“4. It is forbidden to draw up, in the French language,
contracts and accounts under private seal of whatever nature
they may be. Anything printed on business paper and on forms
must be drawn up in the German language. Books and accounts of
all business firms, establishments, and companies must be kept
in the German language.
“5. Inscriptions in Cemeteries.
“In the future, inscriptions on crosses and on tombstones can be
written only in the German language. This provision applies as
well to a new inscription as to the renewal of old
inscriptions.”
These measures were accompanied by a press campaign. Because of the
resistance of the population, this campaign was carried on throughout
the occupation.
I should like to make one citation of an article which is particularly
significant, published in the _Dernières Nouvelles de Strasbourg_ on 30
March 1943. This is not introduced as a document; it is a quotation of a
published article. When we read such an article, we think it at first a
joke; but we see, subsequently, that it is serious because repressive
measures had to be taken against people who sabotaged the German
language. I cite:
“Germans greet one another with ‘Heil Hitler.’ We do not want
any more French greetings, which we still hear constantly in a
thousand different forms. The elegant salutation ‘Bonjour’ is
not made for these rough Alsatian throats, accustomed to the
German tongue since the distant epoch of Osfried von
Weissenburg. The Alsatian hurts our ears when he says
‘boschurr.’ When he says ‘Au Revoir,’ the French think they are
listening to an Arabic word, which sounds like ‘arwar.’
Sometimes they say ‘Adje’ (Adieu).
“These phonetic monstrosities which disfigure our beautiful
Alsatian-Germanic dialect resemble a thistle in a flower bed.
Let us weed them out! They are not worthy of Alsace. Do you
believe feminine susceptibility is wounded by saying ‘Frau’
instead of ‘Madame’? We are sure that Alsatians will drop the
habit of linguistic whims so that the authorities will not have
to use rigorous measures against saboteurs of the German
language.”
After this attack on the language, the National Socialists attacked
music. This is the purpose of a decree of 1 March 1941, signed by
Dressler, the Chief of the Department of Public Enlightenment and
Propaganda in the Office of the Chief of Civil Administration for
Alsace.
This is Document Number RF-704, published in the German Official Journal
(_Verordnungsblatt_) Page 170 of the year 1941. I shall simply cite the
title of this decree: “Decree Concerning Undesirable and Injurious
Music.” The first 3 lines are:
“Musical works contrary to the cultural will of National
Socialists will be entered on a list of undesirable and
injurious music by the Department for Public Enlightenment and
Propaganda.”
After music, now, we have the question of hairdress. In this regulation
the ridiculous constantly disputes supremacy with the odious. I would
almost like to ask the Tribunal to pardon me, but, truly, nothing in
this is invented by us.
Here is Document Number RF-705. It is a decree of 13 December 1941
published in the Official Bulletin of 1941, Page 744. This Document
RF-705 concerns the wearing of French berets (Basque berets) in Alsace.
I read only the first paragraph:
“The wearing of French berets (Basque berets) is forbidden in
Alsace. Under this prohibition are included all berets which by
form or appearance resemble French berets.”
I may add that any violation of this decree was punishable by fine or
imprisonment.
The leaders also undertook a long struggle against French flags which
the inhabitants kept in their houses. I cite as an example Document
Number RF-706, a German administrative document which we found in the
archives of the Gau Administration of Strasbourg. It is dated 19
February 1941. I read 3 paragraphs of this document.
“The Gauleiter desires that the Alsatian population be
recommended by the organization of the Block- and Zellenleiter
to rip up the French flags still in possession of the people and
to use them in a suitable way for household needs.
“By the 1st of next May no French flag should be in private
hands. This goal should be attained in a way by which the
Blockleiter are to visit each household and recommend the
families to use the flags for household needs. It should also be
pointed out that after the 1st of next May corresponding
conclusions shall be drawn concerning the attitude of owners if,
after this date, French flags are still found in private
possession.”
The following document is our Document Number RF-707, which is also an
administrative memorandum on the same subject, dated Strasbourg, 26
April 1941, of which I should simply like to read the last sentence:
“If, after 1 June 1941, Alsatians are found still to have French
flags in their possession, they are to be sent to a
concentration camp for one year.”
The Nazis feared French influence to such a degree that they even took a
special measure to prevent the coming to Alsace of French workers among
the laborers brought into this territory for compulsory labor service.
This is the purpose of a memorandum of 7 September 1942 of the civil
administration in Alsace, which is our Document Number RF-708, also
found in the archives of the Gauleitung of Strasbourg. I read the first
few lines of this Document Number RF-708.
“Given the general situation of the labor market, the Chief of
the Civil Administration in Alsace has decided that foreign
labor from all European countries could, in the future, be used
in Alsace. There is but one exception, for French and Belgians,
who cannot be employed in Alsace . . . .”
The German undertaking against the French sentiment of Alsatians . . .
THE PRESIDENT: The translation which came through to me came to me as
“must.” It came through that the foreign workers of all countries of
Europe _must_, in the future, be used. The word is “pouvait.” That does
not mean “must,” does it? It is “pouvait.” Does not that mean “could”?
M. FAURE: “Could,” according to necessity. The interesting aspect is
that those who are French may not work there, even if labor is needed in
Alsace.
The German undertaking against the French sentiments of the Alsatians
found its complementary aspect in the attempt also to destroy, on the
outside, anything which might be an indication of Alsace belonging to
the motherland, France. I shall cite one example in relation to this
point. This is our Document Number RF-709.
It is a letter of the German Embassy in Paris, 7 May 1941, which is
reproduced in a memorandum of the French Delegation, which is found in
the archives of the government. I read this Document Number RF-709,
which is short:
“The German Embassy has the honor to point out the following to
the General Delegation of the French Government in occupied
territory:
“The German Embassy has been informed that in a series of
reports on a theme concerning the fatherland, a French radio
station in the unoccupied territory, on 16 or 17 April 1941,
about 2100 hours, is said to have made a broadcast about the
village of Brumath.
“As Brumath, near Strasbourg, is in a German language territory,
the German Embassy requests that they inform it if such a
broadcast was actually made.”
There exist numerous claims and protests of this kind, which fortunately
have often an anecdotal character. We must now cite two especially
serious cases, for they included assault, flagrant violations of
sovereignty, and even crime.
The first case concerns the seizure and profanation of the treasure of
the Cathedral of Strasbourg. I shall submit, concerning this subject,
Document Number RF-710, which is a letter of protest of 14 August 1943
written by General Bérard, President of the French Delegation of the
Armistice Commission. I read the beginning of the letter and repeat that
the date is 14 August 1943:
“Dear General,
“From the beginning of the war, the treasure of Strasbourg
Cathedral and the property of certain parishes of this diocese
had been entrusted by Monseigneur Ruch, Bishop of Strasbourg, to
the Beaux-Arts Department. This department had put them in a
safe place in the castles of Hautefort and of Bourdeilles in
Dordogne, where they still were on the date of 20 May 1943.
“The treasure and this property included, in particular, the
pontificalia reserved for the exclusive use of the Bishop,
several of which were his personal property, the relics of
saints, vessels, or objects for the performance of ceremonies.
“After having sought on several occasions—but in vain—to
obtain the consent of Monseigneur Ruch, the Ministerial
Counsellor Kraft, on 20 May, requested not only the prefect of
Dordogne, but also the director of religious matters, for
authority to remove the objects deposited. Faced with the
refusal of these high officials, he declared that the
repatriation to Alsace of the property of the Catholic Church
would be entrusted to the Sicherheitspolizei.
“As a result, at dawn on 21 May, the castles of Hautefort and
Bourdeilles were opened and occupied by troops, despite the
protests of the guardian. The sacred objects were placed in
trucks and taken to an unknown destination.
“This seizure, moreover, was extended to consecrated vessels and
ceremonial objects and the relics of saints worshipped by the
faithful. The seizure of these sacred objects by laymen not
legally authorized and the conditions under which the operation
was carried out aroused the emotion and unanimous reprobation of
the faithful.”
Relative to this document I would like to emphasize to the Tribunal one
fact which we shall find frequently hereafter, and which is, in our
opinion, very important in this Trial. It is the constant interference
and collaboration of different or diverse German administrations. Thus,
the Tribunal must through this document see that Ministerial Counsellor
Kraft, belonging to the civilian service dealing with national
education, appeals to the police of the SS to obtain objects which he
cannot obtain through his own efforts.
The second case which I would like to cite concerns the University of
Strasbourg. From the beginning of the war the University of Strasbourg,
which was one of the finest in France, had withdrawn to Clermont-Ferrand
to continue its teaching there. After the occupation of Alsace and since
this occupation really meant annexation, it was not reinstated in
Strasbourg and remained in its city of refuge. The Nazis expressed their
great disapproval of this in numerous threatening memoranda.
We would like to submit Document Number RF-711 relative to this. In this
document we shall again come across the Ministerial Counsellor, Herbert
Kraft, about whom I spoke in the preceding document. The document, which
I submit, bears the Document Number RF-711 and is an original signed by
Kraft. It was found in the archives of the German Embassy. In this
memorandum, which is dated 4 July 1941, Counsellor Kraft expresses his
disappointment at the result of steps which he had undertaken with the
Rector of the University of Strasbourg, M. Danjon.
I believe that it is adequate if I read a very short passage of this
memorandum in order to show the insolence and the threatening methods
which the Germans used, even in the part of France which was not yet
occupied. The passage which I am going to read will be the last
paragraph on Page 2 of Document Number RF-711. Mr. Kraft relates the end
of his conversation with the rector. I cite:
“I cut off the conversation, rose, and asked him, by chance,
whether the decisions of Admiral Darlan did not represent for
him an order from his government. As I went out I added, ‘I hope
that you will be arrested.’ He ran after me, made me repeat my
remark, and called out, ironically, that this would be a great
honor for him.”
This document gives an amusing impression, but the matter as a whole was
very serious.
The 15th of June 1943 the German Embassy wrote a note which I submit as
Document Number RF-712. This document is an extract from the archives of
the High Court of Justice, and has been certified by the clerk of that
jurisdiction. Here is the text of this Document RF-712. I shall not read
the beginning of the document:
“The German Embassy considers it very desirable to find a
solution of the affair of the University of Strasbourg at
Clermont-Ferrand.
“We would be happy to learn that no further publication would
appear under the heading ‘University of Strasbourg’ so that new
disagreements may not result from publications of that kind.
“The German Embassy has taken note of the fact that the Ministry
of National Education will no longer fill vacant professorial
chairs.
“Furthermore, it is requested that in the future no examination
certificates be awarded under the title ‘University of
Strasbourg.’”
I must, in concluding this subject of the University of Strasbourg,
point out to the Tribunal a fact which is notorious, that is that
Thursday, 25 November 1943, the German police took possession of the
buildings of the University of Strasbourg in Clermont-Ferrand, arrested
the professors and students, screened them, and deported a great number
of persons. During this operation, they even shot at two professors; one
was killed and the other seriously wounded.
I will be able to produce a document relative to this; but I think that
is not indispensable, since there are no proofs for the Prosecution that
these murders were committed under orders which definitely show
governmental responsibility.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, did you say that you had or had not got proof
of the facts that you have just stated about the seizure of the property
of the university?
M. FAURE: I said this, Mr. President: We consider that these facts are
facts of public knowledge; but because of the interpretation which was
given by the Tribunal, I have considered that it would be better to
prove it by a document. As this document was not added to my file at
that time, this document will be submitted as an appendix. I am going to
read a passage of this document; but I should like to explain that it is
not found in its proper place, as I added it to the brief after the
statement of the Tribunal the other day on the interpretation of facts
of “public knowledge.”
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.
Tomorrow being Saturday, the Tribunal will sit from 10 o’clock in the
morning until 1 o’clock. We will then adjourn.
DR. KAUFFMANN: It was said that this afternoon there will be a witness.
I would like to ask that this testimony be postponed to another day. I
believe that we have reached a so-called silent agreement that we shall
be notified in advance as to whether there will be witnesses and what
the subject of their evidence will be.
I do not know whether there will be cross-examination; but the
possibility exists, of course, and pertinent questions can only be put
when we know, first of all, who the witness is to be, and secondly, what
the subject will be on which the witness is to be cross-examined,
perhaps just a clue.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think it is necessary to postpone
the evidence of this witness. As a matter of courtesy on the part of the
Prosecution, it would be well, perhaps, but the subject matter—not
necessarily the name, but the subject matter upon which the witness is
to give evidence—should be communicated to the Defense so that they may
prepare themselves upon that subject matter for any cross-examination.
I understand that this afternoon you propose to call a witness who will
deal with the circumstances in respect to the German occupation of
Luxembourg. That is right, is it not?