[_The American, British and Russian prosecutors had no questions._]
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any member of the defendants’ counsel who wishes
to ask the witness any questions? [_No response._] Then M. Faure the
witness can retire.
M. FAURE: Mr. President, am I to understand that the witness will not
have to remain any longer at the disposal of the Tribunal and he may
return to his home?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
[_The witness left the stand._]
M. FAURE: I had stopped my presentation at the end of the second part.
That is to say, I have examined so far, in the first place, the
elimination of the French regime and secondly, the imposition of German
rules.
I now come to the third part, which gives measures for transplantation
in Alsace-Lorraine. The German authorities applied in these annexed
departments characteristic methods for the transport of populations. It
so happens that, as the witness from Luxembourg was heard sooner than I
had anticipated, the Tribunal is already informed of the aspect which
these measures of transplantation assumed in the annexed territories.
The situation which I am about to describe with respect to Alsace and
Lorraine is, indeed, analogous to the situation which existed with
regard to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. The principal purpose of the
application of such methods by the Germans was to enable them to
colonize by bringing German subjects into the country, who then seized
the lands and property of the inhabitants who had been expelled.
A second advantage was the elimination of groups considered especially
difficult to assimilate. I should like to quote in this connection—this
will be Document Number RF-749—what Gauleiter Wagner stated in a speech
given at Saverne, according to the _Dernières Nouvelles de Strasbourg_,
of 15 December 1941.
“Today we must make up our mind. In the moment of our nation’s
supreme struggle—a struggle in which you, too, must
participate—I can only say to anyone who says ‘I am a
Frenchman!’ ‘Get the hell out of here! In Germany there is room
only for Germans.’”
From the beginning the Germans proceeded, firstly, to the expulsion of
individuals or small groups, especially Jews and members of the teaching
profession. Moreover, as is shown by a document which I have already
cited this morning under Number RF-701 and which was the first general
protest made by the French Delegation, under date of 3 September 1940,
the Germans authorized the people of Alsace-Lorraine to return to their
homes only if they acknowledged themselves to be of German origin. Now
the Tribunal will understand that these restrictions upon the return of
refugees were in themselves equivalent to expulsion. Mass expulsions
began in September 1940. I now submit in this connection Document Number
RF-750; it is again a note from the French Armistice Delegation taken
from the files of the High Court of Justice. I shall now read this
document, Paragraph 2:
“Since then it has been brought to the knowledge of the French
Government that the German authorities are proceeding to mass
expulsions of families in the three eastern departments. Every
day French citizens, forced to abandon all their belongings on
the spot, are driven into the unoccupied part of France in
groups of 800 to 1,000 persons.”
It was only the 19th of September. On the 3rd of November the Germans
undertook the systematic expulsion of the populations of the Moselle
region. This operation was accomplished with extreme perfidy. The
Germans, as a matter of fact, gave the Lorrainers of certain localities
the choice of either going to eastern Germany or going to France. They
gave them only a few hours to make up their minds. Moreover, they sought
to promote the belief that such a choice was imposed upon the Lorrainers
as a result of an agreement reached with the French authorities.
From the physical point of view, the transport of these people was
effected under very difficult conditions. The Lorrainers were allowed to
take away only a very small part of their personal belongings and a sum
of 2,000 francs, plus 1,000 francs for the children. On 18 November,
four trains filled with Lorrainers who had been torn away from their
homes were headed for Lyons. The arrival in unoccupied France of these
people who had been so sorely tried was for them, nevertheless, an
opportunity for nobly manifesting their patriotic sentiments. With
regard to the facts which I have presented I place before the Tribunal
Document Number RF-751, which is a note of protest on the part of the
French Delegation signed by General Doyen, dated 18 November 1940. I
shall read excerpts of this Document Number RF-751, beginning with
Paragraph 3 of Page 1:
“France is faced with an act of force which is in formal
contradiction to the armistice convention as well as the
assurance, recently given, of a desire for collaboration between
the two countries. On the contrary, in Article 16, which the
German commission had frequently invoked with specific regard to
the departments of the East, the armistice convention stipulates
the reinstallation of refugees in the regions in which they were
domiciled. The creation of new refugees constitutes, therefore,
a violation of the armistice convention. France is faced with an
unjust act affecting peaceful populations against whom the Reich
has nothing to reproach and who, settled for centuries on these
territories, have made of them a particularly prosperous region.
“The unexpected decision of the German authorities is likewise
an inhuman act. In the very middle of winter, without warning,
families have to leave their homes, taking with them only a
strict minimum of personal property and a sum of money
absolutely insufficient to enable them to live even for a few
weeks. Thousands of Frenchmen were thus suddenly hurled into
misery without their country—already too heavily tried and
surprised by the suddenness and amplitude of the measures
adopted without its knowledge—being in a position to assure
them, from one day to the next, a normal livelihood. This exodus
and the conditions under which it is taking place cause most
painful and sorrowful impressions throughout the French nation.
The French people are particularly disturbed by the explanations
given to the Lorrainers, according to which the French
Government was reputed to be the source of their misfortune.
“It is that impression, in fact, which the poster in certain
villages, where the population had to choose between leaving for
eastern Germany or for Unoccupied France, was intended to
convey.
“The poster is appended hereto, but we are not in possession of
the text of this poster. That also encouraged the belief that
these populations had themselves requested permission to leave
following the appeals broadcast by the Bordeaux radio. Even if
we admit that such appeals had been made by radio, it should be
noted that the Bordeaux radio station is under German control.
The good faith of the Lorrainers has been deceived as was shown
by their reaction on arrival in the free zone.”
In spite of these protests, the expulsions continued. They reached a
total of about 70,000 people, augmented by the deportation of Alsatians
and Lorrainers to Eastern Germany and to Poland. These deportations were
meant to create terror, and they particularly affected the families of
men who had rightfully decided to refuse the German demand for forced
labor and military service. (I am at present regarding the whole
question of a French protest dated 3 September 1942; it is Document
Number RF-752).
Since I do not wish to read to the Tribunal texts dealing with an
identical subject I submit this document solely to show that this
protest was made, and I believe that I can refrain from reading its
content.
I shall refer, desiring to give only a short citation, to a document
belonging to the American Prosecution. This document bears the Number
R-114. It is a memorandum of the minutes of a meeting which took place
between several officials of the SS concerning general directions in
regard to the treatment of deported Alsatians.
It will be observed that this document has already been submitted by my
American colleagues under Document Number R-114, Exhibit Number USA-314,
the French Number RF-753. I merely wish to read one paragraph of that
document, which may be interpreted as a supplement to this problem of
deportation. I must say that these sentences have not been formally read
in Court. The passage that I cite is on Page 2 of the document. At the
end of that there is a paragraph which begins with the letter “d”:
“For further resettlement are destined:
“Members of the patois group. The Gauleiter would like to keep
only those persons in the patois area who by their customs,
language, and general attitude testify their adherence to
Germany.
“Regarding the cases mentioned under a-d, it is to be noted that
the racial problem is to be given foremost consideration, that
is, in a way by which racially valuable persons shall be
resettled in Germany proper, and the racially inferior in
France.”
Finally, I should like to read to the Tribunal a few sentences from a
newspaper article, which appeared in _Dernières Nouvelles de
Strasbourg_, August 31, 1942—we are here dealing with a citation and
not a document:
“On the 28th of August the families designated hereafter, of the
Arrondissements of Mulhouse and Guebwiller, were deported to the
Reich in order that they might recover a trustworthy German
outlook in National Socialist surroundings. In several cases the
persons involved did not conceal their hostility in that they
stirred up sentiments of opposition, spoke French in public in a
provocative manner, did not obey the ordinances concerning the
education of youth, or in other ways showed a lack of loyalty.”
I would now like to indicate to the Tribunal that deportation or
transportation entailed also the spoliation of property. This is not
merely a fact; for the Germans it is a law. Indeed, there is an
ordinance of 28 January 1943, which appeared in the _Official Bulletin_
for 1943, Page 40, bearing the title, “Ordinance Concerning the
Safeguarding of Property in Lorraine as a Result of Transplantation
Measures.” I have placed this ordinance before you as Document Number
RF-754. I would like to read Article One and the first paragraph of
Article Two. I believe that the title itself is a sufficient indication
of the contents:
“Article One. The safeguarding of property of people
transplanted from Lorraine to the Greater German Reich or to
territory placed under the sovereign power of Germany has been
entrusted to the transfer services for Lorraine under the Chief
of the Administration.
“Article Two. These services are authorized to put in effective
safekeeping the property of the Lothringians who have been
transplanted in order that such property may be administered,
and—insofar as orders may have been given for this—exploited.”
This ordinance, therefore, still manifests some scruples of form. The
intention is to “safeguard,” but we now know what the word “safeguard”
means in Nazi terminology. We have already seen what safeguarding meant
in the case of works of art and Jewish property. Even here, we have been
specifically warned that the term “safeguard” carries with it the right
of disposal or exploitation.
Other texts are even more specific or clear.
Here is Document Number RF-755. This is the ordinance of 6 November 1940
pertaining to the declaration of property in Lorraine belonging to the
enemies of the people and of the Reich. And on the same subject I shall
also submit to you Document Number RF-756, which is the regulation of 13
July 1940 applying to property in Alsace belonging to the enemies of the
people and of the Reich. These two texts, one of which applies to Alsace
and the other to Lorraine, permit the seizure and confiscation of
properties designated as “enemy property.” Now, to realize the extent of
the property covered by this term, I will read Document 756:
“Any objects and rights of any nature whatsoever, without regard
to conditions of title, which are utilized for, or intended for
use in, activities hostile to the people of Germany or the Reich
will be considered as property belonging to the people and to
the Reich.
“Such stipulation shall apply to the entire patrimony:
“(a) of all political parties, as well as of secondary or
complementary organizations depending thereon;
“(b) of lodges and similar associations;
“(c) of Jews;
“(d) of Frenchmen who have acquired property in Alsace since 11
November 1918;
“(e) The Chief of the Administration Department and the Police
will decide what patrimony in addition to the property mentioned
above is likewise to be considered as property belonging to the
enemies of the people and of the Reich. He will likewise decide
on doubtful cases.”
We see, therefore, that in spite of the title, we are not dealing here
with the measures of sequestration of enemy property taken in all
countries within the scope of the laws of war. First of all, these are
measures of definite confiscation; and in addition, they are applied to
the property of numerous individuals who are in no wise subjects of
enemy countries. We also see at this point the absolutely arbitrary
power placed in the hands of the administration.
These texts are accompanied by many regulations; although the
spoliations are particularly important in Alsace and in Lorraine, I
shall not speak of them here in more detail, as the Prosecution has
already dealt with the subject. I shall merely limit myself to the
mentioning of two institutions special to Alsace and to Lorraine, that
is, agricultural colonization, and industrial colonization.
In the first place, agricultural colonization is not a term that has
been invented by the Prosecution; it is an expression which the Germans
used. I submit in this connection, Document Number RF-757, which is the
ordinance of 7 December 1940, “Pertaining to the New Regime of
Settlement or Colonization in Lorraine.” I shall read the beginning of
this Document Number RF-757:
“Real estate which has been vacated in Lorraine as a result of
deportations will serve principally for the reconstitution of a
German peasant class and for the requirements of internal
colonization. In this connection and specifically in order to
set us the required programs, I order, by virtue of the powers
which have been conferred upon me by the Führer, the following:
“Article One. Real estate property of individuals deported from
Lorraine shall be seized and confiscated for the benefit of the
Chief of the Civil Administration.”
I will not cite the second paragraph of Article One, but I will cite
Article Two:
“Agricultural properties or forest properties which are seized
in consequence of the ordinance concerning enemy property of the
people and the Reich in Lorraine are confiscated. Insofar as
they are needed, they are included in the methodical
organization of the region.”
Article Three:
“In addition to the cases provided for in Articles One and Two
and according to the needs, other real estate property may be
included in the programs for methodical reorganization if
appropriate compensation is provided for.
“The Chief of the Civilian Administration and the services
designated by him will decide upon the amount and nature of the
compensation. Any recourse to the law on the part of the person
involved is forbidden.”
Thus the Tribunal can see in a striking manner the processes and the
methods pursued by the German authorities.
The first ordinance, cited earlier, spoke only of safeguarding the
property of people who had been deported or displaced. A second
ordinance now speaks of confiscations. It still refers only to the
notion of enemies of the people and of the Reich.
The third ordinance is more complete, since it comprises confiscation
prescriptions which are quite formal in their character, and which are
no longer qualified as “safeguarding” property which has become vacant
as the result of deportations.
This agricultural colonization of which I have spoken assumed a special
importance in Lorraine. On the other hand, it is in Alsace that we find
the greatest number of measures involving a veritable industrial
colonization. These measures consisted in stripping the French
industrial enterprises for the benefit of German firms. On this subject
there are protests of the French Delegation to the Armistice Commission.
I submit as documents three of these protests, Documents Numbers RF-758,
759 and 760, which are notes under date of—respectively—27 April 1941,
9 May 1941, and 8 April 1943. I believe that it is preferable for me not
to read these documents to the Tribunal and that I merely ask the
Tribunal to take judicial notice of them, as proof of the existence of
these protests, because I fear that such a reading would be a mere
repetition to the Tribunal, to whom the matter of economic spoliation
has already been explained in sufficient detail.
I shall say, finally, that the Germans carried their audacity to the
point of demanding the seizure in Unoccupied France and the
transportation to Alsace of assets belonging to French companies which
were by this means stripped of their property and actually “colonized.”
I am speaking of assets belonging to companies in the other zone of
France, under the control of the regular shareholders of such companies.
I think it is worth while considering just one example of such
procedure, contained in a very short document, which I submit to you
under Document Number RF-761. This document appears in the Archives of
the French Agencies of the Armistice Commission, to which it had been
sent by the director of the company mentioned in the document. It is a
paper which is partly written in German and partly translated into
French—in the same document—and it is signed by the German
Commissioner for a French enterprise called the Société Alsacienne et
Lorraine d’Electricité. In Alsace this enterprise had been placed
illegally under the administration of this commissioner, and the
commissioner—as the document will show—had come to Paris to seize the
remainder of the company’s assets. He drafted this document, which he
signed and which he also made the president of the French company sign.
This document is of interest as revealing the insolence of German
procedure and also the Germans’ odd conception of law. I quote now:
“Today the undersigned has instructed me that in future I am
strictly forbidden to take legal action with regard to the
property of the former Société Alsacienne et Lorraine
d’Electricité. If I should transgress this order in any way, I
know that I shall be punished.
“Paris, 10 March 1941.
“Signed: Kucka.
“F. B. Kommissar.
“Signed: Garnier.”
Now this German economic colonization in the areas annexed was to serve
as an experiment for the application of similar methods on a broader
scale.
There will be submitted to the Tribunal, in this connection, a document
concerning a colonization attempt in the French Department Ardennes. On
this procedure of annexation by the Germans of Alsace and of Lorraine,
many other items could be cited; and I could submit many more
documents—even if I were to deal only with the circumstances and the
documents which are useful from the point of view of our own
Prosecution.
I want to limit myself in order to save the time of the Tribunal and to
comply with the necessities of this Trial where so many items have to be
discussed. Therefore I have limited myself to the submission of
documents or to examples which are particularly characteristic. I
believe that this documentation will enable the Tribunal to appraise the
criminality of the German undertakings which I have brought to its
attention—criminality which is particularly characteristic of military
conscription, which is a criminal offence since it entails deaths. At
the same time I believe the Tribunal can evaluate the grave sufferings
that were imposed for five years on the populace of these French
provinces, already so sorely tried, in the course of history.
I have submitted a few details which may have seemed ridiculous or
facetious; but I did so because I thought it desirable that one should
visualize the oppression exercised by the German Administration in all
circumstances of life—even in private life—that general oppression
characterized by the attempt to destroy and annihilate, and extended in
a most complete manner over the departments and regions which were
annexed.
I believe that the Tribunal will possibly prefer me to leave until
tomorrow my comments with respect to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
I would like, moreover, to have the Tribunal’s assent concerning a
question of testimony. I should like to put a witness on the stand, but
it is only a little while ago that I gave the Tribunal a letter
concerning this request. May I ask to be excused for not having done so
earlier because there has been some uncertainty on this point.
If the Tribunal finds it convenient, I should like to have this witness
here at tomorrow, Saturday morning’s session. I state that this witness
would be Mr. Koos Vorrink, who is of Dutch nationality. I also wish to
say, for the benefit of Defense, that the question I would like to
submit to the witness will deal with certain items concerning
Germanization in the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to call him tomorrow?