He has only to see to it that the labor forces put at his disposal to carry out his tacks are being employed in the right place and in the right manner. This cannot be countered with the argument that the defendant Sauckel merely considered himself as the deputy of the defendant Speer. This would not present a just picture of the distribution of tasks between the two codefendants as carried out by the State direction. The fact cannot be even looked that of all the sectors which put in their requisitions to the defen dant Sauckel, the ones presented by the defendant Speer were the most important for the conduct of the war and, therefore, had priority over the others.
This does not mean, however, that is was Sauckel's duty to satisfy absolutely all the demands of the sector represented by Speer before all the others. He did not do this, as is evident from the collective evidence. particularly the testimonies of the witnesses Schieber -- Document Book II p. 114, and Kehrl -- document Book I p. 106, and could not even do this, as the demands of the other sectors, which were all designated as "Bedarfstraeg* (users), were very often equally urgent, and the labor potential at hand was not sufficient to fill all the demands equally. Had Sauckel not been more than a "deputy of Speer", a tool who had only to carry out the instructions of Speer, the profound differences between the two could never have come into existence. defendant Sauckel as Plenipotentiary for Lob or was made possible through the intervention of the defendant Speer, and that this gave reason to believe to Sauckel had been more or less a tool of the defendant Speer or depended on him to a large extent. This assumption does not correspond with the facts. Speer discovered that the procurement of labor for the plants which had up to them been carried out by the Ministry of Labor could not fill the demand made on them. This activity represented, within the frame-work of the find try of Labor, only a small fraction of its overall functions. the Ministry of Labor could not overcome sufficiently the tendencies of the Gauleiters in their various districts, because every Gauleiter had the am bition to prevent the transfer of workers from his Gau to another to the be of his ability The department of the Ministry of Labor, with its pure redtape, did not appear to be capable of this task, and the suggestion was in to the State direction to charge a Gauleiter with this Assign.
The demand connected with this suggestion of Speer, namely to put the Gauleiter charged with the procurement of labor under him was not granted by the State direction, and this because of other existing competencies. The person proposed by Speer was also turned down, and the defendant Sauckel was appointed instead. Therefore, only organizational reasons were involved in Speer's endeavors to create a Plenipotentiary of Labor, the purpose of which consisted in overcoming the above-mentioned opposition directed against the activity of the Labor Procure it Office of the Ministry of Labor. To draw from the so facts the conclusion that the defendant Speer was responsible for all the measures ordered be the defendant Sauckel would be erroneous. of the Centra Planning Board, in the course of which the problem of the Procurement of Labor was discussed, cannot be used to support the claim of the Prosecution. The prosecution attempts to prove, as a result of the session of Central Planning Beard, that the defendant Speer had played a leading part in the procurement of labor from foreign countries. To counter this following must be stated : The Prosecution has only submitted the texts of the minutes of the Central Planning Board; that is the minutes which were taken down *---* the course of the session, but not the decisions which were made a the bases of this session, These, however are decisive.
However, all the defendant Speer's reports include also resolutions of the Central Planning Board and contain notes laced at the disposal of the Allied authorities, it would have been easy for the Prosecution to present such conclusion, from which a decisive cooperation of the defendant in the procurement of labour could be deduced. Such conclusions do not exist, how ver, and cannot therefore be drawn from the fact that at the conferences of the Central Planning Board questions of labour mobilization were mentioned which the Central Planning Board had taken over in its sphere of activity.
is given in Speer Exhibit No. 7 under No. 42. In it the labour sphere of the Central Planning Board is firmly outlined. The procurement and distribution of labour should not be included in the sphere of competence of the Central planning Board as the new office of the Plenipotentiary of lab was created just for that purpose. It follows also from the testimony that when the co-defendant Sauckel discussed fully the question of policy of * commitment before the Central Planning Board, he underlined sharply his independence of the Central Planning Board and laid weight thereon that is decisions were accountable only to the Fuehrer in the last instance. For this I refer to the testimonies the witness Kehrl and the witness Schieb Speer Exh. No. 36 an 37. Nothing contradicts the fact that attempts were made in the Central Planning Board to influence the sphere of activity of the General Plenipotentiary for Labour. These attempts, however, did not lead to any results. for the transportation of labour from the occupied territories to the Reich cannot be deduced from his activity within the framework of the Central Planning, Board. portion of the workmen made available to him by Sauckel were brought to Germany against their will and that he used these Workmen in the industry under his supervision, this conclusion encounters legal criticism. of International Law, such crime would be terminated with the removal of labor to the Reich. The fact that the persons removed into Reich territory were assigned for work establishes, legally speaking, a new act of facts to which thee Prosecution applies the concept of "slave labor".
In this connection the following should be considered : By reason of the Reich Compensation Law and the enactment decree there existed for every German an obligation to make his services available for war purposes. Through the Labor Office as highest instance, the State leadership could dispose of the labor of every State national for any purpose it deemed appropriate, and it did so.
Foreign workers who were removed to Germany became likewise subject to this regulation. There is no attempt made on our part to deny that no prevision is found in the Hague Convention on Land warfare itself which would support labor compulsion in force for German nationals to be extended to inhabitants of the occupied territories. Since the Hague Land Warfare Convention reflect the influence of a different concept of warfare, it could not yet take conditions into consideration which were brought on by economic warfare. Yet it is not possible to answer affirmatively the question whether the Hague Land Warfare Convention conclusively regulates the summariness of all powers incumbent upon on occupation authority. An affirmation is contradicted by the practice of all nations who participated in this war. But in this respect also the angle of the above-mentioned State emergency situation can be resorted to for a correct evaluation and appreciation of the case. It should be admitted that the Prosecution is right in that this extension of labor liability can be justified from that point of view only.
Assuming the Prosecution's contention of a lack of legal justification for the extension of labor liability to foreign nationals of occupied territories, there remains the need for checking the extent to which culpability could be claimed for the defendant Speer because of the employment of labor hold under such compulsion. That the defendant Speer although he was not responsible for this, still attempted to facilitate the living conditions of these workers and that he also helped to correct bad conditions -insofar as these come to attention- is shown by Exhibits 3, 4 and 5 of the Speer document book, pages 7,8,9, of the document book, be made to the testimony of the defendant himself, in direct examination as well as in cross-examination, when he described his activity in that field. defendant Speer during his cross-examination a series of documents, purportedly to prove the bad treatment of foreign workers by the firm of Krupp in Essen, himself stated that he does not held the defendant Speer responsible for such individual incidents, See page 11861 of the German transcript of Court proceedings.
The documents involved were the affidavit of Dr. Jaeger, document D-238, discussed by Dr. Servatius; a letter of the Locomotive Manufacturing Department of the firm of Krupp, dated Feburary 1942, just after the defendant Speer had taken office as Reich Minister. Conditions as described therein had called for Speer's intervention with Hitler in March 1942, Speer Exhibit No. 3, page 7 of the Document Book Speer. Another document also submitted, document D-321 describes conditions as they prevailed when Russian laborers came to Essen in 1941; in other words, before the defendant Speer took office.
Document D-258, USA Exhibit No. 896, which camp up during cross-examination was not produced as proof of charge against the defendant, as stated by Justice Jackson, see page 11872 of the German transcript of Court Proceedings. Further documents then submitted, all deal with incidents in the Krupp Works. all of them. These documents show that improper conditions of a general nature for which the firm of Krupp might beheld responsible resulted from the effects of air bombardment and demolition following quarters incidental thereto. But even if the incidents cited should have actually occurred with that firm -- which the defense is not in a position to verify -- these incidents would not supply adequate ground for the assumption that the conditions under which foriegn laborers worked in armament industries were uniformly the same. Picking out only on firm and examining it does not permit the drawing of conclusions as to a whole system.
But only findings covering the system as such would yield evidence. influence criminal evaluation of his actions in principle, but it would be of decisive import in establishing the measure of his participation. and prisoners of war was already in existence; it is not he who introduced it. Thus he should not be considered as the originator, which may likewise deserve to be taken into account for the establishment of judgment, since it did not seem possible to abrogate the practice after its establishment. The employment of foreign labor in German economy was not something unusual. In peace times also a great number of foreign laborers were employed in agriculture, in mining, in surface and in underground workings. had already been brought, to Germany to a considerable extent, even before the defendant Speer took office, and only a portion of them belonged to the sector under Speer's control. Sauckel and Speer, how assignment and distribution of workers into the establishments most recently under the control of the defendant Speer was handled will be described below. Acting in behalf of the Speer Ministry, Commissions and pools assigned to the individual establishments certain production tasks as part of the armament program. The factory then figured out the number of workers needed. This was reported to the Armament Command and at the same time also to the Labor Office there labor requirements of all works were recorded. The Armament Commands examined all requests for workers received from all works under their jurisdiction and passed then on to the Armament Inspection Offices. Labor requirements reported to the Labor offices were forwarded by them to the Gau Labor Offices. Armament Inspection Offices collected the requests and forwarded them to the Speer Ministry, Labor Mobilization Division. The Gau Labor Offices directed applications which they received to the General Commissioner for the Commitment of Labor. In this connection it is noteworthy that in 1942 the Speer Ministry controlled only construction work and Army armament. Navy and Air armament handled their requests for labor independently. In the spring of 1943 Navy armament was assigned to the Speer Ministry; from then on, Navy handled its labor requisitions by way of the Labor Commitment Division; in the fall of 1943 the rest of production was added while Aircraft armament continued to handle its requisitions independently through the General Commissioner for the Mobilization of Labor until August 1944.
Prosecution's assumption, according to which Speer is seen as the main beneficiary of Sauckel's mobilization of labor can be disproved. Incidentally, it is mentioned that alongside of the Speer Ministry there existed essential industries and agencies of equal importance, for instance the Wehrmacht Administration, the Transport System and so forth; this has also been confirmed by the testimony of witnesses. The General Commissioner for the Commitment of Labor distributed the labor at his disposal among the various essential Industries and agencies, assigned the required labor to the Gau Labor Offices who, in turn, referred them to the local labor offices where allotment of individual laborers to the individual establishments was handled, on the strength of applications which had undergone examination through the branches of the Armament Offices. This cumbersome type of procedure was possible through the introduction of the so-called "red-slip process" which was applied in the case of exceptionally urgent production assignments (Speer Exhibit No. 37, page 122 of Document Book). A certain number of red slips were made available monthly by the General Commissioner for the Commitment of Labor to the Armaments Ministry, for distribution by the latter to the individual industrial works under its supervision by way of the industries self-administration agencies. The individual factory then presented these red slips to the Labor Office, and these requests for workers covered by red slips were sited upon without regard for the requirements of other essential industries and agencies, and not until then could allotment of labor be made to other establishments. In all instances where normal requests for labor are involved, allotting was exclusively in the hands of labor authorities under direction of the defendant Sauckel, so that neither the individual factory nor the offices of the defendant Speer nor the latter himself had any influence on the distribution. The question whether local labor or foreign labor, or prisoners of was were used to satisfy requisitions was left for the Labor Authorities to decide (Document Book II, page 108, 109). the decree of 1 December 1942 (Document No. 4006-PS), issued jointly by Speer and Sauckel.
The Prosecution contends that this document and the decree of 22 June 1944, simultaneously submitted, furnish a basis for appraisal of the power ratio between Speer and Sauckel. Therefore, some comment on this is appropriate. General Commissioner for the Commitment of Labor was authorized to examine requests for labor, to the extent to which they came from the armaments industry. If then a case arose that a factory asked for the additional laborers required to carry out the production job assigned to it, the General Commissioner for the Commitment of Labor reserved to himself the right of examination as to its necessity. The intention was to make the individual factory exert the greatest possible economy in the use of labor within its own works. Another purpose of these commissions was to establish the extent to which an establishment might be in a position to spare of its own labor for work in other plants, without impairing the task assigned to it. It was the task of the Armaments Ministry and of the agencies under its authority to determine the priority range in the consideration of requests for labor received by establishments under its jurisdiction. They also had to determine which of the plants was in a position to make workers available to other plants whenever both made the same product for the same Wehrmacht requirements. As an example, supposing the supply program to be modified for a plant manufacturing vehicle supplying articles, it was left to the Armaments Commands to decide whether the labor power thus set free should be assigned to another factory in the same line of production. In general, the allotment of labor remained in the hands of the General. Commissiner for the Commitment of Labor. The agencies of Speer's Ministry were merely concerned. with directing the labor already available to these branches of industry as assigned to these establishments through the General Commissioner for the Commitment of Labor. Plenipotentiary General for Labor, and furthermore the Plenipotentiary-General for Labor participated authoritatively in the examination of the question as to what extent plants could release labor in order to make it available to others.
Combing-out action. The authority of the Plenipotentiary General for Labor was therefore not limited to any extent through this mutual agreement between him and the Reich Minister for Armament and War Production. His task was merely now as before to procure labor for the plants, he was even given a considerable amount of authority in labor questions, to look over the armament plants subordinated to the defendant Speer and to examine if and to what extent these plants could make labor available for other plants. The decree of 22 June 1944 ordered that labor which was already available was to be used in accordance with directives of the Central Authorities or according to the orders of the Chairman of the Armament Commission. It must also be noted in this respect that it was not a matter of using new labor unskilled in armament work which, now as before, was procured through the Plenipotentiary General for Labor, but solely so-called transfer-actions from one armament plant to the other. The Sauckel Agencies therefore could no longer, in accordance with this decree, check the demands for labor on the part of the plants subordinated to the Speer Ministry, if the Chairman of the Armament Commission had recognized these demands This decree did not bring any change in the basic distribution of authority, according to which the plenipotentiary-General for Labor had to procure the required labor and handled the whole allocation of labor. If the Agencies of the Plenipotentiary-General allocate labor on a demand for labor which had already been checked, then it was left to their decision as to what labor, if native or foreign etc. was to be furnished. The authority of the Agencies of the Minister for Armament in questions of the commitment of labor were limited to a large extent to the execution of so-called transfer-actions, i.e. assignment of labor from one armament plant to another. It would be wrong to try to conclude a considerable limitation of the authority of the PlenipotentiaryGeneral for Labor and afundamental expansion of Speer's authority from these decrees. It would be just as wrong to conclude from this that the influence of the Armament Ministry had been increased over other authorities of the Plenipotentiary-General for Labor. Sauckel, the Prosecution has finally submitted a file note of General Thomas, the Director of the War Economy- and Armament Division in the OKW regarding a discussion between the defendant Speer himself on the one hand, and the Directors of the Armament Offices of the three branches of the Wehrmacht on the other hand of 24 March 1942, in which Thomas states that the Fuehrer considered Speer as his main authority and his trustee for all economic spheres.
This note can only be understood in connection with the report of the account which General Thomas gave regarding his activity as Director of the War Economy and Armament Office, and which has been presented in excerpt form to the Tribunal under file No. 2353-PS. Prior to Speer's appointment as Minister for Armament, Thomas had tried to effect that the position of the General. Plenipotentiary for Economy, which had been provided in the Reich Defense Law, would be expanded to an Agency which would control the whole war economy. When now the armament economy was confronted with high demands in connection with the first winter campaign in Russia and the losses which had been sustained there, and Hitler, after the death of Dr. Todt, appointed Speer to be his successor in the Ministry for Armaments and Munitions, Thomas thought to see in Speer a personality who would receive the authority which he had striven to obtain for the General Plenipotentiary for Economy, This, however, did not occur. As has been shown from the evidence, Speer only received the army equipment and the construction system. The subordination of the now agency of the Plenipotentiary-General for Labor under his Ministry, for which the defendant Speer was striving, was not sanctioned by Hitler. Speer's rights as Minister for Armament are stated in the decree. The generally maintained expectations of General Thomas, which the latter had linked with Speer's appointment, were therefore not fulfilled in anyway. Speer only received an increased authority when, in the year 1943 he took over industrial production from the Ministry of Economy. But even then he was still far from having the sphere of work which General Thomas had expected for Speer.
Based on this expectation General Thomas thought to see, in the person of Speer, the man appointed by Hitler who would be decisive for all economic questions. In the file note of General Thomas, which confined itself merely to generalities, it is a matter of an expression of opinion which was not justified by the actual state of affairs. It offer no basis for the reply to the question as to how the responsibility for the policy of the commitment of labor objected to by the Prosecution can be distributed.
In summarizing it must be stated to this count of the indictment: of foreign labor, nor for its removal to Germany. He is at the most responsible for the utilization of part of this labor in Germany. defendant had employed prisoners of war in the economic sector which was under his direction, and that he had thereby violated Article 32 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 regarding the treatment of prisoners of War used in plants under his control. This, however, cannot be regarded simply as a violation against Article 31 of the previously mentioned agreement. The expression "armament economy" and/or "armament plant" does not have the same meaning as "plant" and/or "economy", whose task is the manufacture of arms and direct war requirements.
The term "armament plant" can only be understood from its development When, at the beginning of rearmament, the limitation of raw materials began plants which were working for rearmament were given preference in obtaining raw materials. These plants were subordinated to the armament inspections established by the Wehrmacht, and were called "armament plants." In addition to all other plants, these which served the manufacture of iron, steel and metals, as well as these plants which manufactured machine-boilers and vehicles and appliances -- also the entire manufacture of raw steel and the first stage of preparation (foundries, rolling works, forges) -- as well as the whole remaining subsidiary supply industry, were included in it. So, for example, electro-technical plants, plants which produced optical products, plants which manufactured ball-bearings, cog-wheels, etc. This is shown by the testimony of the witness Schieber. (Exhibit No. 37, Question 9, Document Book page 114).Approximately 30-35% only of the whole iron production was used for the production of armament to the extent as previously described, and 60% for the maintenance of production or for other consumers -- Reich Railroads.
construction of merchant vessels, agricultural machine, export goods, appliances for the chemical industry, etc. We refer to the testimony of the witness Kehrl, which has been submitted under Speer Exhibit No. 36, and particularly, to his answer to question 5. the manufacture of raw steel and the stages of manufacture, it can be safely presumed that of all the plants which were combined in the armament inspections, only approximately 20-30% manufactured armament products within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. The details had to be treated individually, in order to a in an idea as to what extent article 31 of the Geneva Convention could be violated by the employment of prisoners of war. statistician Duess under No. 2520-PS, in order to prove thereby how many prisoners of war and foreign workers were employed in the armament industry The compilation, which is principally supported by numbers taken from the documents, in the possession of the defendant Speer, do not, however, state in which branches of the armament industry the individual prisoners of war worked. A big enterprise, which, because it falls under one of the abovelisted categories, and as a result thereof was considered an armament plant in its entirety, needs only to manufacture a fraction or perhaps no weapons or equipment which stand in direct relationship to war activities. If prisoners of war were employed in it, then this occupation does not represen a violation of Article 31 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention. Such a plant, however, appears collectively in Duess' Affidavit. The Affidavit thereby loses its value as evidence as to if and to what extent the Article 31 of the Geneva Convention was violated by the employment of prisoners of war in armament. employment of French civilian workers who had been released from, prisoners of war confinement and who were employed in the armament industry was also to be considered a violation against Article 31.
This is not applicable.
Beginning with the time of their release, the former prisoners of war were free people, unlimited in their freedom of movement, and limited only by the obligations embodied in the contract of employment. In addition to this, no French prisoners of war could be forced to agree to his release with the obligation to make his labor available to German industry. It was his free decision if he preferred to accept his release as a prisoner of war under these conditions. From that moment on he was no longer a soldier, no longer subject to military discipline; he received his working wages like every free worker, and was not subjected to any camp discipline or and other similar circumscribing regulations. release under these circumstances, these advantages apparently appeared more valuable than the protection which they enjoyed as prisoners-of-war. If they did this then their occupation, even in work which in itself is prohibited for prisoners of war in accordance with Article 31, cannot be considered a violation of this Article. is holding them prisoner is not prohibited by the Geneva Prisoner-of-War Convention. Only that work is prohibited which is directly connected with military operations, for example, the use of prisoners of war for fortification works for a combat unit. The defendant Speer cannot be accused of anything of that kind. The manufacture and transport of weapons of all kinds, as well as transportation of war material for the combat units. In the armament economy, under the control of the defendant Speer, the only thing which could be considered as a viola of the aforementioned rule is the manufacture of weapons and ammunition of all kinds. Such a violation however, has so far not been proved by the Prosecution at all. to plants took place. According to the testimony of the defendant Sauckel, this was done by the War Economy officers with the Military District Commanders submitting the number of prisoners of war available for week to the District Employment Office, and the transfer of the prisoners of war to the plants when took place in the same manner as with usual labor. A different only existed in that the camp officers -- the prisoners-of-war were billeted in so-called enlisted men's camps (Stammlager) -- were responsible that the directives issued by the OKW for the employment and the treatment of prisoners of war were coin plied with.
It was the responsibility of these camp-officers, that, in the employment of prisoners of war, a violation of Article 31 of the Prisoners of war Convention was rendered impossible. The Commitment Officers (Einsatzoffiziere) appointed by the camp commanders had constantly to control and examine the working conditions and the kind of occupation of prisoners of war in armament plants, and they had to watch and see that no prohibited work was imposed on the prisoners of war. The defendant Keitel has given an exact description of the manner and procedure in which the control of prisoners of war in the home area was exercised. Documents have also been submitted which give information about the treatment of prisoners of war. examined by Camp Commitment Officers to see that the employment of prisoners of war was in accordance with article 31 and 32 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention. As for as French prisoners of war were concerned, a special competence existed in the person of Ambassador Scapini, who had to forward any probable complaints against the use of prisoners of war labor in violation of international law to the OKW. gated, and if they were found to be justified, improvements were made. It is of course, possible that in such a large organization as the large number of French prisoners of war made necessary, mistakes would occur occasionally. Measures for the correction of mistakes of this kind, are, after all, provided by the Geneva Prisoners of war Convention itself in its regulations. These regulations were also effective in the last war. The representatives of the Protecting Powers have intervened against bad conditions, which had been brought to their attention on the basis of complaints, and they have also demanded and achieved their abolition. If such mistakes were recognized and reported, they were then immediately remedied. It would be incorrect to try to conclude a premeditated system from individual occurrences. The protection of prisoners of war, which they found in the Labor Commitment officer even laid defendant Speer open to criticism by individual plant directors as being too extensive.
pect are concerned, it must be first examined, if the employment of prisoner of war in the armament industry is to be fundamentally regarded as a violation of the rules of international law. After the previously -mentioned statements regarding the character of the plants which were combined in the armament industry, this must be answered in the negative. Only in so far as prisoners of war were actually employed on the production of arms and on the production of immediate war materials could be speak of a violation of Article 31. That this regulation may have been violated in individual cases will not be denied by us. If, for example, the photographs submitted by the American Prosecution show that near the front lines prisoners of war were used to unload munition-trains, then this doubtlessly represents a violation of the regulations of Article 31. The defendant Speer, however, cannot be accused of such incidents, as they do not fall under his competence. To conclude a violation of the regulations of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention on a large scale, that the employment of prisoners of war in the armament industry did take place, is not applicable.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours).
(The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 hours.)
M. LANOIRE: Mr. President, I would request the authorization of the Tribunal to make a very short statement in the name of the French Prosecution. Even though it is not the custom that the Prosecution should not intervene in the course of the discussion, the counsel for Speer gave a few opinions which it seer, is to no I must underline, and also request the Tribunal to put them aside THE PRESIDENT:
The Tribunal does not think it is appropriate that the speeches of the defendants' counsel should be interrupted by counsel for the Prosecution. Counsel for the Prosecution are going to speak afterwards, and they will then have a full opportunity of answering the speeches that have been made on behalf of the defendants.
M. LANOIRE: Certainly, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Flaechsner, if you will wait one moment, I have an announcement to make. The Tribunal refers to its order of 23 February 1946, Paragraph 8 of that order, which is on the subject of the statements which the defendants may make, under Article 24 of the Charter. their counsel, the Tribunal assume that if it is the defendants' desire to make any further statements, it will be only to deal with matters previously omitted. The defendants will not be permitted to make farther speeches or to repeat what has already been said by themselves or their counsel, but will be limited to short statements of a few minutes each to cover matters not already covered by their testimony or the arguments of counsel.
DR. FLAECHSNER: A further reproach of the Prosecution refers to the violation of Art. 32 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Agreement, according to which prisoners of war were employed in unhealthy work, in so far as prisoners of war had been employed in mines. For this a reference is made to the minutes of a Central Planning meeting where the employment of Russian prisoners of war in mines is discussed. The employment of Russian prisoners of war in mines is not to be considered as forbidden in itself, and it has been practised in all industrial nations. The employment of Russian prisoners of war in mines is, therefore, not to be objected to, in so far as the prisoners concerned were in a physical condition that enabled then to do heavy mining work.
It has not been established and proved by the Prosecution, that these prisoners of war were not physically fit for the work given from. From the fact, that the employment of prisoners of war in mines was discussed and approved, it cannot be concluded that At. 32 of the Prisoners of War Agreement was violated. The treatment of prisoners of war has to be examined legally from various points of view. The German Government has taken the point of view, that Soviet prisoners of war should be treated on a different legal basis than the subjects of the Western States, who were all parties to the treaty of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention of 1929, whereas the Soviet Union had not signed this agreement. The Soviet Prosecution has presented Document EC 338/USSR 356, an investigation according to international law of the Foreign Counterintelligence Office (Amtes Ausland/Abwehr) in the High Command of the Wehrmacht, concerning the locality of the regulations issued on the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, and levelled sharp criticism at the latter. The essential point is that in this report the view is oppressed, that as a matter of fundamental principle, Soviet prisoner of war cannot be treated according to the rules of the Geneva Prisoners of War Agreement, because the Soviet Union did not participate in this, and that this report refers to the decree of the Soviet Union of 1 July 1941 concerning the treatment of prisoners of war, concerning which the opinion of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Foreign Counter-Intelligence, establishes that on essential points it agrees with the rules of the Geneva Prisoners of War Agreement. It is, however, characteristic that in this decree it is ordered that non-commissioned officers and enlisted men taken prisoners of war may be put to work for industry and agriculture inside the camp or outside, and that the only restriction is that the use of prisoner of war labor is forbidden; (a) in the combat area, (b) for personal needs of the administration as well as the needs of other prisoners of war.
(So-called "orderly service; see page 12/13 of the Doc. Book). An order restricting the use of prisoner of war labor according; to Art. 31 and 32 of the GenevaPrisoner of War Agreement is not to be understood from the above-mentioned command. It now remains to investigate whether the stipulations of Art. 31 and 32 of the Geneva prisoner of War Agreement flow from general rules of International Law, which should be observed, even if there were no special ruling by treaty, such as the Geneva Prisoner-of-War agreement represents. This cannot generally be affirmed. The above-mentioned treaty regulations cannot be regarded as the prescription by treaty of a generally valid legal concept, if so important a member of the family of International Law as the Soviet Union does not accept a ruling of this sort. Proceeding from this idea, the employment of Soviet Prisoners-of-war in work forbidden by Art.31 of the POW Agreement is not to be objected to. The Italian military persons Interned in Germany after Italy's fall do not come under the regulations of the GenevaPrisoner-of-war agreement since no state of war existed between Germany and Italy. Moreover, these military internees did not come under the restrictions of Art. 31 in their employment as manpower. It must, however, be pointed out that these military internees are comprised in the enumeration by Mr. Deuss, of Prisoners-of-war occupied in the armament industry. exclusively through the offices of the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment. The control of the proper allocation in accordance with the Prisoner-ofWar agreement depended on the Labor Commitment Officer of the Stalag, who in return was himself finally responsible to the General for Prisoner-of-War matters at the Army High Command. It was not possible for the defendant Speer to have any influence on the distribution of prisoners-of-war and their occupation. The prosecution has not been in a position to bring any proof from which the participation of the defendant Speer to unlawful occupation of prisoner of war might be deduced. These assertions of the Prosecution have remained unproved.
that the Todt Organization, at the head of which Speer was placed in February 1942 after Dr. Todt's death, had used native workers to build fortifications in the French coastal areas. As far as the Todt Organization is concerned, it is a purely civilian institution of the General Construction Inspector for road maintenance. It worked on a private economical basis, that is, it gave out the construction work that it intended to carry out to private firms, also to foreign firms, which were established, in the respective countries, and merely supervised the execution of the constructions. The private firms could undertake the procurement of the necessary materials and labor themselves. For the very reason that native construction enterprises were used, it was possible to eliminate the difficulties which other/rise would have opposed themselves to the execution of the work. The workyards of the Todt Organization enjoyed a certain favor with the natives because the workmen had the assurance that they could not be compelled to go to Germany to work in industry there because these places of construction of the organization Todt were considered as urgently important. The workers went voluntarily to the firms which were active for the Todt Organization to obtain this security. The example quoted by the defendant Speer during cross-examination of 50,000 Todt Organization workers who were once taken from France to Germany to repair damages caused to two West German valley dams by air attacks, made such a bad impression on the workers employed in other Todt Organization construction sites that nothing else left to do but to send these 50,000 workers back to France. In the meantime, many workmen of the Todt Organization construction sites in France disappeared, because they feared to be taken to Germany sooner or later against their will, while up to them they had regarded employment in enterprises which worked for the Todt Organization as insurance against an eventual transfer to Germany. Only the return of the above mentioned 50,000 workers to France, which was brought about Try the defendant Speer when these unfavourable consequences developed, restored the hitherto existing state of confidence. Here also the reason should be emphasized that the fact results from the event described that the Todt Organization workers were free to go where they wished in France in any case, that no coercion was used against them.
The consequences of this was that when the protected plaits (Sperrbetriebe) were established in France, all enterprises working for the Todt Organization were declared protected plants and therewith removed from the possibility of being employed on other work. This instance shows that the view of the Prosecution that the workers of the Todt Organization were forced into the Todt Organization plants against their will is a wrong interpretation. French workers in construction sites under administration of the Todt Organization, as well as in any other armament industries in Germany and occupied territories, every illegality is excluded. It should not be left unmentioned here, that after the conclusion of the Armistice Agreement with France the latter had no more part in military hostilities. The Armistice Treaty certainly did not mean an agreement for a truce but de facto, a final stepping of hostilities, and was to sorry as a preparation for the conclusion of peace. It was a situation, which no longer signified war, but also did not yet mean the definite return to peacetime conditions regulated by treaty. A resumption of hostilities was, however, according to both partners to the Armistice, completely out of the question. The armistice was to regulate exclusively the situation until the definite conclusion of peace. Proscriptions of the Hague Convention, as well as of the Prisoner-of-War Agreement concerning the restriction that performance of services cannot be allowed to violate the loyalty towards one's own country which is still fighting, do not apply because the country is no longer at war. After a general armistice, the production of arms and munitions can no longer be directed against the party which has retired from hostilities, but only against other partners still in the field. The aforementioned principle of respecting the duty of faithfulness to one's own country can in such a case no more be applied. a para-military organization as has been falsely asserted. Apparently this false assumption has been strengthened by the fact that the German members of the administration of the Organization Todt abroad wore a uniform. These people were considered as Wehrmacht followers, but on the other hand the labor engaged by the firms and the construction workers of the firms as well as the technical personnel were in no such relation. The reproach cannot be made, therefore, that these native workers were indirectly incorporated into a Wehrmacht organization.