“At first glance, one could realize that the Tripartite Pact had
in mind a double purpose.”
I shall skip the following sentence which is without interest, and I go
to the sentence dealing with the second purpose:
“Moreover, it entrusted the parties with a mission for the
future, that is to say, the establishment of a new order in
Europe and eastern Asia.
“Without seeking to lessen the importance of the first question,
there can be no doubt that this second purpose, dealing with the
future, involved vaster projects and was, in fact, the principal
point. For the first time in an international treaty, in the
Tripartite Pact, the terms ‘space’ and ‘orientation’ were used
linking one with the other.”
I now go to Page 314 where the author makes a remark which appears to me
to be significant:
“Now, the Tripartite Pact places a clear delimitation of the
wider spaces created by nature on our globe. The concept of
space, it is true, is employed explicitly only for the Far East,
but it is equally applicable to Europe and that within this
conception Africa is comprised. The latter is certainly
politically and economically a complement, or if one wishes, an
annex of Europe. Moreover, it is obvious that the Tripartite
Pact fixes the limits of the two great regions or spaces
reserved for the partners, that the pact tacitly recognizes the
third area, that is Asia, properly speaking, and that it leaves
aside the fourth, the American Continent, thus leaving the
latter to its own destiny. In this way the whole surface of the
globe is concerned; and an idea, which as yet has not been
considered except in theory, was given the significance of a
political principle derived from international law.”
I have felt that this text was of interest because, on the one hand, it
clarifies the fact that the African Continent is itself included in the
space reserved to the German claimants, and on the other, it states that
the government of such an immense space by Germany constitutes
international law. This pretense of acting juridically is one of the
characteristics of the undertaking to germanize the world from 1940 to
1945. It is undoubtedly one of the reasons which inspired Nazi Germany
to proceed only on rare occasions by the annexation of territories.
Annexation is not indispensable for the domination of a great area. It
can be replaced by other methods which correspond rather accurately to
the usual term of “vassalization.”
THE PRESIDENT: Do you not think this will be a convenient time to break
off?
[_A recess was taken._]
M. FAURE: Mr. President, before resuming my brief, I should like to ask
the Tribunal if they could agree to hear, during the afternoon session,
a witness who is M. Reuter, President of the Chamber of Luxembourg.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, M. Faure, if that is convenient to you, the
Tribunal is quite willing to hear the witness you name.
M. FAURE: I propose on those conditions to have him heard at the
beginning of the second part of the afternoon session.
I pointed out a moment ago that the different methods of disguised
annexation can correspond to the term “vassalization.” From a German
author I shall borrow a formula which is eloquent. It is Dr. Sperl, in
an article in the _Krakauer Zeitung_, who used this expression: “A
differentiation in methods of German domination.” In using, thus,
indirect and differentiated methods of domination, the Germans acted in
political matters, as we have seen before, in the same way as they acted
in economic matters. I had the opportunity to point out to the Tribunal,
in my first brief, that the Germans immediately seized the keys of
economic life. If you will permit me to use this Latin expression, I
shall say as far as sovereignty in the occupied countries is concerned,
they insured for themselves the power of the keys, “_potestas clavium_.”
They seized the keys of sovereignty in each country. In that fashion,
without being obliged to abolish officially national sovereignty as in
the case of annexation, they were able to control and direct the
exercise of this sovereignty.
Beginning with these principle ideas, the plan of my brief was conceived
as follows:
In the first chapter I shall examine the regime in annexed territories
where national sovereignty was abolished. In a second chapter I shall
examine the mechanism of the seizure of sovereignty for the benefit of
the occupying power in the regions which were not annexed. Then it will
be suitable to examine the results of these usurpations of sovereignty
and the violation of the rights of the population which resulted from
them. I thought it necessary that I should group these results by
dealing with the principal ones in a third and fourth chapter. The third
chapter will be devoted to spiritual Germanization, that is, to the
propaganda in the very extensive sense that the German concept gives to
this term. Chapter four, and the last, will bear the heading, “The
Administrative Organization of Criminal Action.”
I would now like to point out, as far as the documentation of my brief
is concerned, I have forced myself to limit the number of texts which
will be presented to the Tribunal; and I shall attempt to make my
quotations as short as possible. For the fourth chapter, for example, I
might point out that the French Delegation examined more than 2,000
documents, counting only the original German documents, of which I have
kept only about fifty.
I should like also to point out to the Tribunal how the documents will
be presented in the document books which you have before you. The
documents are numbered at the top of the page to the right; they are
numbered in pencil and correspond to the order in which I shall quote
them. Each dossier has a pagination which begins with the number 100.
I would ask the Tribunal now to take up the document book entitled: “The
Annexed Territories of Eupen, Malmédy, and Moresnet.”
In carrying out, without any attempt or cloak of legality, the
annexation of occupied territories, Germany did something much more
serious than violating the rules of law. It is the negation of the very
idea of international law. The lawyer, Bustamante y Sirven, in his
treatise on international law expresses himself in the following terms
regarding this subject:
“It can be observed that never have we alluded at any moment to
the hypothesis that an occupation terminates because the
occupying power takes possession of the occupied territory
through his military forces and without any convention. The
motive for this mission is very simple and very clear. Since
conquest cannot be considered as a legitimate mode of
acquisition, these results are uniquely the result of force and
can be neither determined nor measured by the rules of law.”
On the other hand, I have said just now that Germanization did not
necessarily imply annexation. Inversely, we might conceive that
annexation did not necessarily mean Germanization. We shall prove to the
Tribunal that annexation was only a means, the most brutal one of
Germanization, that is to say, nazification.
The annexation of the Belgian cantons of Eupen, Malmédy, and Moresnet
was made possible by a German law of 18 May 1940 and was the subject of
an executive decree of 23 May 1940. These are public regulations, which
were published in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Pages 777 and 804. I should
like to ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this.
As a result of this decree the three Belgian districts were attached to
the province of the Rhineland, district of Aachen.
A decree dated 24 September 1940 installed local German government and
German municipal laws. A decree of 28 July 1940 introduced the German
judicial system in these territories. Local courts were established in
Malmédy, in Eupen and St. Vith, and district courts at Aachen, which
could judge cases on equality with the local courts.
The Court of Appeal of Cologne replaced the Belgian Court of Cassation
for cases where the latter would have been competent. German law was
introduced in these territories by the decree of 23 May 1940, signed by
Hitler, Göring, Frick, and Lammers and was effective as from September
1940.
A decree of 3 September 1940 regulates the details of the transition of
Belgian law into German law in the domains of private law, commercial
law, and law of procedure.
By the decree of annexation German nationality was conferred upon the
inhabitants of German racial origin in this Belgian territory. The
details of this measure were specified and stipulated by the decree of
23 September 1941. All persons who had acquired Belgian nationality as a
result of the ceding of these territories could, according to the terms
of the decree, resume their German nationality, with the exception,
however, of Jews and Gypsies. All the other inhabitants, on condition
that they were racially German, could acquire German nationality, which
might be revoked after 10 years.
I shall not take up at great length the situation which resulted from
the annexation of these Belgian territories, for the developments of the
situation are analogous to those which we shall examine in the other
countries. I simply would like to point out a special detail of this
subject: A law of 4 February 1941, signed by Hitler, Göring, Frick, and
Lammers granted the citizens of Eupen, Malmédy, and Moresnet
representation in the Reichstag, that is to say, the benefits of the
German parliamentary regime, the democratic character of which is known.
I shall ask the Tribunal to now take up the file entitled “Alsace and
Lorraine.” There is a file, “Exposé,” and a file, “Documents.”
Contrary to what took place in the Belgian cantons the Germans did not
officially proclaim by law the annexation of the three French
departments which constitute Alsace and Lorraine. The fact of this
annexation, however, is in no way doubtful. I should like to remind the
Tribunal here of extracts from a document which has already been
submitted to it, which is Document Number RF-3 of the French
documentation. It concerns a deposition made before the French High
Court of Justice, by the French Ambassador, Léon Noël, who was a member
of the Armistice Delegation. I did not put this document in your book
because I shall cite only one sentence from it. The document has already
been submitted to the Tribunal, as I have just said.
Ambassador Noël, in this document, pointed out the conversations which
he had at the time of the signing of the Armistice Convention with the
German representatives, notably with the accused Keitel and Jodl. The
sentence which I would like to remind the Tribunal of is as follows:
“. . . and likewise, in thinking of Alsace and Lorraine, I
required them to say that the administrative and judicial
authorities of the occupied territories would keep their
positions and functions and would be able to correspond freely
with the government.”
The affirmations are dated 22 June 1940.
I am now going to submit to the Tribunal a document of 3 September 1940,
which is a note of protest of the French Delegation, addressed to the
Armistice Commission. I submit this to the Tribunal in order that the
Tribunal may see that during the period which elapsed between these two
dates, a period which covers barely 2 months, the Nazis had applied a
series of measures which created, in an incontestable manner, a state of
annexation.
This document which I submit bears the Number RF-701 of the French
documentation. It is the first document of the document book which the
Tribunal has before it. All the documents in this chapter will bear
numbers beginning with the Number 7, that is to say, beginning with
RF-701.
This document comes from the file of the French High Court of Justice,
and the copy submitted to the Tribunal has been certified by the clerk
of this jurisdiction. I should like to quote from this document,
beginning with the fourth paragraph on Page 1 of the Document Number
RF-701:
“1. Prefects, subprefects, and mayors, as well as a number of
local officials whose tendencies were considered suspicious,
have been evicted from their respective offices.
“2. Monseigneur Heintz, bishop appointed under the Concordat to
Metz, was driven from his diocese. Several members of the
clergy, secular as well as regular, were also expelled under the
pretext that they were French in tongue and mentality.
“3. Monseigneur Ruch, the bishop appointed under the Concordat
to Strasbourg, was forbidden to enter his diocese and,
consequently, to resume his ministry.
“4. M. Joseph Bürckel was appointed on 7 August, Gauleiter of
Lorraine and M. Robert Wagner, Gauleiter of Alsace. The first of
these provinces was attached to the Gau of Saar-Palatinate; the
second to the Gau of Baden.
“5. Alsace and Lorraine were incorporated in the civil
administration of Germany. The frontier and custom police were
then placed on the western limits of these territories.
“6. The railroads were incorporated in the German network.
“7. The post office, telegraph, and telephone administration was
taken over by the German postal authorities, who gradually
substituted their own personnel for the Alsatian personnel.
“8. The French language was eliminated, not only in
administrative life but also from public use.
“9. Names of localities were germanized.
“10. The racial legislation of Germany was introduced into the
country; and as a result of this measure, the Jews were expelled
as well as nationals which the German authorities considered to
be intruders.
“11. Only the Alsatians and Lorrainers who agreed to consider
themselves as being of German stock were permitted to return to
their homes.
“12. The property of associations of a political character and
of Jews was confiscated as well as property acquired after 11
November 1918 by French persons.
“Nothing illustrates better the spirit which animates these
measures, in themselves arbitrary, than the words pronounced
publicly 16 July at Strasbourg by M. Robert Wagner. Stressing
the elimination of all elements of foreign stock or nationality
which was taking place, this high official affirmed that the
purpose of Germany was to settle once and for all the Alsatian
question.
“Such a policy, which could not be the function of subordinate
occupational authorities, was equivalent to disguised annexation
and is strictly contrary to agreements subscribed to by Germany
at Rethondes.”
Numerous protests were subsequently lodged by the French Delegation. We
have attached to our file a list of these protests; there are 62 of
them. This list is found in the book under the Document Number RF-702.
The development of the German policy may now be studied through three
series of measures which were carried out. First, a body of measures
destined to assure the elimination of what can be called the French
complex, that is to say, of everything which can tie an inhabitant of an
annexed country to his way of life and to his national tradition.
Second, a body of measures destined to impose German standards in all
domains of life of the population. Third, the measures of transportation
and of colonization. We use here the German terminology.
First, elimination of the French complex.
The elimination of French nationality and of French law resulted
automatically from the measures which we shall study relative to the
imposition of German standards. I should like to point out particularly,
that the Germans tried to fight against all elements of French
organization which might have survived the suppression of their national
juridical conditions.
At first they proscribed, in an extraordinarily brutal way, the use of
the French language. Several regulations were formulated relative to
this. I shall cite only the third regulation, bearing the date of 16
August 1940, entitled, “Concerning the Reintroduction of the Mother
Tongue.” This document is published in the Journal of German Ordinances
or Decrees of 1940, (_Verordnungsblatt_) on Page 2. It bears Document
Number RF-703. The Tribunal will find it in the document book after the
Document Number 702, which is the list of French protests. I should like
to read a large part of this document, which is interesting; and I shall
start at the beginning:
“Following the measures undertaken with a view of reintroducing
the mother tongue of the Alsatian people, I decree as follows:
“1. Official Language.
“All public services in Alsace, including administration of
communes, of corporations within the meaning of civil law,
public establishments, churches, and foundations, as well as
tribunals, will use exclusively the German language orally and
in writing. The Alsatian population will use exclusively its
German mother tongue in both oral and written applications to
the above establishments.
“2. Christian and Family Names.
“Christian names will be exclusively used in their German form
orally and in writing, even when they have been inscribed in the
French language on the birth register. As soon as this present
decree comes into force, only German Christian names may be
inscribed upon the birth register. Alsatians who bear French
Christian names, which do not exist in German form, are asked to
apply for a change of their Christian names in order to show
their attachment to Germanism. The same holds good for French
family names.”