“The following regulation is proposed:
“a) The French may be confident that the trials by German
courts-martial will be carried out thoroughly and
conscientiously as before;
“b) Germany will designate, as before, a defense counsel and an
interpreter. . . .
“c) In case of a death sentence an adequate respite will be
granted.”
On top of Page 13:
“In this respect, in urgent cases, however, Germany must reserve
for herself the right—even if not expressly stated—to execute
the sentence immediately.”
Third paragraph:
“There is no question of allowing France, by virtue of Article
62, Paragraph III (POW), of the Geneva Convention, to delegate
representatives to the chief sessions of the German Military
Tribunals.”
We possess an example of the violation of Articles 60 and those
following of the Geneva Convention in the report of the Netherlands
Government, which the Tribunal will find on Page 14 of its document
book.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we better break off now.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the
Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart will be absent from this
afternoon’s session due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.
When the attention of the Tribunal was called by the Defendant Hess to
the absence of his counsel, the Tribunal directed that the presentation
of the individual case against Hess be postponed, so that counsel could
be present when it was presented. So far as the cross-examination of
witnesses who testified to matters affecting the general case and not
against Hess specifically is concerned, it is the view of the Tribunal
that the cross-examination conducted by counsel representing the
defendants equally interested with Hess in this feature of the case was
sufficient to protect his interests, and the witnesses will therefore
not be recalled.
The Tribunal has received a letter from the Defendant Hess dated 30
January 1946, to the effect that he is dissatisfied with the services of
counsel who has been appearing for him and does not wish to be
represented by him further, but wishes to represent himself.
The Tribunal is of the opinion that, having elected, in conformity with
Article 16 of the Charter, to be represented by counsel, the Defendant
Hess ought not to be allowed at this stage of the Trial to dispense with
the services of counsel and defend himself. The matter is of importance
to the Tribunal, as well as to the defendant, and the Tribunal is of the
opinion that it is not in the interests of the defendant that he should
be unrepresented by counsel.
The Tribunal has therefore appointed Dr. Stahmer to represent the
Defendant Hess, in place of Dr. Von Rohrscheidt.
[_Turning to M. Dubost_] Yes, M. Dubost.
M. DUBOST: I beg the Tribunal to excuse me; I was completing the work
which they had requested me to do in relation to concentration camps. In
a few moments, when I have completed the exposé on the question of
prisoners of war, I shall present to the Tribunal the end of the French
presentation concerning concentration camps. This will not be much, for
we shall have only a few documents to cite. Subject to counter evidence
which the Defense may bring, the systematic repetition of the same
methods seems so far sufficiently established.
We were at the point of reading a document of the Dutch Government,
which was already presented to the Tribunal under Document Number F-224
(Exhibit Number RF-324) and which establishes that a protest was
formulated, following the secret condemnation to death and the execution
of three officers: Lieutenants J. J. B. ten Bosch, B. M. C. Braat, and
Thibo.
I think that the document to which I alluded this morning, which is the
official report of the French Government concerning prisoners, is now in
the hands of the Tribunal. It is the document submitted by M. Herzog
under Exhibit Number RF-46, Document Number UK-78. I ask the Tribunal to
excuse me, as I cannot present this document again. I have no more
copies.
It is evident from this document that the Nazis had a systematic policy
of intimidation. They strove to keep the greatest possible number of
prisoners of war in order to be able, if necessary, to exercise
efficacious pressure over the countries from which these prisoners came.
This policy was exercised by the irregular or improper capture of
prisoners, and also by the refusal, which was systematically upheld, to
repatriate the prisoners whose state of health would have justified this
measure.
Concerning the irregular or improper capture of prisoners of war, we can
cite the example of what happened in France after the signing of the
armistice.
The report of the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees, to which we
refer, indicates, on Page 4:
“In 1940 certain French military formations laid down their arms
at the time of the armistice under the assurance given by the
German Army that troops who had thus surrendered would not be
taken into captivity. These troops were, nevertheless, captured.
The Alpine Army had passed over the Rhône in order to be
demobilized and was west of the region of Vienne. They were
taken prisoners and were sent to Germany until the end of July
1940.
“Moreover, noncombatant formations of special civilians were led
into captivity and imprisoned in accordance with Himmler’s
orders, which said that all Frenchmen of military age were to be
seized indiscriminately. In short, it was only through the
making of special exceptions and the private initiative of unit
commanders that all Frenchmen were not transferred to Germany.
“Because of the enormous number of prisoners and the
difficulties that faced the German Army in taking all those men
to Germany, the German Army decided, in 1940, to create what
they called ‘Front-Stalags.’
“The promise had been made to the Vichy Government, which was
established after the armistice, that soldiers who were kept in
these ‘Front-Stalags’ would be kept in France. Yet, the men in
these camps began to be sent to Germany in October 1940.”
In an additional report appended to the document book which is before
you, the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees points out the irregular
capture of the troops of the fortified sector of Haguenau, the 22d
R.I.F., the 81st B.C.P., the 51st and 58th Infantry Regiments and a
North African division. It is Document F-668 which I submit under
Exhibit Number RF-361, the pages of which are not numbered, it is
appended to the document book. I quote the document:
“Troops of the fortified sector of Haguenau: the 22d R.I.F. and
the 81st B.C.P.
“These troops fought until 25 June, 1:30, and only stopped
firing after an agreement between the colonel in charge of the
fortified sector of Haguenau and the German generals, an
agreement which guaranteed the troops the honors of war and
particularly that they would not be made prisoners. The 51st and
58th Infantry Regiments, as well as a North African Division,
withdrew towards Toul only after an agreement, signed on the 22
June, between the French General Dubuisson and the German
General Andreas, at Thuilleaux-Groseilles, Meurthe-et-Moselle,
an agreement guaranteeing military honors and confirming that
the troops would not be taken prisoners.”
THE PRESIDENT: What official document does this document come from?
M. DUBOST: From the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees. It is the
additional report which was made by the French Government. We submit it
under Exhibit Number RF-361.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the report on the captivity?