, admitted the seriousness of it in an interrogation, which I have submitted to the Tribunal under No. 15, and to which I return.
decree and that he had refused to grant an amnesty which General von Falkenhausen had proposed. I quote, page 4 of the French translation, fifth paragraph:
"Does the witness remember a decree of 5 March 1943, in the course of which those refusing to submit to forced labor had their ration card withdrawn?
"A. I do not remember. At the time when the ordinance was issued for men from 18 to 20 years old, the implementing orders were not given by myself but by my offices, and I am not conversant with the details regarding the application of penalties. I was not the executive head of the administration. I was above it.
"Q. But at that time you were informed of the means of pressure and manner of treatment which the authorities reserved the right to employ?
"A. I do not wish to deny my responsibility, especially as, after all, I was aware of many things. I remember in particular the regulation regarding ration cards, because I proposed on repeated occasions that an amnesty be declared for persons who were obliged to live without legal status and who were without a ration card.
"Q. To whom was this proposal made?
"A. To Sauckel, with the consent of the President, Revert.
"Q. What was the position taken by Sauckel at that time?
"A. He refused to permit this amnesty." The end of the quotation. bear the stamp of the employment office was prohibited. than the cancellation of ration cards. I want to speak of the persecutions which were directed against the families of those who were rebellious to compulsory labot. I say this method is criminal, because it is based on a conception of family responsibility which is contrary to the fundamental principles of the penal code of all civilized nations. It was, nevertheless, sanctioned in several legislative texts ordered or enforced by the National Socialists.
before the Tribunal and ask it to take judicial notice of it under No. 70. 1943, and particularly to paragraphs 8 and 9. I place this decree before the Tribunal under No. 80, and ask it to take judicial notice thereof. employers and against the officials of the employment offices in France. In France, the action was initiated by two laws of 1 February 1944. I emphasize that these laws were issued on the same day as the law on compulsory labor, and I assert that they were enforced at the same time as this latter. In support of my statement, I have the confirmation of the Defendant Sauckel, in his letter of 25 January 1944, which I read a while ago to the Tribunal under No. 60 -- law of February 1944, No. 82, and I ask the Tribunal to accept this document and to take judicial notice of it.
There were other pressure measures. One of these, for instance, was the closing of the faculties and schools to defaulting students. It was decreed in Belgium on 28 June, 1943; in France, on 15 July 1943. In Holland the students were victims of a systematic deportation from February on. I quote in this connection a letter of May 4, 1943, from the Supreme Chief of the SS, the Police Chief. This is Document 665, which I produce under No. 83 in the French documentation.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this is a good time to break off.
(A recess was taken from 1115 to 1130 hours.)
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, Your Honors. At the resumption of the session I shall read to the Tribunal the letter of the 4th of May 1943, which proves the action which was taking place in Holland considering the deportation of Hollanders. I read Document 83 from my document book.
"Purpose: Action Against Students.
"The action will be executed beginning on Thursday morning. It is now too late today to have this published. The proclamation of the Supreme Chief of the SS and of the Police will be given by radio beginning tomorrow morning at seven o'clock; and moreover, in the morning and in the evening in tomorrow's press. Moreover, we will carry out the directive expressed in the telegram yesterday."
Following is the text of the proclamation:
"Ordinance on the census of students." numeral.
"All persons of masculine sex who have attended during the years 1942-43 a Dutch high school and have not yet finished their studies should present themselves between ten o'clock and fifteen hours to the commander of the sector of the SS and the Security Police competent for the locality in which they reside with the view of employing them for forced labor."
"One. He who violates this ordinance or tries to avoid it, and particularly who does not consider himself to be obligated by this order, and whether intentionally or through neglect makes false declarations or false statements will be pubished through imprisonment or through five without limitation of either one of these two penalties considering the other decrees, unless, the other decrees provide for a greater penalty. Those who exercise the paternal authority over the students are co-responsible for the obligatory appearance of the students. They are threatened with the same penalties as the students themselves. This ordinance enters into force with the proclamation. Signed, Supreme Chief of the SS and Chief of the Police connected with the Reich Commissar for the Occupied. Territories." occupied territories. insure the arrest of workers whom they had destined for deportation to Germany.
This police intervention had been required by the Defendant Sauckel. As evidence I submit two documents. The first is of the minutes of a conference which took place on January 4, 1944, at the headquarters of the Fuehrer. I submit this document under number 68. I have already submitted this document under the number 68, and I read, French translation, page two, next to last paragraph; German original page four, in the middle of the page. Document 68:
"The Plenipotentiary for the Distriubtion of Labor, Sauckel, declared that he would try with his fanatical determination to obtain workers. Up to now he had always kept those promises as far as the number of workers to be furnished. With the best will in the world, nevertheless, it was impossible for him to make a definite promise for 1944. The success will depend in the first place on the number of German police which can be put at his disposal. This project can not be carried out without German police forces." Central Office for the Four Years Plan on March 1, 1944, Document No. 30, to which I several times drew the attention of the Tribunal. The passage which I am now about to read has not yet been commented to the Tribunal. Page three of the French text, fifteenth line from the bottom.
"The term 'protective custody' of a factory in France means simply that the factory is protected against Sauckel. We pity the French, and the French can not be blamed. In their eyes the Germans are not in agreement either with their opinions or with their actions. It is not up to me to decide up to what point the creation of protective enterprise is useful and necessary. I can only state that their creation affected the work which is expected of me. On the other hand, I have reason to hope I will beable to succeed. First, in utilizing my former group of agents and those responsible for labor employment; afterwards, by trusting to the measures which I have been fortunate enought to obtain from the French government.
"In the course of a discussion which lasted five or six hours I obtained from Mr. Laval the concession that officials would be threatened with penalty of death who tried to sabotage the enrollment of workers and certain other measures. Believe me, this was very difficult. A severe struggle was necessary to succeed, but I succeeded. And now in France the Germans must truly take severe measures in the event that the French Government does not do so. Do not be offended if I and my assistants in fact have sometimes seemed to do things in France that I am forced to ask, is there no longer any respect in France for the German Lieutenant and his ten men?
For months everything that I said finds this reply, what do you mean, Your Honor, the Gauleiter? Do you know that we have no means of execution at our disposal? We cannot act in France. They gave me this reply I do not know how many times. How then can I regulate the enrollment of labor so far as France is concerned? There is only one solution. The German Authorities must cooperate with each other if the French despite all their promises, do not act. We then, we Germans, we must make an example of one case, and after that law hang, if that is necessary, the prefect or the mayor if he does'nt submit to the rules. Otherwise there will not be one Frenchman sent to Germany." assured by their systematic arrest. It was in accordance with the logic of the National Socialist system that the recruiting policy of foreign workers be carried out through terroristic police methods. and by the workers of the occupied territories against the activities, both insidous and violent, of the Defendant caused the failure of the plan for the recruitment of foreign workers. The Defendant Sauckel had the greatest difficulty in carrying out the program which he had accepted by Hitler and the Defendant's Goering, Speer, and Funk. huge deportations of foreign workers. The number of workers coming from the occupied territories and from the Western Europe who had been deported into Germany is very high. More numerous still were the workers compelled to work on the spot in factories and workyards under the control of the occupational authorities. to be checked. These statistics are fragmentary. They are extracts from reports which the governments of the occupied countries drew up after their liberation and from reports sent during the war by the Arbeitseinsatz office to the authorities to which it was subordinate.
These statistics of Allied origin are incomplete. The records from which they are drawn up have been partly destroyed.
On the other hand, the governments of the occupied territories are only in possesion of second hand information whenever the requistion of workers was made directly by the occupation authorities. As for the German statistics, they are also incomplete since the Allied authorities have not yet discovered all the enemy records. the extent of the deportations effected by Germany. law commited by the Defendant's did not remain in the state of tentative endeavours characterised by the first stages of execution and reprehensible in themselves. They brought about the social disorder which, from the standpoint of penal legislation, determines the seriousness of the offense. official reports of the French Government. The French government's record comes from the Institute of Economic Market Analysis.