This seizure was the result of paying occupation costs, the one-way
clearing system, and outright seizures and levies of gold, bank notes,
foreign currency, and the imposition of collective fines (Page 15).
Indemnity for the maintenance of occupation troops:
I shall not recapitulate the legal principles of the matter, but shall
merely confine myself to a few explanatory remarks, so that you may
realize the pressure which was brought to bear on the leaders in order
to obtain the payment of considerable sums.
As I have had the honor of pointing out to you, in the Armistice
Conventions the principle of the maintenance of occupation troops is
succinctly worded, with no stipulation as to the amount and the method
of collection. The Germans took advantage of this to distort and amplify
this commitment of France, which became nothing more than a pretext for
the imposition of exorbitant tribute.
At the first sessions of the Armistice Commission, the discussions bore
on this point, while the French pointed out that they could only be
forced to pay a contractual indemnity representing the cost of
maintaining an army strictly necessary for the occupation of the
territory. The German General Mieth had to recognize the just foundation
of this claim and declared that troops which were to fight against
England would not be maintained at expense to France.
This is evident from an extract of the minutes of the Armistice
Commission, which I submit as Document Number RF-208. But later this
General Mieth apparently was overruled by his superiors, since in the
course of a subsequent session, 16 July 1940, without expressly going
back on his word, he declared in this respect that he could not give any
reply, that this question would no longer be discussed, and that, in
short, everything necessary would be done to enable the French
Government to draw up its budget. This appears from an extract of the
minutes of the Armistice Commission which I submit as Exhibit Number
RF-209.
On 8 August 1940 Hemmen, Chief of the German Economic Delegation, at
Wiesbaden, forwarded a memorandum to General Huntziger, President of the
French Delegation, in which he stated:
“As at present it is impossible to assess the exact costs of
occupation, daily installments of at least 20 million Reichsmark
are required until further notice, at a rate of exchange of 1
mark to 20 French francs.
“That is to say, 400 million French francs daily. In this amount
the costs for billeting troops were not included, but were to be
paid separately.”
This is found in Document 210 (Document Number RF-210), which I submit
to the Tribunal and which bears the signature of Hemmen.
These exorbitant requirements provoked the reply of 12 August 1940, in
which it was emphasized that the amount of the daily payment did not
permit the supposition that it had been fixed in consideration of the
normal forces of an occupation army and the normal cost of the
maintenance of this army, that, moreover, such forces as corresponded to
the notified figure would be out of proportion to anything that military
precedent and the necessity of the moment might reasonably justify. This
is the content of a note of 12 August, submitted as Document Number
RF-211.
On 15 August 1940 the German delegation took notice of the fact that the
French Government was ready to pay some accounts, but in a categorical
manner refused to discuss either the amount of payment or the
distinction between occupation and operation troops. This is found in
Document Number RF-212, which I submit to the Tribunal.
On 18 August the French delegation took note of the memorandum of 15
August and made the following reply (Document Number RF-213):
“. . . that France is to pay the costs for the maintenance of
operation troops is a demand incontestably beyond the spirit and
the provisions of the Armistice Convention.
“. . . that the required costs are converted into francs at a
rate considerably in excess of the purchasing power of the mark
and franc respectively; furthermore, that the purchases of the
German Army in France are a means of control over the life in
this country and that they will, moreover, as the German
Government admits, partly be replaced by deliveries in kind.”
The memorandum terminates as follows:
“In these circumstances the onerous tribute required of the
French Government appears arbitrary and exceeds to a
considerable extent what might legitimately be expected to be
demanded.
“The French Government, always anxious to fulfill the clauses of
the Armistice Convention, can only appeal to the Reich
Government in the hope that it will take into account the
arguments presented above.”
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
M. GERTHOFFER: 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 indicated that the French leaders of that time, without
failing to recognize the principle of their obligations, protested
against the sum demanded.
At the moment of their arrival in France the Germans had issued, as in
the other occupied countries, Reichskreditkasse notes and requisition
vouchers over which the bank of issue had no control and which was legal
tender only in France. This issue represented a danger, for the
circulation of this currency was liable to increase at the mere will of
the occupying power.
At the same time, by a decree of 17 May 1940, published in the VOBIF of
17 May 1940, Number 7, which appears as Document Number 214 in the
document book (Exhibit Number RF-214), the occupying power fixed the
rate of the Reichsmark at 20 French francs per mark, whereas the real
parity was approximately 1 mark for 10 French francs.
The French delegation, having become concerned over the increasing
circulation of the Reichskreditkasse notes and over the increased volume
of German purchases, as well as over the rate of exchange of the mark,
was informed by the German delegation, on 14 August 1940, of its refusal
to withdraw these notes from circulation in France. This is to be found
in a letter of 14 August, which I submit as Document Number RF-215.
The occupying power thus unjustifiably created a means of pressure upon
the French Government of that time to make it yield to its demands
concerning the amount of the occupation costs, as well as concerning the
forced 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
should not be hurled over the precipice, as shown by a teletype report
addressed by Hemmen on 18 August 1940, to his Minister of Foreign
Affairs, a report discovered by the United States Army, bearing the
Document Number 1741-PS(5), which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit
Number RF-216. Here is the interesting passage of this report:
“These large payments would enable Germany to buy up the whole
of France, including its industries and foreign investments,
which would mean the ruin of France.”
In a letter and a note of 20 August, the German delegation summoned the
French delegation to make partial payments, specifying that no
distinction would be made between the German troops in France, that the
strength of the German occupation would have to be determined by the
necessities of the conduct of war. In addition, the fixing of the rate
of the mark would be inoperative as far as the payments were concerned,
since they would constitute only payments on account. I submit the note
of the 20th of August of the German Government as Document Number
RF-217.
The next day, 21 August 1940, General Huntziger, in the course of an
interview with Hemmen, made a last vain attempt to obtain a reduction in
the German demands. According to the minutes of this interview (Document
Number RF-218), Germany was already considering close economic
collaboration between herself and France through the creation of
commissioners of exchange control and of foreign trade. At the same time
Hemmen pledged elimination of the demarcation line between the two
zones. But he refused to discuss the question of the amount of the
occupation costs.
In a note of 26 August 1940, the French Government indicated that it
considered itself obliged to yield under pressure 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
committed if experience showed that the extent of the demands of
the government of the Reich is incompatible with this right to
live.” (Document Number RF-219.)
The Germans had the incontestable intention of utilizing the sums
demanded as occupation costs, not only for the maintenance, the
equipment, and the armament of their troops in France, or for operations
based in France, but also for other purposes. This is shown in
particular in a teletype from the Supreme Command of the Army, dated 2
September 1940, discovered by the United States Army, which I submit as
Exhibit Number RF-220 (Document Number EC-204). There is a passage from
this teletype message which I shall read to the Tribunal (Page 22):
“To the extent to which the incoming amounts in francs are not
required for the troops in France, the Supreme Command of the
Armed Forces reserves for itself the right to make further use
of the money. In particular, the allocation of the money to any
offices not belonging to the Armed Forces must be authorized by
the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, in order to insure
definitely that, first, the entire amount of francs required by
the Armed Forces shall be covered and that thereafter any
possible surplus shall remain at the disposal of the Supreme
Command of the Armed Forces for purposes important to the Four
Year Plan.”
From another teletype message, which was seized in the same manner and
which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-221 (Document Number EC-201), I read
the following:
“It is clear that there was no agreement at all with the French
as to what should be understood by ‘costs for maintenance of
occupation troops’ in France. If we are in agreement among
ourselves that at the present moment we must, for practical
reasons, avoid interminable discussions with the French, on the
other hand there must be no doubt that we have the right to
interpret the term ‘maintenance’ in the broadest possible
sense.”
Further on in the same teletype, Page 24, Paragraph 2, there is the
following:
“In any case, 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 finally the following paragraph:
“The utilization of sums paid in francs.
“Concerning the use of the francs paid which are not really
required for the costs of the maintenance of the occupation
troops in France, there can, of course, be no discussion with
French authorities.”
The French then attempted, in vain, to obtain a reduction in the
occupation costs 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. In view of
the intransigence of the Germans, the French Government suspended
payments in the month of May 1941. Then, at the insistence of the
occupying powers, they resumed it, but paid only 300 million francs a
day. This is found in the document submitted as Document Number RF-222.
On the 15 December 1942, after the invasion of the entire French
territory, Germany demanded that the daily payment of 300 million francs
be raised to 500 million a day.
The sums paid for the occupation troops increased to a total of 631,866
million francs, or at the imposed rate, 31,593,300,000 marks. This
amount is not only to be gathered from the information given by the
French administration, but can also be verified by German documents, in
particular by the report of Hemmen.
Hemmen, Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Berlin, had been
designated 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 in economic questions.
His chief assistant in Paris was Dr. Michel, of whom we have already
spoken.
While maintaining his functions as chief of the economic delegation of
the Armistice Commission of Wiesbaden, the same Hemmen was to be
appointed by a decision of Hitler, under date of 19 December 1942, Reich
Government delegate for economic questions, attached to the French
Government. This is verified in the document submitted as Exhibit Number
RF-223 (Document Number 1763-PS).
Hemmen periodically sent secret economic reports to his minister. These
documents were discovered by the United States Army. They are of a
fundamental importance in this part of the Trial, since, as you will
see, they contain Germany’s admission of economic pillage.
These voluminous reports are submitted as Exhibits Numbers RF-224, 225,
226, 227, 228, and 229 (Documents Numbers 1986-PS, 1987-PS, 1988-PS,
1989-PS, 1990-PS, 1991-PS) of the French documentation. It is not
possible for me, in view of their length, to read them in their entirety
to the Tribunal. I shall confine myself to 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 Hemmen reports. In
this last report, printed in Salzburg on 15 December 1944, on Page 26,
Hemmen recognizes that France has paid by way of indemnity for the
maintenance of occupation troops 31,593,300,000 marks, that is . . .
THE PRESIDENT: M. Gerthoffer, these documents are in German, are they
not?
M. GERTHOFFER: Yes, Mr. President, they are in German. I have only been
able to have the last one translated into French. Because of their
length it has not been possible for me to have all the translations
made, but it is from the last volume, which is translated into French,
that I will make certain very brief quotations by way of proof.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well then are you confining yourself to the last
document, and to certain passages in the last document?