“The senior SS and Police Leader will take every step deemed
necessary by him for the maintenance or restoration of public
order or the security of public life.
“In the execution of his task the senior SS and Police Leader
may deviate from the law in force.”
Summary police justice! These words do not deceive us. This is purely
and simply a matter of murder, in that the police is authorized in
executing its functions to deviate from the law in force. This sentence,
which Seyss-Inquart signed and which protected his subordinates who
assassinated Dutch, patriots as far as German law was concerned, is in
itself the condemnation of Seyss-Inquart.
In execution of this decree the Tribunal will see that on 2 May—and
this is Page 32 of your document book—a summary police tribunal
pronounced the death sentence against ten Dutch patriots. On Page 34,
another summary police tribunal pronounced the death sentence on ten
other Dutch patriots. All of them were executed. On the next page, still
in application of the same decree, a summary police court pronounced the
death sentence on a patriot, and he was executed.
This document, Document F-224(a), Exhibit RF-277, comprises a very long
list of similar texts which seems to me superfluous to cite. The
Tribunal may refer to the last only, which is especially interesting. We
will consider it for a moment; it is on Page 46 of your document book.
This is the report of the Identification and Investigation Service of
the Netherlands, according to which, while it was not possible to make
known at that time the number of Dutch citizens who were shot by the
military units of the occupying power, we can state now that a total of
more than 4,000 of them were executed. The details of the executions,
with the places where the corpses were discovered, follow.
This constitutes only a very fragmentary aspect of the sufferings and
the sacrifices in human life endured by Holland. That needs to be stated
because it is the consequence of the criminal orders of the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart.
In the case of Belgium, the basic document is the French Document F-685,
submitted as Exhibit Number RF-394; and you will find it on Page 48 of
your document book. It is a report drawn up by the Belgian War Crimes
Commission, which deals only with the crimes committed by the German
troops at the time of the liberation of Belgian territory, September
1944. These crimes were all committed against Belgian patriots who were
fighting against the German Army. It is not merely a question of
executions but of ill-treatment and torture as well. Page 50:
“At Graide a camp of the secret army was attacked. 15 corpses
were discovered to have been frightfully mutilated. The Germans
had used bullets with sawn off tips. Some of the bodies had been
pierced with bayonets. Two of the prisoners had been beaten with
cudgels before being finished off with a pistol shot.”
The prisoners were soldiers, taken with weapons in hand and in battle,
belonging to those units which officially, according to the testimony in
documents previously cited to you, were considered by the German General
Staff from that time on as being combatants.
“At Fôret, on 6 September, several hundred men of the resistance
were billeted in the Château de Forêt. The Germans, having been
warned of their going into action, decided to carry out a
repressive operation. A certain number of unarmed members of the
resistance tried to flee. Some were killed; others succeeded in
getting back to the castle, not having been able to break
through the cordon of German troops; others were finally made
prisoner.
“The Germans advanced with the resistance prisoners in front of
them. After 2 hours the fighting stopped for lack of ammunition.
The Germans promised to spare the lives of those who
surrendered. Some of the prisoners were loaded on a lorry;
others, in spite of the promise given, were massacred after
having been tortured. The castle and the corpses were sprinkled
with gasoline and set on fire: 20 men perished in this massacre;
15 others had been killed during combat.”
The examples are numerous. This testimony to heroic Belgium was
necessary. It was necessary that we should be reminded of what we owe
her, of what we owe to her combatants of the secret army, and how great
their sacrifice has been.
With regard to Luxembourg, we have a document from the Ministry of
Justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which is Document Number
UK-77, already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-322, which the Tribunal
will find on Page 53 of the document book.
The Tribunal will note that a special summary tribunal, similar to those
which functioned in Holland, was set up in Luxembourg; that it
functioned in that country and pronounced a certain number of death
sentences, 21—all of them equally arbitrary, in view of the arbitrary
character of the tribunal which pronounced them.
The document contains the official indictment of the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg against all the members of the Reich Cabinet, specifically
against the Ministers of the Interior, of Justice, and the Party
Chancellery, and against the leaders of the SS and Police, and
especially against the Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German
Nationality.
In the case of Norway, Document UK-79 already submitted under Exhibit
Number RF-323, Page 55 of the document book, shows that tribunals
similar to the special tribunal set up in Holland by the police were in
operation in Norway. They were called the SS tribunals. More than 150
Norwegians were condemned to death. Besides, the Tribunal will remember
the testimony of M. Cappelen, who gave an account of what his country
and his compatriots had endured.
Regarding Denmark, on Page 57 of your document book, Document Number
F-666, already submitted as Exhibit Number RF-338, the Tribunal will
note that according to this official report of the Danish Government
police courts-martial similar to those which functioned in Luxembourg,
in Norway, and in Holland, functioned against Danish patriots. These
summary police tribunals, composed of SS or police, in reality disguised
the arbitrary measures of the police and of the SS; measures not only
tolerated, but willed by the government, as can be shown by documents
which we placed before you at the beginning of this statement.
We, therefore, can assert that the victims of those tribunals were
murdered without having been able to justify or defend themselves.
In the case of France the question should be carefully examined. The
Tribunal knows that from the moment of the landing, answering the call
of the General Staff, the French Secret Army rose and began battle.
Undoubtedly, in spite of the warning given by the Allied General Staff,
these combatants, who a few weeks later were officially recognized by
the German side as being combatants, at the beginning found themselves
in a rather irregular situation. We do not contest that in many
instances they were _francs-tireurs_; we admit that they could be
condemned to death; but we protest because they were not condemned to
death, but were murdered after having been brutally tortured. We are
going to give you proof thereof.
Document F-577, which is submitted under Exhibit Number RF-395, to be
found on Page 62 of your document book, states that on 17 August, the
day before the liberation of Rodez, the Germans shot 30 patriots with a
submachine gun. Then, to finish them off, they tore large stones from
the wall of the trench in which they were and hurled them on the bodies
with some earth. The chests and the skulls were crushed.
Document F-580, Page 79 of your document book, which is submitted to you
as Exhibit Number RF-396, shows that five oblates from the order of
Marie—as far as I know these lay brothers were not communists—were
murdered after having been tortured, because they belonged to a group of
the Secret Army. In all, 36 corpses were discovered after this
execution, a “punitive measure” carried out by the German Army.
On Page 85 the Tribunal will read the result of the inquiry and will see
under what conditions these 5 monks were killed after having been
tortured and under what conditions the staff of a resistance group,
which had been betrayed, was arrested and deported, together with a few
members of the same religious order.
Evidence is produced that men from the Maquis in the forest of Achères
were arrested and tortured after having been incarcerated in the prison
of Fontainebleau. We even know the name of the German member of the
Gestapo who tortured these patriots. His name is unimportant—this
German, Korf, carried out orders that were given by Keitel and by the
other defendants whose names I mentioned just now.
Document F-584, submitted under Exhibit Number RF-397, Pages 87 and 88,
shows the Tribunal that when the bodies were found it was discovered
that 10 of them had been blindfolded before being shot, that 8 had had
their arms broken by injury or torture, and many had wounds in the lower
parts of their legs as the result of being very tightly bound. That is
the report of the commissioner of the police at Pau, drawn up on 28
August 1944, on the day following the liberation of Pau.
We now submit Document F-585 as Exhibit Number RF-398. The Tribunal will
find it on Page 96 of the document book. I will give a summary:
The day following the liberation, 38 corpses were found in two graves
near Signes in the mountain of Var. One of the leaders of the Resistance
of the Côte d’Azur, Valmy, and with him two parachutists, Pageot and
Manuel, were identified. Of this massacre a witness was found—his name
is Tuirot—whose statements are copied on Pages 105, 106, and 107 of
your document book.
Tuirot was tortured, with his comrades, without having been given the
opportunity of help from a counsel or a chaplain. The 38 men were taken
to the woods. They appeared before a parody of a tribunal composed of
SS. They were condemned to death and the sentence was executed.
We place now before the Tribunal Document F-586 as Exhibit Number
RF-399. The Tribunal will find it on Page 110 of the document book. It
deals with the execution at Saint Nazaire and Royans of 37 patriots,
members of the French Secret Army, who were tortured before being
executed. Here is the statement of facts by an eyewitness:
“I came through the ruins and arrived at the Château of Madame
Laurent, a widow. There a frightful spectacle confronted me. The
castle, which the Gestapo had used as a place of torture for the
young Maquis, had been set on fire. In a cellar there was the
calcinated skeleton which prior to death had had its forearms
and a foot pulled off and which had perhaps been burned while
still alive.”
But I proceed. Wherever the Gestapo was in operation there were the same
methods.
Now we place before the Tribunal Document F-699, which relates to the
murder at Grenoble of 48 members of the Secret Army all of whom were
tortured. This document is submitted as Exhibit Number RF-400.
I now come to Document F-587, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-401.
The Tribunal will find this document on Page 115 of the document book.
It concerns the execution by hanging of 12 patriots at Nîmes, 2 of whom
were dragged from the hospital where they were under care for wounds
received in battle. These young men had all been captured in combat at
St. Hippolyte-du-Fort. The bodies of these wretched men had been
defiled. On their chests was a placard saying: “Thus are French
terrorists punished.” When the French authorities wished to perform
funeral rites for these unfortunate men, the bodies had disappeared. The
German Army had removed them. They have never been discovered. It is a
fact that two of these victims were dragged from the hospital. Document
F-587 contains particularly the report of a witness who saw the men
taken from the hospital ward where they were being cared for.
I now submit Document F-561 as Exhibit Number RF-402—Page 118 of your
book. It deals with the execution at Lyons of 109 patriots who were shot
under inhuman conditions. They were killed at the end of a day’s toil.
On 14 August Allied planes had bombed the Bron airfield. From 16 to 22
August the German authorities had employed requisitioned civilians and
prisoners from the Fort of Montluc at Lyons to fill the bomb craters. At
the end of the day, when the work was finished, the civilian laborers
went away; but the prisoners were shot on the spot after having been
more or less ill-treated. Their bodies were stacked in half-filled
craters.
Document F-591, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-403, Page 119 of
the document book, is a report of atrocities committed by the German
Army on 30 August 1944 at Tavaux (Aisne):
“During the afternoon of that day soldiers of the Adolf Hitler
Division arrived at Tavaux. They appeared at the home of M.
Maujean, who was leader of the resistance. His wife opened the
door. Without explanation they shot at her, wounding her in the
thigh and also in the lower jaw. They dragged her to the kitchen
and broke one arm and one leg in the presence of her children,
aged 9, 8, 7, and 6 years, and 8 months. They poured inflammable
liquid over Madame Maujean and set fire to her in front of the
children. The elder son held his little sister, 8 months old, in
his arms. Then they told the children that they would shoot them
if they did not tell them where their father was. The children
said nothing, although they knew the whereabouts of their
father. Before leaving they took the children to the cellar and
locked them in. Then the Germans poured gasoline on the house
and set it on fire. The fire was put out and the children were
saved. These facts were told to M. Maujean by his eldest child.
No other person was a witness to these facts because the
inhabitants, frightened by the first houses set on fire, had
sought refuge either in trenches or in the neighboring fields
and woods.
“During the same evening 21 persons were killed at Tavaux and 83
houses were set on fire.”
Next comes a report by the gendarme, Carlier, on the events of the
following day.
Document F-589, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-404, shows the
number of murders of patriots committed in the region of Lyons. It is
dated 29 September 1944: 713 victims were found in 8 departments; 217
only have been identified. This figure is approximate; it is definitely
less than the number of people who are missing in the 8 departments of
Ain, Ardèche, Drôme, Isère, Loire, Rhône, Savoie, and Haute Savoie.
A German general, General Von Brodowski, confessed in his diary, which
fell into our hands, that he had caused the murder of numerous patriots,
and that the Wehrmacht, Police, and SS operated together and were
responsible for these murders. These troops murdered wounded men in the
hospital camps of the French forces of the interior. This document,
which is under Number F-257, is submitted as Exhibit Number RF-405 and
is to be found on Page 123 of your document book. In the last four
paragraphs the police and the army combine:
“I have been charged with restoring the authority of the Army of
Occupation in the Department of Cantal and neighboring regions.”
Dated 6 June 1944:
“General Jesser had been charged with the tactical direction of
the undertaking. All troops available for the operation will be
subordinate to him, as well as all other forces.
“The Commander of the Sipo and of the SD, Hauptsturmführer
Geissler, remains at my immediate disposal; he will submit to me
proposals for a possible utilization”—and so forth.
“The staff and two battalions of the SS Panzer Division ‘Das
Reich’ are, in addition, to remain available for the operation
in Cantal.”
General Brodowski turned over to the SD (which is equivalent to
execution without trial) the French prisoners who were wounded on 15
June 1944. The Prefect of Le Puy asked the liaison staff whether the men
wounded in the battle of Montmouchet and taken into safety by the Red
Cross of Puy could be delivered to Puy as prisoners of war. This German
general, executing the orders of the German High Command—particularly
of Keitel and Jodl—said that those wounded men were to be treated as
_francs-tireurs_ and to be delivered to the SD or to the Abwehr. Those
wounded men were turned over to the German Police and tortured and
killed without trial.
According to the statement of Goldberg, which I have submitted, any man
turned over to the SD was executed. Events took place on 21 June 1944 as
indicated by Goldberg, “Twelve suspects were arrested and turned over to
the SD.”
Under the date of 16 August 1944, Page 133, this general of the German
Army had 40 men murdered after the battles at Bourg-Lastic and at
Cosnat:
“In the course of operation Jesser, on 15 July 1944 in the
Bourg-Lastic region, 23 persons were executed. Martial law.
Attack on Cosnat; 3 kilometers east of St. Hilaire, during the
night of 17 July, 40 terrorists were shot.”
On Page 136, this German general admits in his own diary that our
comrades were fighting as soldiers and not as assassins. This general of
the German Army acknowledges that the French Forces of the Interior took
prisoners:
“Southeast of d’Argenton, 30 kilometers southwest of
Châteauroux, the ‘Jako’ discovered a center of terrorists; 16
German soldiers were liberated; arms and ammunition were
captured; 7 terrorists were killed, 2 of them being captains.
One German soldier was seriously wounded.”
Another similar incident is also related further on:
“Discovery of two camps of terrorists in the region of
d’Argenton. Nine enemies were killed, two of whom were officers;
16 German soldiers were liberated.”
At the bottom of the page he states, “We liberated two SS men.”
These French soldiers were entitled to the respect of their adversaries.
They conducted themselves as soldiers; they were assassinated.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now until two o’clock.
[_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 on account of illness.
M. DUBOST: We had arrived, gentlemen, at the presentation of the
terrorist policy carried out by the German Army, Police, and SS,
indistinguishably united in their evil task against the French patriots.
Not only the militant patriots were to be the victims of this terrorist
policy. There were threats of reprisals against their relatives, and
these threats were carried into effect.
We submit Document 719-PS as Exhibit Number RF-406, which you will find
on Page 147 of the document book. It is the copy of a teletype from the
German Embassy in Paris to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Berlin.
The German Ambassador reports a conversation which the Vichy unit had
had with Laval.
The author of this message, who is probably Abetz, explains that
Bousquet, who was with Laval at the time of this conversation, stated
that he was completely ignorant of the recent flight of Giraud’s
brother:
“Madame Giraud, three of her daughters, her mother, another
brother and the daughter-in-law of Giraud, were in
Vals-les-Bains. I replied that such measures were insufficient
and that he must not be surprised if the German police some day
reverted to sterner measures, in view of the obvious
incompetence of the French police in numerous cases.”
The threat was put into execution. We have already stated that the
family of General Giraud were deported.
We submit Document F-717 under Exhibit Number RF-407, Page 149 of your
document book: “Paris, 1030 hours, 101, Official Government Telegram,
Paris, to the French Delegation of the IMT Nuremberg.”
From this telegram it is evident that 17 persons, members of the family
of General Giraud, were deported to Germany. Madame Granger, daughter of
General Giraud, aged 32, was arrested without cause in Tunis in April
1943, as well as her four children, aged 2 to 11 years, with their young
nurse, and her brother-in-law, M. Granger. The family of General Giraud
was also arrested, on 9 October 1943. They were first deported to
Berlin, then to Thuringia.
May I ask the forbearance of the Tribunal; the telegraphic style does
not lend itself to interpretation, “Sent first to Berlin and then to
Thuringia; women and children of M. Granger to Dachau.” (I suppose that
we must understand this to mean the wife of M. Granger and the nurse who
accompanied her.)
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, what is the document?
M. DUBOST: This is a French official telegram. You have the original
before you, Mr. President, “—101—Official State Telegram Paris,” typed
on the text of the telegram itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we receive a telegram from anybody addressed to the
Tribunal?
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, it is not addressed to the Tribunal; it is
addressed to the French Delegation. It is an official telegram from the
French Government in Paris, “Official State Paris,” and it was
transmitted as an official telegram.
THE PRESIDENT: What does “IMT Paris” mean?
M. DUBOST: The International Military Tribunal in Paris. It is our
office in Paris at Place Vendôme—it is an office of the French Ministry
of Justice. The telegram begins, “General Giraud.” It is a telegraphic
declaration. The letters “OFF” at the beginning of the telegram mean
“Official.” Please forgive me for insisting that the three letters “OFF”
at the beginning of the telegram mean “Government, official” from Paris.
No French telegraph office could transmit such a telegram if it did not
come from an official authority. This official authority is the French
Delegation of the IMT in Paris, which received the statement made by
General Giraud and transmitted it to us: “By General Giraud, French
Delegation of the IMT.”
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will receive the document under
Article 21 of the Charter.
M. DUBOST: I am grateful to the Tribunal. I read further on, at Page
150:
“On the other hand, the death of Madame Granger on 24 September
1943 is undoubtedly due to lack of care and medicine, in spite
of her reiterated requests for both. After an autopsy of her
body, which took place in the presence of a French doctor,
specially summoned from Paris after her death, authorization was
given to this doctor, Dr. Claque to bring the four children back
to France, and then to Spain, where they would be handed over to
their father. This was refused by the Gestapo in Paris, and the
children were sent back to Germany as hostages, where their
grandmother found them only 6 months later.”
The last four lines:
“The health of Madame Giraud, her daughter Marie Theresa, and
two of her grandchildren has been gravely impaired by the
physical, and particularly by the moral, hardships of their
deportation.”
As a reprisal for the escape of General Giraud, 17 persons were
arrested, all innocent of his escape.
I have frequently shown that in their determination to impose their
reign of terror the Germans resorted to means which revolt the
conscience of decent people. Of these means one of the most repugnant is
the call for informers.
Document F-278(b), Page 152, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-408,
is a reproduction of an ordinance of 20 December 1941, which is so
obviously contrary to international law that the Foreign Ministry of the
Reich itself took cognizance of it. The ordinance of 27 December 1941
prescribes the following:
“Whosoever may have knowledge that arms are in the possession or
keeping of an unauthorized person or persons is obliged to
declare that at the nearest police headquarters.”
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Berlin, on 29 June 1942, objected to
the draft of a reply to the French note, which we do not have here but
which must have been a protest against this ordinance of 27 December
1941. The Tribunal knows that in the military operations which
accompanied the liberation of our land many archives disappeared, and
therefore we cannot make known to the Tribunal the protest to which the
note of 29 June 1942, from the German Foreign Ministry refers.
Paragraph 2 summarizes the arguments of the French protest. The French
evidently had written: If German territory were occupied by the French,
we would certainly consider as a man without honor any German who
denounced to the occupying power an infraction of their laws, and this
point of view was taken up and adopted by the German Foreign Ministry.
The note continues:
“As a result of consideration of this matter, the Foreign Office
considers it questionable whether punishment should be inflicted
on whomsoever fails to denounce a person possessing or known to
possess arms. Such a prescription of penalty under this general
form is, in the opinion of the Foreign Office, the more
impracticable in that it would offer the French the possibility
of calling attention to the fact that the German Army is
demanding of them acts which would be considered Criminal if
committed by German citizens.”
This German note, I repeat, comes from the Reich Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and is signed “Strack.” There is no more severe condemnation of
the German Army than that expressed by the Reich Ministry of Foreign
Affairs itself. The reply of the German Army will be found by the
Tribunal on Page 155, “Berlin. 8 December 1942. High Command of the
Wehrmacht.” The High Command of the Wehrmacht concludes:
“. . . since it does not seem desirable to enter into discussion
with the French Government on the questions of law evoked by
them, we too consider it appropriate not to reply to the French
note.”
This note begins, moreover, by asserting that any relaxing of the orders
given would be considered as a sign of weakness in France and in
Belgium.
These are not the signs of weakness that the German Army gave in our
occupied countries of the West. The weakness manifested itself in
terror; it brought terror to reign throughout our countries, and that in
order to permit the development of the policy of extermination of the
vanquished nations which, in the minds of all Nazi leaders, remained the
principal purpose, if not the sole purpose, of this war.
This terrorist policy, of which the Tribunal has just seen examples in
connection with the repression of attacks by our French Forces of the
Interior on the enemy, developed without any military necessity for it
in all the countries of the West. The devastations committed by the
enemy are extremely numerous. We shall limit our presentation to the
destruction of Rotterdam at a time when the city had already capitulated
and when only the question of the form of capitulation had to be
settled; and secondly, to a description of the inundations which the
German Army caused, without any military necessity of any sort, in 1945
on the eve of its destruction when that Army already knew that it had
lost the game.
We have chosen the example of Rotterdam because it is the first act of
terrorism of the German Army in the West. We have taken the inundations
because, without her dykes, without fresh water, Holland ceases to
exist. The day her dykes are destroyed, Holland disappears. One sees
here the fulfillment of the enemy’s aim of destruction, formulated long
ago by Germany as already shown by the citation from Hitler with which I
opened my speech, an aim which was pursued to the very last minute of
Germany’s existence as is proved by those unnecessary inundations.
We submit to the Tribunal Document F-719 as Exhibit Number RF-409, which
comprises Dutch reports on the bombing of Rotterdam and the capitulation
of the Dutch Army. On Pages 38 and 39 of the second document book are
copies of the translations of documents exchanged between the commander
of the German troops before Rotterdam and the colonel who was in command
of the Dutch troops defending the city.
Captain Backer relates the incidents of that evening which ended with
the burning of the city. At 1030 hours a German representative appeared
with an ultimatum, unsigned and without any indication of the sender,
demanding that the Dutch capitulate before 1230 hours. This document was
returned by the Dutch colonel, who asked to be told the name and the
military rank of the officer who had called upon him to surrender.
At 1215 hours Captain Backer appeared before the German lines and was
received by a German officer. At 1235 hours he had an interview with
German officers in a dairy shop. A German general wrote his terms for
capitulation on the letter of reply, which the representative of the
Dutch General Staff had just brought to him.
At 1320 hours Captain Backer left the place, this dairy shop where the
negotiations had taken place, with the terms to which a reply had to be
given. Two German officers escorted him. These escorting officers were
protected by the flight of German aircraft, and red rockets were fired
by them at 1322 and 1325 hours. At 1330 hours the first bomb fell upon
Rotterdam, which was to be completely set on fire. The entry of the
German troops was to take place at 1850 hours, but it was put forward at
1820 hours. Later the Germans said to Captain Backer that the purpose of
the red rockets was to prevent the bombing. However, there had been
excellent wireless communication from the ground to the aircraft.
Captain Backer expressed his surprise that this should have been done by
means of rockets.
The work on the inundation of the “Wieringermeer” polder began on 9 and
10 April 1945. I quote a Dutch document. That day German soldiers
appeared on the polder, gave orders, and placed a guard for the dyke.
“On 17 April 1945 at 1215 hours the dyke was dynamited so that
two parts of it were destroyed up to a height somewhat lower
than the surface of the water of the Ijesselmeer . . . .
“As for the population, they were warned during the night of 16
to 17 April”—that is, at the time when the water was about to
flood the polder—“In Wieringerwerf the news received by the
mayor was passed from house to house that at noon the dyke would
be destroyed. Altogether for this great polder, with an area of
20,000 hectares, not more than 8½ to 9 hours were granted for
evacuation . . . . Telephone communications had been completely
interrupted; and it was impossible to use automobiles, which
meant that some individuals did not receive any warning until 8
o’clock in the morning . . . .
“The time given to the population was, therefore, too short for
the evacuation . . . .
“The looting in the flooded polder has already been mentioned.
During the morning of 17 April, on the day of the disaster,
groups of German soldiers begin to loot . . . These soldiers
came from Wieringen . . . Moreover, they broke everything that
they did not want to take . . .”
This polder by itself covers half of all the flooded lands in Northern
Holland. The polder was flooded on 17 April, when defeat was already a
fact as far as the German Army was concerned. The Dutch people are
seeking to recover the land which they have lost. Their courage,
industry and energy arouse our admiration, but it is an immense loss
which the German Army inflicted upon those people on 17 April.
Terrorism and extermination are intimately interwoven in all countries
in the West.
Document C-45, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-410 and which is the
first in the document book, is an order of 10 February 1944 showing that
repression, in the minds of the leaders of the German Army, was to be
carried out without consideration of any kind:
“Fire must be immediately returned. If, as a result, innocent
people are struck, it is to be regretted but it is entirely the
fault of the terrorists.”
These lines were written over the signature of an officer of the general
staff of the German Military Command in Belgium and Northern France.
This officer was never denounced by his superiors as can be seen by the
document.
Document F-665, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-411, Page 2 of your
document book:
“The search of suspected villages requires experience. SD or GFP
(Secret Field Police) personnel should be called upon. The real
accomplices of the guerillas must be disclosed, and apprehended
with all severity. Collective measures against the inhabitants
of entire villages (this includes the burning of villages) are
to be taken only in exceptional cases and may be ordered only by
divisional commands or by chiefs of the SS and Police.”
This document is dated 6 May 1944. It comes from the High Command of the
Wehrmacht; and it, or at least the covering letter, is signed by Jodl.
This document involves not only the Army General Staff, but the Labor
Service—that is to say, Sauckel—and the Todt Organization—that is to
say, Speer. Indeed, in the next to the last paragraph we may read:
“The directive . . . is applicable to all branches of the
Wehrmacht and to all organizations which exercise their
activities in occupied territories (the Reich Labor Service, the
Todt Organization, _et cetera_).”
These orders, aimed at the extermination of innocent civilian
populations, were to be carried out vigorously but at the price of a
constant collusion of the German Army, the SS, the SD, and the Sipo,
which the people of all countries of the West place together in the same
horror and in the same reprobation.
In the war diary of General Von Brodowski submitted this morning under
Exhibit Number RF-405, an excerpt of which is to be found on Pages 3, 4,
and 5 of the document book, it is stated that repressive operations were
carried out:
“An action against terrorists was undertaken in the southwestern
area of the Department of Dordogne near Lalinde, in which a
company of Georgians of Field Police, and members of the SD took
part . . .”
Dated 14 June 1944 is a statement on the destruction of
Oradour-sur-Glane. I shall come back to the destruction of this village.
“600 persons are said to have been killed,” writes General Von
Brodowski. It is underscored in the text.
“The whole male population of Oradour has been shot. Women and
children took refuge in the church. The church caught fire.
Explosives had been stored in the church. Even women and
children perished.”
We shall let you know the results of the French inquiry. The Tribunal
will see to what degree General Von Brodowski lied when he described the
annihilation of Oradour in these terms.
Concerning Tulle:
“On 8 July 1944 in the evening the barracks occupied by the 13th
Company of the 95th Security Regiment were attacked by
terrorists. The struggle was terminated by the arrival of the
Panzer division, ‘Das Reich.’ 120 male inhabitants of Tulle were
hanged, and 1,000 sent to the SD at Limoges for investigation.”
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, could we see the original of this document?
M. DUBOST: I showed it to you this morning, Mr. President, when I
submitted it. It is rather a large document, if you will remember, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. We would like to see it.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): I should like
briefly to rectify an error now, before it is carried any further.
The French Prosecutor mentioned that certain people were put at the
disposal of the Arbeitsdienst. I should like to point out that
Arbeitsdienst is not to be confused with the Arbeitseinsatz. The
Arbeitseinsatz was ultimately directed by Sauckel, whereas the
Arbeitsdienst had nothing whatsoever to do with Sauckel. I should like
to ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of that distinction.
THE PRESIDENT: On account of a technical incident, the Tribunal will
adjourn.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: The attorney for Sauckel, I think, was addressing the
Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: I had pointed out the difference between the
Arbeitsdienst and the Arbeitseinsatz. The French prosecuting attorney
apparently confused the Arbeitsdienst with the Arbeitseinsatz, for he
said that the Arbeitsdienst was connected with Sauckel. That is not so.
The Arbeitsdienst was an organization for premilitary training which
existed before the war and in which young people had to render labor
service. These young people were to some extent used for military
purposes. The Arbeitseinsatz was concerned solely with the recruiting of
labor to be used in factories or other places of work. It follows,
therefore, that Sauckel cannot be associated with the accusations that
were made in this connection. That is what I wanted to say.
M. DUBOST: The two German words were translated in an identical manner
in French. A verification having been made, the remarks of the defense
are correct and Sauckel is not involved, but only the Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
M. DUBOST: Here are a few examples of terrorist extermination in
Holland, in Belgium, and in other occupied countries of the West.
In Holland, as one example out of a thousand, there were the massacres
of Putten of 30 September 1944. They are included in Document Number
F-224, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-324 and which is to be found
on Page 46 of the document book. On 30 September 1944 an attack was made
at Putten by members of the Dutch resistance against a German
automobile. The Germans concluded that the village was a refuge for
partisans. They searched the houses and assembled the population in the
church.
A wounded German officer had been taken prisoner by the Dutch
resistance. The Germans declared that if this officer was released
within 24 hours no reprisals would be made. The officer was released,
after having received medical care from the soldiers of the Dutch
resistance who had captured him. However, in spite of the pledge given,
reprisals were made upon the village of Putten, whose inhabitants were
all innocent.