Counsel for the Defense will certainly stress that some leaders of the invaded countries were in agreement with the Reich Government as to the economic collaboration, and that consequently the Reich Government cannot be charged with acts which derive from these agreements.
Such arguments must be refuted:
1.) If, in all the invaded countries, patriots resisted with more or less courage, it is true that some of them, out of inertia, fear, or self interest, turned traitors to their country. They have been or will be condemned. But the crimes committed by certain of them cannot be exonerating or even extenuating circumstances in favor of the defendants, especially since the latter had very often put these traitors in to manage the occupied countries. The fact of having brought individuals to turn traitor to their country only aggravates, on the contrary, the heavy charges against the defendants.
2.) These so-called agreements had all been obtained by pressure or by threat. The concluded contracts show that they were solely in favor of Germany, who, as a matter of fact, never brought any compensation or illusory benefits—very often their burdensome nature is seen from the mere reading of such contracts, as I will have the honor to show in certain particular cases.
With these explanations my general observations on the economic pillage are concluded, and if the Tribunal is willing we can examine the particular case of Denmark.
When the Germans invaded Denmark, contrary to all the prescriptions of the law of nations and to their engagements, they were not certain of rapidly dominating Western Europe. At first they laid down the principle that they would not take anything in the country, but after their success of May 1940 their attitude changed; and little by little they treated Denmark more or less like the other occupied countries.
Nevertheless, they sought to achieve annexation pure and simple, and took rigorous measures against the population only in the course of 1942, when they saw that they would not be able to win Denmark over. From the economic point of view, and to assure their domination, they tried to have at their disposal the majority of the Danish means of payment, and they used to this effect two methods which to a great extent were used by them in other countries: (1) The levying of a veritable tribute of war, under the pretext of maintaining their army of occupation; (2) the functioning of the so-called clearing agreement to their almost exclusive benefit. These two methods should be studied in Chapter I of this statement.
Chapter I, German seizure of the means of payment; costs of occupation.
Article 49 of the Hague Convention stipulates that if the occupant levies a tax the money will only be for the army of occupation or for the administration of the territory.
The occupant can therefore levy a tax for the maintenance of its army, but this tax must not exceed the sum strictly necessary. The needs of the army of occupation mean, not the costs of armament and equipment, but only the costs of billeting, food, and pay. I say normal expenses, which exclude luxuries.