“I therefore request that the necessary negotiations be started
immediately. I would point out that, first of all, you will have
to apply to the Gestapo for the authorization of the State
Police to negotiate with M. Laval, and then request them to give
their agreement to the transfer of these shares to your company
in case M. Laval should be willing to cede them.
“I have already informed the Gestapo of the matter. If the
result of your negotiations should make it necessary I am
prepared to point out once again to the Gestapo how urgent your
mission is.”
Now I should like to read to the Tribunal the sequel to this, Document
Number RF-814, which shows a further stage of the maneuver by which the
Reich Minister of Economy, in conjunction with the Gestapo, sought to
plunder a private citizen. This is a letter addressed to a private
citizen, who was going to be compelled to sell his shares, Dr. Engineer
Léon Laval, and we are going to see who writes to him. Here is the text
of this letter, which is dated Luxembourg, 14 January 1942, and which
bears the heading of the Einsatzkommando of the Security Police and the
SD in Luxembourg:
“On 19 January 1942 and the following days you must remain at
your residence to be at the disposal of the representative of
the Accumulatoren-Fabrik, A.G., Berlin, Director Von
Holtzendorff.”
The Tribunal will recognize the name of Von Holtzendorff, who was the
recipient of the letter from the Reich Minister of Economy in the
previous document. I continue the quotation:
“Mr. Von Holtzendorff, who is in possession of a special
authorization from the Redchssicherheitshauptamt, will discuss
business matters with you. Heil Hitler! Signed, Hartmann.”
The Tribunal will understand, I am sure, that if I have read these two
documents, it is not because I think it very important in the scope of
this Trial that the Tudor battery firm was despoiled, an illicit act
which was to their prejudice; but I want especially, and I think it is
very important in the Trial, to emphasize—and I shall do it each time
when the document gives me the opportunity—the co-ordination which
existed between the different German services of which these defendants
here were the leaders. Certain persons are sometimes inclined to believe
that all the German crimes must be imputed to the Gestapo, and it is
true that the Gestapo was a characteristic criminal organization; but
the Gestapo did not function all by itself. The Gestapo acted on the
order of, and in conjunction with, the civil administrations and with
the military command. We heard yesterday, in connection with the
pontificals of the Bishopric of Strasbourg and also in connection with
the University of Strasbourg, of the scheme which allowed the civil
minister or his representative to have recourse to the police agents for
the enforcement of orders. We also noted this fact when reading these
documents which dealt with economic matters.
I now conclude the first chapter of my brief. I should like to mention
that the work on the documentation and the preparation of this chapter
was carried out with the aid of my assistant, M. Albert Lentin.
I should like now to hand to the Tribunal the first part of the second
chapter, concerning the seizure of sovereignty. This first part includes
general ideas which I think I should expound to the Tribunal before
supporting them by documents. Consequently, the Tribunal will have
before them a file entitled “Exposé” for which there is no corresponding
document book.
The Germans occupied the territories of five powers, without counting
Luxembourg which was annexed and of which I spoke just now. Of these
five countries, three kept governmental authority. These are Denmark,
Norway, and France, but even in these three countries the cases are
entirely different. The government of Denmark was a legitimate
government; the government of France was a _de facto_ government, which
at the beginning exercised real authority over unoccupied territories;
the government of Norway was also a _de facto_ government, typical
example of a puppet government. The two other powers, Belgium and
Holland, retained no governmental authority but only administrative
authorities, of which the highest were the general secretariats of the
ministerial departments.
In view of these situations, the Germans, as I said previously, varied
their methods of domination. On the other hand, they did not establish a
specific form of government corresponding to the internal organization
of each country; therefore looking at it as a whole, it would seem at
first sight to be somewhat complex. The usurpation of sovereignty by the
occupying power assumed three different forms. We are speaking here of
the external procedure.
First form: Direct exercise of power to legislate or issue regulations.
By this we mean the exercise of power above and beyond the limited power
to issue regulations accorded by international law to occupation armies.
Second form: The indirect exercise of power to legislate or issue
regulations through local authorities. This was also done in two ways:
1. By injunction, pure and simple, which is the case when the local
authorities are the administrative authorities. 2. By pressure, which is
the case when the local authorities are authorities of a governmental
character, either _de facto_ or _de jure_. It should be noted, moreover,
that the pressure is sometimes such that it bears a complete resemblance
to an injunction, pure and simple. We also understand such pressure to
include recourse to the complicity of traitors.
Third form: The third form is purely and simply that of assault and
battery. We do not mean physical force used in individual cases, for
this does not concern us here: but physical force used as a result of
the order of a competent occupation authority, which consequently
entails the responsibility of a superior.
If we now consider the question of determining who or what the
instruments of usurpation were, we observe that these instruments fall
into five categories:
In the first place, we have the Reich Commissioner, who was appointed in
Norway and Holland only, that is to say, in the one case in a country
which retained governmental authority at least in appearance and for a
certain length of time, and in the other, in a country which retained
administrative authority only.
In the second place, we have the military administration. In all
countries the military authorities exercised powers absolutely
disproportionate to those which belonged to them lawfully.
I must note here that only these two instruments, the Reich Commissioner
and the military authority, were able to carry out usurpation by issuing
direct legislative or regulatory decrees. In each of the two powers
where there was a Reich Commissioner, the powers conferred were
naturally shared by the Reich Commissioner and the military authority.
A third instrument of usurpation took the form of diplomatic
administration responsible to the Foreign Office. Diplomatic
representations existed only in countries which had governmental
authorities and where there was no Reich Commissioner. We refer to
Denmark and France.
These diplomatic representatives of the Reich, unlike the Reich
Commissioner and the military occupation authority, did not have
power—illicit but formal power—to legislate or issue regulations.
However, this does not mean that their role in the usurpation of
sovereignty is a secondary one. On the contrary, it is an important one.
Their principal activity consisted, naturally, in bringing pressure to
bear on local authorities to whom they were accredited.
I should like to bring out two points here. It might be thought from a
logical point of view, that in an occupied country such as France, the
intervention by the occupying power in the administration of the local
authorities would be the exclusive competence of the diplomatic
representatives. That is not the case. The military authority also
intervened on frequent occasions through direct contact with the French
authorities. In their turn, the diplomatic representatives did not limit
themselves to the powers conferred by their functions. One of the
characteristics of the Nazi method is this exceeding of powers
conferred. It is, moreover, when one thinks of it, a necessary result of
the Nazi enterprise.
In view of the fact that the usurpation of sovereignty in a country
which is militarily occupied is an illegal and abnormal thing, it does
not come within the normal competency of the categories of public
functions as understood by civilized nations. Thus the diplomats, as
well as the military authorities, exceeded their powers; and there was
also an overlapping of functions. The diplomats and the military
authorities dealt with the same things. We see this in regard to
propaganda, for instance; and in regard to the persecution of the Jews.
Generally speaking, the military authority acted in a more obvious way;
the diplomatic administration preferred to act in domains where
publicity could be evaded. There was a constant liaison between them on
all questions concerning the occupied country.
The fourth instrument of usurpation was the police administration. The
German police was installed in all occupied countries, often under
several distinct administrations, according to the principles which were
presented to the Tribunal when the American Prosecution revealed the
inner workings of the immense, complex, and terrible police organism of
the Nazis. Neither did the police have limited or exclusive functions.
They acted in close and constant liaison with the other instruments we
have defined.
The fifth instrument which we must mention consisted of the local
branches of the National Socialist Party and the similarly inspired
organizations which sought to organize nationals in the occupied
country. These organizations served as auxiliaries to the German
authorities; and in a specific case, that of Norway, they provided the
foundation of a so-called government.
I have thought fit to outline this picture, as it seems to me that the
Prosecution may draw from it an interesting conclusion in regard to the
points I have already touched on in my statement on Luxembourg.
We have seen, in effect, that the German line of policy for the usurping
of sovereignty was carried out by means of various organs which were
associated with this action. In the occupied countries—and we must not
forget that this usurpation provided the method for the commission of
crimes—this usurpation was not the exclusive work of an official, or of
an ambassador, or of a military commander. In countries which had a
Reich Commissioner there also existed a military administration. A
country placed under the sole regulating authority of the Army also had
diplomatic agents. In all countries there were police authorities.
In all these occupied countries, as a result of the occupation and the
usurpation of sovereignty, there were systematic abuses and crimes. Many
of them are already known to the Tribunal. Others have still to be
mentioned.
From what I have just said, we see that the responsibility for these
abuses does not exist only with one or the other of these
administrations which we have mentioned, it exists with all of them. It
may be true that in Belgium, for instance, there was no diplomatic
representation; but there was such representation in France and in
Denmark. It therefore follows that the Department of Foreign Affairs and
its head could not help being aware of the conditions under the
occupation which, as far as the principal features are concerned, were
similar in the different countries.
Moreover, as I have just said, these coexisting administrations had no
fixed division of functions. Even if this division of functions had
existed, it must be pointed out that the responsibility and the
complicity of each in the action of the others would have been
sufficiently proved by their knowledge and their approval—which was at
least implicit with regard to this action. But even this division did
not exist, and we shall show that all were associated and accomplices in
a common action.
Now, this very fact involves a more far reaching consequence. The
association and complicity of these various departments involves all the
leaders and all the organizations here accused in a general
responsibility. I shall explain this point by giving an example. If, for
instance, all the abuses and all the crimes had been committed only by
the Army without a single interference, perhaps it would be possible for
one important person, or organization, having no military functions, to
claim that it had no knowledge of these abuses and of these crimes. Even
in this case I think this claim would be difficult to uphold, because
the vast scope of the enterprises which we denounce made it impossible
for anyone who exercised a higher authority not to know of these things.
However, since several administrations are jointly responsible, it
necessarily follows that the other authorities are also responsible,
because the question at this point is no longer the question whether one
administration is involved, or even three, but all the administrations;
it involves the consubstantial element of all the authorities of the
State.
I shall speak later of the order concerning the deportation of the Jews;
and I shall show that this order was the result of a common action of
the military administration, the diplomatic administration, and the
Security Police, in the case of France. It follows that in the first
place the Chief of the High Command, in the second place, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, and in the third place, the Chief of the Security
Police and Reich Security Service—these three persons—were all
necessarily informed and necessarily approved this action, for it is
clear that their offices did not keep them in ignorance of such plans
concerning important affairs and that, moreover, decisions were agreed
upon on the same level in the three different administrations.
Therefore these three persons are responsible and guilty. But is it
possible that, by an extraordinary chance, among the persons who
directed the affairs of the Reich, as ministers or as persons holding
equivalent offices, these three persons turned out to be criminals and
the only ones to be criminals and that they had conspired among
themselves to hide from the others their criminal actions? This idea is
manifestly absurd. In view of the interpenetration of all the executive
departments in a modern state, all the leaders of the Reich were
necessarily aware of and agreed with the usurpation of sovereignty in
the occupied countries, as well as the criminal abuses resulting
therefrom.
In this chapter I shall go on to speak first of Denmark, which is a
special case. Then I shall speak of the civil administration which
existed in Norway and in Holland, and finally I shall speak of the
military administration which was the regime in Belgium and in France.
I think it would be a suitable time now for the Tribunal to have a
recess; or if the Tribunal prefers, I can continue my brief.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
M. FAURE: After the recess I should like to call the witness of whom I
spoke to the Tribunal yesterday. I should like to mention one fact,
however. Yesterday the lawyer for Seyss-Inquart requested that he be
allowed to cross-examine this witness on Monday. Senator Vorrink, who is
my witness, is absolutely obliged to leave Nuremberg this evening. I
think, therefore, that the lawyer for Seyss-Inquart might cross-examine
him today. In any case I should like to notify him of the modification
of the request which I made yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn’t it be possible, if the counsel for Seyss-Inquart
wants to cross-examine the witness, for the witness to be brought back
at some other date?
M. FAURE: My witness can of course be brought back at another date, if
it should be necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I meant. Let him go this evening in
accordance with arrangements that he has made, and then at some date
convenient to him he could be brought back if the defendant’s counsel
wants to cross-examine him.
[_A recess was taken._]
M. FAURE: Mr. President, may I ask the permission of the Tribunal to
call the witness, Jacobus Vorrink.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, have him called.
M. FAURE: This witness speaks Dutch as his native tongue. Since the
interpreting system does not include this language, I propose that he
speak in the German language, which he knows well.
[_The witness, Jacobus Vorrink, took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?
JACOBUS VORRINK (Witness): Vorrink.
THE PRESIDENT: Your Christian name, your first name?
VORRINK: Jacobus.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you swear to speak without hate or fear, to say the
truth, all the truth, and only the truth? Will you raise your right hand
and say, “I swear”?
VORRINK: I swear.