“And the Nazi philosopher”—continues Mauriac—“then proclaimed the victory of blood. He meant”—writes Mauriac—“the victory of race; but it happens that a man may utter prophetic words unwittingly and without realizing the full import of the words which God places upon his lips. As Rosenberg predicted at the Palais Bourbon on 25 November 1940, it was indeed blood that won the victory. It was the blood of the martyrs which in the end choked the executioners.”
M. President, with the approval of the Court, and with the same brevity as heretofore—and I hope the Tribunal will appreciate the care I am taking not to abuse its patience—I should like to say a few words on the individual charge against the Defendant Fritz Sauckel.
Your Honors, the Tribunal is already acquainted with the really remarkable work, the genuinely positive work, presented to it some time ago by my colleague and friend, M. Jacques Bernard Herzog. This is why, with your permission, I shall pass over the facts themselves, which are known to you, and limit myself to the part beginning on Page 3 of my brief; and we shall examine together, if it please the Tribunal, the grounds for the pleas advanced up to now by the Defendant Fritz Sauckel.
One question must be asked first of all: Was Fritz Sauckel acting under orders when he carried out this recruiting—so-called voluntary in part but compulsory in most cases—this recruiting of laborers destined to supply the needs of the German Reich?
According to Sauckel, when he was appointed Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor on 27 March 1942, his initial program did not include the conscription of foreign workers; and it is supposed to have been Hitler who intervened then. For it is striking, Your Honors, when you read the minutes of the interrogations and also, I am sure, when the defendants speak before the Tribunal, you will see that most of them take refuge behind two great shadows; the shadow of the former Führer and the shadow of his accursed second, Himmler. Here we can see Hitler intervening to tell Sauckel, according to the latter, that the use of foreign workers in the occupied territories is not contrary to the Hague Convention for two reasons; firstly, the countries involved surrendered unconditionally and consequently we can impose any kind of labor conditions on them, and secondly because Russia has not signed this convention. If, therefore, we use Russian workers on compulsory labor and make them work to death, we are not violating the Hague Convention.
This, Your Honors, is the reasoning of the Defendant Sauckel on this point, without the addition of a single word. Hitler is supposed to have ordered him to recruit workers, at first using persuasion and then all the means of compulsion which you already know; suppression of ration cards, for instance, which compelled men, who saw their wives and children starving, to volunteer for work which would be used against their own fellow citizens and against the soldiers of the Allied armies with whom all their sympathies lay.
The Tribunal will know how to deal with such an excuse for, in the first place, Sauckel, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by his office, enjoyed full authority in regard to everything to do with the labor necessary for the execution of the Four Year Plan. On the other hand, on taking up his appointment as Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation, Sauckel knew that he would be unable to carry out his mission without resorting sooner or later to means of coercion. In any case, Sauckel, as well as most of the defendants who are before you, enjoyed the most extensive powers, indeed autonomous powers. Consequently, he cannot shelter behind orders received.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you must forgive me if I interrupt you; but as I pointed out yesterday, I think, we have already had an opening statement which contained argument from the United States, from Great Britain, and from M. De Menthon on behalf of France, and we have, in the past, confined other counsel. . . .
Do you hear me? I was saying that after having heard the opening statement from the United States, from Great Britain, and from France, we have in the past, confined the counsel who have followed them to a presentation of evidence and have not permitted them to go into an argument.
I am not sure that that rule has been strictly carried out in all cases because it is, perhaps, somewhat difficult to confine the matter; but we have, on several occasions, pointed out to counsel who have followed the counsel who made the leading statement that they ought to confine themselves to a presentation of the evidence. I think the Tribunal would wish you, if possible, to adhere to that rule and, therefore, not to argue the case but to present the evidence, that is to say, to refer us to the evidence insofar as it has already been put in evidence; to refer us to it by its number, possibly stating what the substance of the evidence is; and, in reference to any document which has not yet been put in evidence, to read such parts of that document as you think necessary.