Chapter I of this document is entitled, “Collaboration by Branches.”

[Cover Illustration]

TRIAL

OF

THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS

BEFORE

THE INTERNATIONAL

MILITARY TRIBUNAL

N U R E M B E R G

14 NOVEMBER 1945-1 OCTOBER 1946

[Illustration]

P U B L I S H E D A T N U R E M B E R G , G E R M A N Y

1 9 4 7

This volume is published in accordance with the

direction of the International Military Tribunal by

the Secretariat of the Tribunal, under the jurisdiction

of the Allied Control Authority for Germany.

VOLUME VII

O F F I C I A L T E X T

I N T H E

ENGLISH LANGUAGE

P R O C E E D I N G S

5 February 1946 — 19 February 1946

CONTENTS

Fifty-first Day, Tuesday, 5 February 1946,

Morning Session 1

Afternoon Session 23

Fifty-second Day, Wednesday, 6 February 1946,

Morning Session 51

Afternoon Session 76

Fifty-third Day, Thursday, 7 February 1946,

Morning Session 77

Afternoon Session 105

Fifty-fourth Day, Friday, 8 February 1946,

Morning Session 146

Afternoon Session 177

Fifty-fifth Day, Saturday, 9 February 1946,

Morning Session 209

Fifty-sixth Day, Monday, 11 February 1946,

Morning Session 228

Afternoon Session 253

Fifty-seventh Day, Tuesday, 12 February 1946,

Morning Session 279

Afternoon Session 309

Fifty-eighth Day, Wednesday, 13 February 1946,

Morning Session 340

Afternoon Session 370

Fifty-ninth Day, Thursday, 14 February 1946,

Morning Session 403

Afternoon Session 428

Sixtieth Day, Friday, 15 February 1946,

Morning Session 461

Afternoon Session 485

Sixty-first Day, Monday, 18 February 1946,

Morning Session 516

Afternoon Session 540

Sixty-second Day, Tuesday, 19 February 1946,

Morning Session 562

Afternoon Session 589

FIFTY-FIRST DAY

Tuesday, 5 February 1946

_Morning Session_

MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): May it please the Court, I desire to

announce that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner will be absent from this

morning’s session on account of illness.

M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): One of

the counsel would like to address the Tribunal.

DR. HANS LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff and High Command of

the German Armed Forces): In the name of the organization I represent, I

make application that the testimony of the witness, Van der Essen, who

was heard yesterday should be stricken from the Record for this reason:

That the witness made declarations, firstly, concerning the alleged

wanton destruction of the library in Louvain; secondly, concerning the

treatment of the local population during the Rundstedt offensive, which

led him to the conclusion that orders to this effect must have been

received from higher quarters.

I wish that this testimony should be stricken from the Record for these

reasons: Firstly, as regards yesterday’s testimony there was no question

of testimony by a witness. A witness should base his testimony on his

own knowledge, which can be based only on his own observations. These

prerequisites are not present in the points to which objection is made.

For the most part the witness repeated statements made by other people,

some of them actually made by people whom he himself did not know. The

knowledge of this witness can consequently be ascribed only to a study

of the documents.

Secondly, any third party is in a position to give similar testimony as

soon as the documents to which this witness had access are put at his

disposal, and if he is also in a position to talk to the people to whom

the witness talked and who gave him his information. It is consequently

proved that this witness, Van der Essen, was not a genuine witness at

all, because such a witness cannot be replaced by a third person who may

happen to come along.

Thirdly, although the Tribunal, in accordance with Article 19 of the

Charter, is not bound by the ordinary rules of evidence, this evidence

must be rejected because it has no probative value which can be

determined by the Court. This emerges of necessity from the fact that

the sources of the witness’ testimony cannot be taken into

consideration.

I regard it as my duty to point out that the introduction of such

indirect proof cannot lead to the discovery of the truth regarding the

points in dispute.

THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): The Tribunal would

like to hear, M. Faure, what you have to say in answer to the motion

which has just been made.

M. FAURE: Gentlemen, Your Honors, I should like, first of all, to

observe that, as already indicated by the counsel who has just spoken,

the Charter of this Tribunal provides that it shall not be bound by the

formal rules concerning the burden of proof. But, apart from this, I

consider that counsel’s objection cannot be upheld; this objection being

based on three considerations which he has enumerated but which, as I

understand, boil down to one single objection, namely, that this witness

was an indirect witness. I would like to emphasize the fact that I

called Mr. Van der Essen as a witness precisely because of his capacity

as a member of the official and governmental Belgian commission of

inquiry into the study and research of war crimes.

It is in conformity with all legal procedure with which I personally am

acquainted that a person who has made investigations in connection with

criminal matters may be called before a court of justice to state the

conditions under which the inquiry was made and the results arrived at.

It is therefore not necessary that the witness who has just testified

regarding an investigation should have been himself an eye-witness of

the criminal activities which this investigation is intended to bring to

light.

Mr. Van der Essen, therefore, in my opinion, testified to facts of which

he has personal knowledge, to wit, as regards the matter of Stavelot, he

stated that he himself had heard witnesses and that he verified the

authenticity of this testimony. As concerns the matter of the Library of

Louvain, he testified as to the existing minutes of the commission of

which he is a regular member.

I add that this procedure appears to me to have the advantage of

avoiding the necessity of calling a large number of individual witnesses

to the witness stand. However, in order to have every possible guarantee

regarding the facts laid before the Tribunal in evidence, I have decided

to bring here the briefs, the texts of the testimonies to which the

witness referred. I shall then be able to communicate to the Defense the

affidavits of the witnesses who were mentioned yesterday, and I think

that this will give the Defense ample guarantee.

I therefore propose to the Tribunal to reject the objection as far as

the admissibility of the testimony is concerned; it being understood

that the Defense will discuss the value and probative force of this

testimony as it sees fit.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, you said something about the affidavits of

witnesses which you could furnish to the Defendant’s Counsel. I

understand that you intended also to put in the governmental report or

the committee’s report with reference to which the witness had

testified, did you not?

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: But you intended also, as a matter of courtesy, to

furnish the affidavits which were before that committee to the

Defendants’ Counsel; is that what you meant?

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President; if this meets with the approval of the

Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: The governmental report, I suppose, does not actually

annex the affidavits, does it?

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President, precisely.

THE PRESIDENT: It does? The affidavits are part of the report, are they?

M. FAURE: The report which was submitted does not contain the elements

on which the witness depended yesterday with regard to certain points,

particularly because the investigation on Stavelot was very long and

very conscientious and has not been summed up in time. I said,

therefore, that I proposed to submit these complementary elements as

evidence and in this way to communicate them to the Defense.

THE PRESIDENT: That is what I thought; that is to say, the report did

not contain all the details which were in the affidavits or evidence?

M. FAURE: No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Therefore, you thought it right, as a matter of courtesy,

to allow the Defendants’ Counsel to see those details upon which the

report proceeded. The Tribunal understands that.

The Tribunal will consider the motion which has been made. We will

consider the motion which has been made at a later stage. You can now

proceed with your argument.

M. FAURE: Your Honors, I should like, first of all, to point out to the

Tribunal that since a certain amount of time has been given to witnesses

and discussions, and as I do not wish to exceed the time limit which was

announced, I am compelled to shorten to a considerable extent the

presentation of the brief which I am now presenting on the subject of

propaganda. I shall therefore ask the Tribunal kindly to excuse me if I

occasionally hesitate during this presentation, inasmuch as I shall not

follow my brief exactly.

I indicated yesterday the method employed by the Germans with regard to

the freedom of public meetings and of association, which they

suppressed. When they did uphold these rights they exploited them to

their own advantage. I should like now to say something about books and

publishing.

The German authorities, first of all, issued an ordinance on 30 August

1940, published in the _Journal Officiel_ of 16 September, forbidding

certain school books in France. We have already seen that they had done

the same thing in Belgium.

Another step taken by the Germans was to prohibit a certain number of

books of which they disapproved. I present in this connection Document

Number RF-1103, which is the “Otto” list, published in September 1940;

it is a list of 1,074 volumes forbidden by the Germans. I shall not, of

course, read it to the Tribunal. It appears in the document book under

Document Number RF-1103, as I have just said.

A second “Otto” list, longer than the first, was drawn up later and

published on 8 July 1942, and I present it as Document Number RF-1104.

The conclusion to this second document, which is the last page in my

document book, gives a clear indication of the principles on which the

German authorities worked. I read a few lines:

“As a matter of principle, all translations of English books,

except the English classics, are withdrawn from sale.”—And

further—“All books by Jewish authors, as well as books in which

Jews have collaborated, are to be withdrawn from sale with the

exception of works of a scientific nature where special measures

are anticipated. From now on biographies of Jews, even if

written by French Aryans, as, for instance, the biographies of

the Jewish musicians Offenbach, Meyerbeer, Darius Milhaud, _et

cetera_, are to be withdrawn from sale.”

This method of procedure may have appeared fairly harmless at first,

since only about 1,200 volumes were involved, but one can see the

significance of the principle itself. By this procedure the German

authorities achieved the practical result they sought, which was

essentially, apart from other prohibitions, the complete disappearance

of serious and objective works permitting a study of German doctrines,

the policy of Germany, and the philosophy of Nazism.

Apart from prohibiting works already existing, the Germans naturally

established a censorship. At first they proceeded in a veiled manner by

making a kind of agreement with publishers in which the publishers

themselves were made responsible for indicating which of the books

appeared to them to be subject to censorship. I submit this censorship

agreement as Document Number RF-1105; and I wish, without reading it, to

make but one observation in this regard which is highly characteristic

of the invariable German method.

In the printed brochure of this agreement, of which the original is

submitted, there appears, in addition to the agreement itself, a notice

drafted in terms which do not reflect French feeling. This notice was

not drafted by the publishers upon whom the agreement itself was imposed

but was drafted by the Germans and published in the same brochure, which

bears the words, “National Syndicate of Publishers,” so that one might

think that the French publishers accepted the phrases occurring in this

preamble. For that matter, the attentive reader has only to see that

this brochure does not bear the printer’s name to realize that this is a

German publication and not one put out by French publishers, for only

the Germans were exempted from the French rule requiring mention of the

printer’s name.

The Germans did not limit themselves to this procedure which was

apparently rather liberal; and later an ordinance of 27 April 1942

entitled, “Concerning the Rational Use of Printing Paper,” was published

in the _Journal Officiel_ of 13 May. This ordinance stated, on pretext

of the rational utilization of paper, that all publications without

exception should bear the German authorization number.

I point out in addition that in their control of paper the Germans had a

very effective weapon with which to put a stop to French publishing. I

submit as Document Number RF-1106 the affidavit of M. Marcel Rives,

Director of Internal Commerce at the Ministry of Industrial Production.

In order to shorten the proceedings I shall not read this document. I

may say in short that this document makes it clear that the distribution

of available paper stocks was made entirely under the authority of the

Germans and that the Germans reduced the amount of paper placed at the

disposal of publishers in a proportion exceeding that of the general

reduction in paper quotas as compared with the prewar situation.

I must add that the Germans also took for their own propaganda

publication a certain amount of the reduced paper quota allotted to the

French publishers. Thus, they not only used for their propaganda the

paper which they themselves had in Germany, but they also took some of

the small amount of paper which they allotted to the French publishers.

I should like simply to read in this connection a few lines of the

document which constitutes Appendix 2 of Document Number RF-1106, which

I have just submitted. I merely read a few lines of this Appendix 2,

which is a letter from the German Military Command to the Ministry of

National Economy dated 28 June 1943:

“More especially during the month of March, which you

particularly mention, it has been impossible to allot the

publishers any quantity from current production, as this was

needed for urgent propaganda purposes.”

The other aspect of this German activity in the publishing sphere was,

in fact, the carrying on of an intensive propaganda by means of all

kinds of pamphlets and publications. This propaganda literature is

extremely tedious. I should like to mention only one detail, which shows

the method of camouflage always employed by the Nazis. I have here a few

German propaganda pamphlets which I shall submit, naturally without

reading them, as Document Number RF-1106 (bis). The first ones are part

of a series entitled _England Unmasked_. The first numbers of this

series, taken at random, have on the flyleaf, “Office of German

Information, England Unmasked Number . . .” _et cetera_. No attempt at

concealment is made, and the reader knows what he has before him. But by

some curious accident, Number 11 in the same series no longer bears the

words, “German Office of Information,” and we see instead,

“International Publishing House, Brussels.” Here again, however, we are

warned of its origin, for the author’s name is Reinhard Wolf, and this

is a German name.

But here, by way of a final example, is a pamphlet entitled _The Pact

against Europe_, which is also published by the International Publishing

House, Brussels, (Document Number RF-1106(ter)). We know after seeing

the other specimens that this publishing house is only a firm attached

to the German office; but people who are not so well informed may

believe the pamphlet to be a French or Belgian compilation, for in this

case the name of the author is Jean Dubreuil.

I shall not dwell further on publishing, and I should like now to say a

few words about the press. It is a matter of common knowledge that all

the newspapers of the occupied countries were controlled by the Germans,

and that most of these newspapers had been founded at their instigation

by persons who were in their pay. As these facts are well known, I shall

refrain from submitting documents on this point, and shall limit myself

to the following remarks:

Firstly, restrictive measures—censorship. Although all these newspapers

were practically “their” papers, the Nazis nevertheless submitted them

to a very strict censorship. I shall submit, as evidence of this,

Document Number RF-1108, which is a report of a press conference held on

8 January 1943 in the course of which the new censorship orders and

regime are defined. I point out to the Tribunal that this document and

others of the same nature were found in the archives of the French

Office of Information, which was under German control. They have been

deposited either in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris or in the

Document Library of the War Museum. These documents have been selected

by us from the reports, either in the form of original documents,

photostats, or from the French collection.

I should like simply to point out, by means of this Document RF-1108,

that the Germans were concerned with the institution of a more liberal

regime of censorship. On reading the document, however, it becomes

evident that almost all news items and articles are subject to

censorship, with the exception of serial stories, reviews of films and

plays, items of scientific or university news, radio programs, and a

certain number of completely trivial subjects.

The second aspect of the German interference, the positive aspect,

appears in the directives given to the press; and these directives were

given by means of press conferences such as that which I have just

described.

I shall submit to the Tribunal, without reading them, a certain number

of documents numbered RF-1109 to RF-1120. I produce these documents in

evidence not for the sake of their contents, which are simply a

repetition of German propaganda, but merely as proof of their existence,

that is, continued pressure exerted on the press.

I should like to say, however, how this was done. The press conferences

were held either in the Propagandastaffel, Avenue des Champs-Elysées, or

at the German Embassy. The representatives of the press were summoned by

the competent Nazi officials who issued directives. After the

conference, the substance of these directives was embodied in a dispatch

from the French Office of Information. The Tribunal knows that agencies

sent dispatches to the papers for their information. When a dispatch had

been drawn up by the office it was submitted for checking to the German

bureau, which affixed a seal to it. After that it could be distributed

to the papers.

I stated that I would not read anything on these press conferences or on

the agency’s minutes and notes which form Documents RF-1109 to RF-1120.

I should like to read only a very brief document, which I submit as

Document Number RF-1121, the minutes of a press conference held on 16

April 1943 in the Propaganda-abteilung. I quote:

“At the end of the conference the German commentator declared

that on Tuesday, 20 April—the Führer’s birthday—the newspapers

would consist of four pages instead of two, and on Wednesday, 21

April, they would consist of two pages instead of four. He asked

the reporters present to stress the European orientation of the

Führer’s political personality and to treat Franco-German

relations very generously. A great deal of tact and reserve are

necessary, however, in order not to give the newspapers the

appearance of being no longer French, and in this way shocking

public opinion.”

I am not forgetting the fact that we are participating in a criminal

trial and that we must select from the extremely varied facts which we

have to present those elements characteristic of the intention and

realization of an act condemned by criminal law. In consideration of

this, I quote Document Number RF-1124, which I am also presenting and

which is an attempt to promote, by means of press and propaganda, the

enlistment of Frenchmen in the enemy army. Article 75 of the French

Criminal Code provides for this crime and I recall that in juridical

theory proceedings can be taken even against enemy nationals for crimes

of this kind. I read this document, which is extremely short:

“At the end of the military conference, Dr. Eich announced that

the O.F.I. would broadcast this afternoon an article devoted to

the necessity of the inclusion of French sailors in the German

Navy. He asked the newspapers to add commentaries to this text

in which, for instance, the following theme might be treated:

‘To be a sailor is to have a profession.’

“The article broadcast by the O.F.I. must appear tomorrow—a

four-page day—on the first page, or the beginning, at least,

must appear on the first page.”

Finally, I must point out that, apart from the press conferences proper,

there were so-called cultural conferences at which the German

authorities gave their orders on all subjects. I should like to read a

few very brief extracts from one of these cultural conferences in order

to indicate the general oppression resulting from the interference of

the Germans in every field without exception. I present these Documents

RF-1125 and RF-1126; and I read two sentences on Page 1 of Document

Number RF-1125, which is a report of the minutes of the conference held

on 22 April:

“Reproductions of paintings by Picasso have recently been made

in spite of the directives to the contrary previously given.

“Theater: Certain press publications have seen fit to praise the

operetta _Don Philippe_ to an extent belied by the reception

given to this work by the general public. This goes beyond the

bounds of the permissible.”

I shall read a little further, on the top of Page 2:

“The press has lent an obviously exaggerated backing to jazz

concerts, particularly those of Fred Jumbo. This shows a lack of

tact which is all the more regrettable in that a very minor

place has been accorded in general to concerts of real value.”

Finally, at the end of this document, there is a general note which is

interesting:

“The nationality of persons of standing in the world of science,

art, _et cetera_, whose names occur in articles appearing in the

press, is to be given as that of the Greater German Reich in the

case of those born in any of the countries which have been

restored to the Greater German Reich or incorporated into it.”

We thus see that even in what might seem to us the most fanciful

connections we can find evidence of the will to enforce Germanization

and of the criminal will to strip men of the nationality which they have

the right to retain.

I shall now say a few words about the cinema. The Germans, to do them

justice, have never failed to understand the exceptional importance of

the cinema as a means of propaganda. In France they devoted to this

subject seven ordinances or decrees.

You must know that, in the first place, the Germans prohibited the

showing of films of which they disapproved . . . .

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, don’t you think that evidence that the Germans

used the cinema as a method of propaganda is really somewhat cumulative?

You have shown already that they forbade a great number of books which

they considered hostile to their ideology, and that they controlled the

press, and is it not almost cumulative and a matter of detail that they

also controlled the cinema?

Unless there is some evidence on behalf of the defendants contradicting

the evidence which you have given, I think the Tribunal will be

satisfied that the Germans did adopt all these methods of propaganda.

M. FAURE: When a brief is presented it sometimes does produce the

impression that the arguments contained in it are cumulative, although

that may not have been so apparent when the preparation was going on.

I shall not speak, then, on the subject of the cinema. I wish simply to

point this out to the Tribunal. We thought that with regard to these

questions of propaganda with which we are dealing in the abstract it

would perhaps be as well to provide concrete illustrations of a few of

the themes of German propaganda, and to this end we propose presently,

with the permission of the Tribunal, to project very briefly a few of

the themes of German propaganda. I wish to point out that these themes

are taken from archives which we found. On the other hand, we intend to

present, for one minute each, two pictures taken from a German

propaganda film produced by a Frenchman at the instigation and with the

financial support of the German office.

As we are now going to present these pictures, with the permission of

the Tribunal, I consider it indispensable to present just one document,

Document RF-1141, since it is the interrogation of the producer of the

film and establishes the fact that this film was made by order of the

Germans and paid for by them. I therefore present in evidence this

Document Number RF-1141, which is necessary for the presentation which

we are about to make. Since it seems to me that sufficient evidence has

already been advanced concerning the various methods of propaganda, I

shall apply the same line of reasoning to the part anticipated for

broadcasting.

Here I merely wish to present a document which goes beyond the field of

pure propaganda. This is Document Number RF-1146. I must point out,

first of all, that as regards broadcasting, the Germans obviously

encountered an obstacle which was not present to the same degree in

other fields. This obstacle lay in the transmissions broadcast by the

free radios which, as the Belgian witness said yesterday, were followed

with the greatest enthusiasm by the inhabitants of the occupied

countries. The German Command then had the idea of penalizing the

persons who listened to these broadcasts. In the document which I am

going to quote, the Military Command went to the length of asking the

French authorities most urgently to institute the most stringent

penalties, even going so far as to prescribe the death penalty for

persons repeating news heard on the foreign radio service.

I think it will be useful, if I deposit in evidence this document

emanating from the Military Command and signed by Stülpnagel, which

demonstrates the criminal intentions of the German staff. I should like

to read this document, RF-1146. I read from the beginning of the third

paragraph:

“The French law of 28 October 1941 does not provide for special

sanctions for the broadcasting of news from foreign stations

calculated to endanger order or public security, although this

offense constitutes a particularly grave danger. It is

indispensable that the dissemination of such news should be

punished by hard labor and in particularly serious cases by the

death penalty. It is immaterial whether the disseminator of the

news was listening in himself or obtained knowledge by other

means.

“The possibility of legally prosecuting the mentioned offense by

the state tribunal does not suffice to hinder the population

from listening to the British radio and spreading the news.

Since the law regarding the state tribunal does not mention

listening to foreign stations there is no direct relation

between listening in and dissemination on the one hand and

punishment by hard labor or death sentence on the other. The

population has, therefore, no idea that such acts are already

punishable by hard labor or the death penalty.

“For this reason I request a draft to be submitted, amending the

law of 28 October 1941 with deadline 3 January 1943.

“For your instruction I am adding, as an appendix, a draft of

the German decree relating to extraordinary measures about

broadcasting, by which you may learn the details of the German

regulation.”

I shall now submit a document bearing the Document Number RF-1147. I

think this document may interest the Tribunal. It presents quite a

different character from that of the documents which I have produced up

to now. This document consists, firstly, of a letter from Berlin dated

27 October 1941, the subject of which is an agreement relating to

collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I read this letter,

which is very short, and which authenticates our document:

“By authorization of the ministry, we enclose for your

information, as a secret matter of the Reich, a copy of the

agreement relating to collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs, as well as a copy of the agreement of execution. The

agreement itself is not confidential, but details of the

contents must not be given.”

The document enclosed with this is the full text, which I shall not

read, of the agreement made between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and

the Ministry of the Reich for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda

relating to collaboration between their respective branches. I think

that this document is of some interest, and that is why I submit it. I

shall simply point out to the Tribunal that it shows at once the extent

of the hold which the Germans wished to make sure of possessing over the

minds of the populations of occupied and even foreign countries and the

way in which they organized this.

Chapter I of this document is entitled, “Collaboration by Branches.”

Letter “a” concerns the cinema, the theater, music, and exhibitions.

Letter “b” concerns publications.

I think it might be interesting to read the first few lines of letter

“b,” for after expounding the propaganda from the point of view of the

receivers, it is worth while looking at the question from the point of

view of the persons who put out this propaganda. And, on the other hand,

I think we must not lose the opportunity of observing the extraordinary

variety and skill of the German methods. This quotation is very brief:

“The Foreign Office and the Ministry of Propaganda are operating

jointly a holding company, the Mundus A.G., of which they have

equal shares and in which the publishing houses controlled by

both ministries at home and abroad are combined, as far as they

are concerned with the production of publications for abroad or

their export to, and distribution in, foreign countries. All

firms or partnerships which will be founded or acquired in

future for this purpose by both ministries will be incorporated

in this company.”

On Page 3, Paragraph 4, I should like also to read a sentence:

“Both ministries participate in the drawing up of propaganda

matter issued by them or upon their initiative, at home, but

intended for distribution abroad.”

Finally, on Page 4, I shall read a sentence in the second last

paragraph, and I quote:

“In order to consolidate the broadcasting stations and the

partnerships openly controlled by Germans, the Foreign Office

and the Ministry of Propaganda are jointly operating a holding

company, Interradio A.G., Berlin, each owning 50 percent.”

The Tribunal has noticed the phrase “openly owned by the Germans.”

This will be completed by a final quotation of a sentence on Page 5 at

the beginning of Paragraph 2:

“The camouflaged (not apparent) influence exercised upon the

foreign broadcasting stations must not be mentioned in

connection with the joint holding company.”

I should like, in concluding this brief on propaganda, to present

Document Number RF-1148, which is a message circulated to all the

propaganda offices. I think a very brief quotation from this document

will be interesting for the definition of the very general use of

propaganda as the tool of one of the most premeditated and most serious

enterprises of Nazism, namely, the extermination of nationality and

existence of a country. In this case Czech culture and tradition are

involved.

I quote from Paragraph 4:

“The close relationship of the Czechs and European culture must

always be pointed out in a positive manner. The fact of the

far-reaching influence of German culture on Czech culture and

even the latter’s dependence on the former has to be stressed at

every opportunity. The German cultural achievements in Bohemia

and Moravia and their influence upon the cultural work of the

Czechs are to be mentioned particularly.

“Attention has always to be paid to the fact that although the

Czechs speak a Slav language, they are subject to German culture

by virtue of their living together for centuries with superior

German peoples in German-directed states, and have scarcely

anything in common with other Slav peoples.

“From the historical point of view, attention has always to be

focused on the periods or personalities by which the Czechs

sought and found contact with German culture: St. Wenceslas, the

time of Charles IV, of Ferdinand I, Rudolf II, Bohemian baroque,

_et cetera_.”

Finally, I submit, without reading it, Document Number RF-1149. I was

anxious to include this document in our document book for it constitutes

a report of a year’s propaganda activities in one of the occupied

countries—Norway, to be exact. I have spoken at some length of this

country, and that is why I do not wish now to quote the text of this

document; but I do wish to mention that German propaganda formed the

subject of extremely regular reports and that these reports touched on

every subject: press, cinema, radio, culture, theater, schools,

education.

This propaganda, then, as I have already stated, is something which

covers a much wider range than that previously ascribed to it. No aspect

of our life is unknown to it; it respects none of the things that are

precious to us; it can become a real penitentiary for the spirit, when

even the idea of escape is imprisoned.

If it please the Tribunal, may I suggest that the session be suspended

now, so that the films may be shown immediately after this presentation.

My only purpose in showing these films is to illustrate one of the most

common and disagreeable features of life in the occupied countries, the

fact that wherever we went we were always compelled to see before us the

stupid and ugly German propaganda pictures.

THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn for 15 minutes.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the motion which was made before the

adjournment by counsel for the General Staff, the opinion of the

Tribunal is this:

In the first place the Tribunal is not confined to direct evidence from

eyewitnesses, because Article 19 provides that the Tribunal shall admit

any evidence which it deems to have probative value.

Secondly, there is nothing in Article 21 of the Charter which makes it

improper to call the member of a governmental committee as a witness to

give evidence with reference to the governmental committee’s report. But

the Tribunal considers that if such a witness is called the governmental

committee’s report must be put in evidence; as a matter of fact, the

Counsel for the Prosecution have offered to put the committee’s report

in evidence in this case and not only to do that, but also to make

available to Counsel for the Defense the affidavits of witnesses upon

which that report proceeded.

Thirdly, there were other matters upon which the witness, Mr. Van der

Essen, gave evidence which was altogether outside the report or so it

appeared to the Tribunal.

As to the weight which is to be attached to the witness’ evidence, that,

of course, is a matter which will have to be considered by the Tribunal.

It is open to the Defense to give evidence in answer to the evidence of

Mr. Van der Essen and also to comment upon or criticize that evidence,

and so far as his evidence consisted of his own conclusions drawn from

facts which he had seen or evidence which he had heard, the correctness

of those conclusions will be considered by the Tribunal, conclusions

being matters for the final decision of the Tribunal.

For these reasons the motion of counsel is denied.

It is suggested to me that I did not in that statement say that the

report was to be filed in evidence. I intended to say that. I thought

that I had said so. The report must be filed in evidence and the

affidavits, as they are to be made available to the defendants’ counsel

will, of course, also be made available to the Tribunal.

M. FAURE: If it please the Tribunal, M. Fuster is going to project the

films of which I spoke just now.

M. SERGE FUSTER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr.

President, I am to show you a few examples of direct propaganda in the

occupied countries.

During the whole period of the occupation the inhabitants of the

occupied countries had the walls of their houses covered with enormous

posters, varying in color and text. There was very little paper in any

of these countries, but there was always enough for propaganda; and this

propaganda was carried on without regard for probability or moral

considerations. If the Nazis thought any sort of campaign would prove

effective, no matter in how small a degree, they immediately launched

this campaign.

In France, for instance, the most illustrious names in history appeared

on posters and were made to proclaim slogans against the enemies of

Germany. Isolated sentences were taken from the works of Clemenceau,

Montesquieu, and many others who in this way were made to utter

sentiments in favor of Nazism.

But German propaganda went beyond the adulteration of the works of the

great historical geniuses of our nation. They also tried to pervert and

cripple most sacred sentiments. We saw in France posters advertising

work in Germany, which showed a mother saying to her children, “How

happy we are now that father has gone to work in Germany.” In this way,

the family sentiment was made to further the ends of Nazism.

German propaganda tried also to attack the sentiment of national

patriotism. We saw posters asking young men to serve in the German

forces; and these existed in every country. M. Faure stated yesterday

that these unfortunate wretches who had served in the various legions

must, in spite of their guilt, be considered to a great extent as

victims of the Nazi system. In this way, German propaganda, in attacking

simultaneously the genius of a nation and the most intimate sentiments

of its people, committed a crime against the spirit; and that is

something which, according to the quotation used by M. Dubost in his

peroration, cannot be pardoned.

Publicity may be permitted, by all means, but publicity must remain

within limits. It must have some respect for persons, laws, and

morality. Guarantees for the protection of the individual exist in every

country; there are laws against libel, against defamation; but in

international matters, German propaganda had an unlimited field, without

restrictions or penalties, at least until the day when this Tribunal was

established to judge it.

That is why it seemed to us a useful and necessary duty to submit to

this Tribunal one or two practical illustrations. We did not choose the

best-known examples, but rather those which were most genuinely

characteristic of the excesses and extremes of this propaganda.

First of all, we are going to show a very short extract from a very

specialized film directed against Freemasonry, which was imposed by the

Germans in the manner explained in the brief. The film in itself is of

no interest, but it contains pictures illustrating the crude campaign of

lies in which the Germans indulged in France.

As it is a very short film and will be shown very rapidly—we cannot

slow it down on account of technical difficulties—I should like before

showing it to draw attention to the Tribunal to the two kinds of

pictures which will follow one another without transition: First you

will see a map of the world. This map will be rapidly covered by a color

indicating the influence of the Jews and the Freemasons, except for the

two victorious islands, the Nazi-fascist bloc in Europe, on the one

hand, and Japan on the other.

We give this picture to show the degree of crude simplicity arrived at

by Nazi propaganda and how it submitted to the people the most stupid

and misleading formulas.

An even worse example of calumny follows the portrait of President

Roosevelt with the heading, “Brother Roosevelt Wants War.”

This is all we have taken from the film. It will now be shown. Mr.

Abbett, you can begin.

[_Moving pictures were then shown._]

M. FUSTER: It is taken from the film “Hidden Forces.” Here is the map of

the world [_indicating_] with the zones of influence: the Soviet zone of

influence, the British zone of influence, the American zone of

influence. It is May 1939.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to have the accompaniment of music?

M. FUSTER: I am sorry, but it is impossible to cut out the sound from

this film.

THE PRESIDENT: It cannot be helped? Very well.

M. FUSTER: The rapidity of the film made it necessary for us first to

give a few details of the pictures which passed before the Tribunal. I

think, however, that the Tribunal could appreciate them.

Now, we are going to show a few photographs of posters. These will be

easier to deal with than the film, which cannot be slowed down. We are

going to show them one by one, commenting on each as may be necessary.

I should like to point out to the Tribunal that the film which it has

just seen is submitted as Document Number RF-1152 and also under

Document Number RF-1152 (bis).

The scenarios of other propaganda films, entitled “M. Girouette” (M.

Weathercock), “French Workmen in Germany” and taken from the dossier of

the proceedings taken against M. Musard before the Seine Court of

Justice, will also illustrate the tendency and the subject matter of the

German propaganda carried on by this means.

The photographs of posters which we are going to show now are submitted

as Document Number RF-1153. Before showing these films, we must say

something about the way in which poster propaganda was organized. It was

organized with extreme care. In this connection we submit a pamphlet

which contains full instructions for mounting and shows that a real

administrative service existed to carry out projects which had been

under consideration for a long time. This is Document Number RF-1150. We

shall not read it, since it is a publication, but we will summarize the

most important contents. The Tribunal will see that the most exact

provision has been made for every detail, the sites for the billboards

and so forth. All these posters were issued by the central bureau in

Berlin, D.P.A. In their original form, they consisted only of pictures.

The text was added later in the country for which they were intended.

The text had to be printed in the language of this country and adapted

to suit local conditions.

The Germans very often refrained from indicating their official German

origin or even attributed a different origin to them. For instance, they

used the phrase “Printed in France,” which has no particular meaning

since it never appears on genuine French posters. The French posters

bear only the printer’s name; and this, in its turn, never appears on

German posters. By the use of the phrase “Printed in France,” however,

the Germans could undoubtedly make the French believe that the

propaganda put before them was not directly of enemy origin. This is a

feature at once curious and revealing.

As we have said, publicity has been practiced for a long time, but Nazi

Germany made propaganda into a public institution and applied it

internationally in a most reprehensible manner.

We are now going to show to the Tribunal a few of the stages in the

development of this poster propaganda.

[_Pictures were then projected on the screen._]

M. FUSTER: Here is the first poster [_indicating_]. I am obliged to

describe it because we see it rather badly. The text seems to indicate

the noble attitude of the victor towards the French victims of war. It

is expressed as follows: “Abandoned populations: Have confidence in the

German soldier,” and we see a German soldier with little French children

in his arms.

At the same time that the Germans tried to gain the confidence of the

French population a second poster, which we are going to show you, was

posted in Germany regarding French prisoners of war. This is what they

said to the Germans. I read the text of the poster:

“Companions: Retain your national dignity. Attitude toward

prisoners—the attention of every member of the Party is drawn

to the following points: It is unworthy to show the slightest

sign of friendship to a prisoner. It is strictly forbidden to

give food or drink to prisoners of war. Your fathers, sons, and

brothers are fighting with all their strength against an enemy

whose purpose is the annihilation of the German people. We have

no reason to show the slightest friendship to such an enemy,

even when he comes to us as a prisoner. The enemy remains the

enemy.”

We are now going to show a series of photographs of posters which were

intended to show the French who their real enemies were; but first I

should like to ask the Tribunal whether they can see the posters

sufficiently well, considering the bad light.

THE PRESIDENT: We can see clearly enough, I think.

M. FUSTER: I thank you. We shall continue. This first photograph of the

series, intended to show the populations who their real enemies were, is

entitled, “Fake always comes out of the same spot.” The enemy aimed at

is England. The caricature shows by means of birds with human heads that

the voice of the Free French is only a big story, symbolized by Masonic

signs or emblems of the Jewish religion. The placards attached to these

birds and which appear to defy these slogans of British propaganda are

rather entertaining to read now: “The Germans Take All” and “We Have the

Mastery of the Seas”—it refers to the Allies.

Another photo—we are still dealing with anti-British propaganda. It is

a favorite theme of German propaganda. This photo is entitled, “Thanks

to the English, our Road to Calvary.” It tries to prove to the French by

recalling certain historical events, that the English have always been

the cause of French sufferings: Joan of Arc, Napoleon, the war of

1939-40 are the principal themes exploited by means of the poster.

This one now represents the English hydra which is encircling Africa;

but it is mercilessly beheaded in Germany, in Norway, and rather oddly,

in Syria. The text of this poster reads, “The hydra is still being

systematically decapitated.”

Poster Number 6 has the following text, which is almost invisible here:

“The ally of yesterday, great promises before the war: No help

during the war. Retreat and flight of the English Expeditionary

Force. Bombardment of French cities and blockade after the

debacle. Let us be done with it!”

Poster Number 2, which is also anti-British, is constructed on the same

model. There are three parts, “Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow.”

The Germans developed not only the theme of Anglo-Saxon greed which they

represented by a hydra or a bulldog, but also the theme of the prestige

of the occupied countries at sea. On this point we show photographs of

French and Norwegian posters.

This poster is entitled, “You won’t catch anything with that De Gaulle,

Gentlemen!” British corpulence and Jewish capitalism bulge out from a

fishing boat stopped by the coastal guns of Dakar.

The style of the wording and the sailor’s gesture are purely German. A

Frenchman would have said, “With that Gaulle (fishing rod),” and the

allusion would have been clear enough.

Poster Number 9 invites enrollment in the German Navy, “The Time Has

Come to Free the Seas.”

Here is a Norwegian poster: “Defend Norway. Enlist in the German Navy.”

The inscription might apply, firstly, to all the services of the German

uniformed police; secondly, to all the commands of the German Wehrmacht;

thirdly, to German harbor masters and port control officers; fourthly,

to the commander of the SS Reserve Corps of Norway in Oslo, _et cetera_.

Another Norwegian poster, with the following title, “All for

Norway. . . . Help from England.” This poster tries to prove to the

civilian population that ruin, fire, and devastation are the only

benefits of the English alliance.

The second enemy, America, is the subject of the posters we are going to

show now.

Poster Number 11—“The American Press: 97 percent in the hands of the

Jews.” That allows the Germans to kill two birds with one stone: The

Jews and America.

Poster Number 12—in the middle of this poster is the inscription, “They

Wanted War,” and the persons concerned are represented by six

photographs. These persons, who were responsible for the war, are not

any of the men whom you see in the dock, but six Americans: magistrates,

officials, men in the public eye. Their names were not familiar to the

French public, who had rarely seen them on the screen, except for Mr. La

Guardia. Those who read articles on economics knew of Mr. Morgenthau;

but it was difficult to persuade the French that Messrs. Baruch,

Frankfurter, Wise, and Lehman were the instigators of the present war,

and Hitler and Göring the victims. As I have said, however, Nazi

propaganda did not shrink from any improbability.

The photo Number 13 is more picturesque. It shows both sides of a dollar

bill and consists of two lines separated by a Masonic star with the

inscription, “A dollar has no value unless signed by Morgenthau.” Here

are the texts of the inscriptions showing the imagination of the Nazi

authors in this matter. On the left-hand side we read:

“The Minister of the Treasury is Jew Morgenthau Jr., related to

the great racketeers of international finance. All the Jewish

attributes are found on this dollar: the Eagle of Israel, the

triangle, the Eye of Jehovah, the 13 letters of the motto, the

13 stars of the aureole, the 13 arrows, the 13 olive branches,

the 13 steps of the unfinished pyramid. This money is Jewish

indeed.”

And on the right-hand side:

“This dollar paid for the Jewish war, the sole message which the

Anglo-Americans can address to us. Will it be enough to repay us

for the misfortunes arising from that Jewish war? The money does

not stink but the Jew does.”

Number 14—“Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt are dividing Africa.”

Number 15—this is anti-Semitic propaganda properly speaking. We have

already seen it mingled with anti-British and anti-American propaganda.

This photograph shows children of a French technical school who were

taken to an anti-Jewish exhibition and given anti-Jewish pamphlets to

read.

Number 16—“Behold the Jewish invasion.” France is gnawed by a

symbolical hydra and figures are scrawled across her. “In 1914, 200,000

Jews; in 1939, 800,000 Jews, without mentioning the half-Jews.”

Number 17—“For the Jews the right to live; for us the right to croak.

Beneath the recriminations of all-enveloping Jewry, the crosses of the

daily growing number of war victims are lined up.” This propaganda aims

on the one hand at collecting the Jews into a compact mass and isolating

them, and on the other hand, at arousing the hatred of the remainder of

the population against them. It aims at dividing France.

Number 18—finally, we see the terrible Russian foe. A tortured human

beast is hauling a barrow-load of stones while a monster in uniform

lashes him with a knout or nagaïka and threatens him with a revolver.

This picture was first intended for inclusion in a composite picture

entitled “The Workers’ Paradise.” This gives it additional interest; but

owing to the lack of time, the poster was put out just as it was. We

submit the plans for the entire project as Document Number RF-1151.

Number 19—this is a lovely Norwegian poster: “No” in the form of a

flash of lightning strikes against the Russian hand which attempts to

tear the national flag.

Number 20—“Never!” A romantic picture reminiscent of certain Russian

pictures of the last century. Death escorts a train of deportees. The

Nazis showed something which they knew well!

Number 21—a final picture concerning Russia, “What Bolshevism would

bring to Europe.” Scenes of mutilation, infanticide, rape, hangings,

murder—exactly what the Nazi movement brought to Europe! However, this

Europe must realize her good fortune in being led by the Führer, must

realize her strength and her unity, in order to fight victoriously

against the barbarous enemy.

And here is a photograph of a poster, “A Leader and His People.” Hitler

is depicted as endowed with every charm: sweetness, simplicity,

understanding, while the text, unreadable on the reproduction, recalls

that he, Hitler, is the unknown soldier of the first war. We call the

Tribunal’s attention to the photo.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you let the Tribunal know how much longer you are

likely to be?

M. FUSTER: About 10 minutes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: You may continue.

M. FUSTER: In the photograph to the left, Hitler is shaking a little

girl’s hand and we read underneath, “The Little Congratulator.” This

term, which is not French, betrays the origin of the document.

Here is a poster—Number 23—which was widely circulated in France: “I

work in Germany for my family and for France. Do as I do.”

Number 24—“1918 to 1943—History Speaks. 1918—The Debacle. 1943—The

Great Unity.” This poster is the counterpart of the inscriptions which

patriots used to write on the walls in France. The German defeat was

rapidly approaching; and they could hope that the end of the year 1943,

like the end of the year 1918, would bring the final victory. The Nazis

were unable to make any reply to these crushing communiques except by

issuing denials and posters like this, affirming the great unity of

Europe.

Number 25—here is a poster which combines the productive and fighting

forces, “The best workers make the best weapons for the best soldiers.”

Number 26—finally propaganda attains the level of the conflict of

political doctrines, “Socialism against Bolshevism or a free Europe.”

Number 27—religious doctrine. This is a Norwegian poster which makes

fun of the Anglo-Russian alliance. It is entitled, “A Blessed Meeting.”

An Anglican bishop, armed with a phosphorous bomb, presents a cross

symbolizing Finland to Pope Stalin. Stalin accepts it with eyes lifted

to heaven and a machine gun in his arms. A placard says, “Christianity

is introduced into the country of the Soviets,” and the motto says, “My

dear brother, we wish to strengthen your faith with these beautiful

crosses.”

Number 28—“Anti-Christ: Communism, the scourge of civilization.

Bolshevism against Europe. International Exhibition, 12 July to 15

August 1941.” The Nazis pose as the defenders of Christianity.

Number 29—and to conclude, this is what the defenders of Christianity

did to the Church of Oradour-sur-Glane.

We have now finished showing the films. We have taken the liberty to

submit to the Tribunal a few pictures forming concrete illustrations of

a tendency whose spiritual character makes it perhaps more difficult of

recognition but whose importance is considerable. In treating an

emotionally subtle theme of this kind, we have used pictures in

preference to words, since pictures can make clear in an instant

something which it takes time to put into words. In this way we hope we

have contributed towards making plain the truth.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 10 minutes past 2.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1410 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the

Defendant Kaltenbrunner will be absent until further notice, on account

of illness.

M. FAURE: Mr. President, I shall now take up the last chapter of my

brief, which is devoted to the organization of criminal activities. I

shall begin this last chapter by quoting a few words spoken by

Monseigneur Piguet, Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand, in the course of a

pontifical Mass on Whit Sunday, 20 May 1945. Monseigneur Piguet had just

been liberated from the concentration camp to which he had been sent by

the Nazis. He said:

“The criminal institutions of which we have been witness and

victim bear within themselves all the scourges of barbarism and

old-time servitude systematized and applied by a new method

capable of increasing human misery by the whole range of modern

scientific possibilities.”

The evidence that I intend to present to the Tribunal with regard to the

occupied countries of the West bears upon this aspect of the

systematizing of German criminal enterprises. We have said that

Germanization did not consist in the particular fact of the imposition

of German nationality or of German law, but in the general imposition of

the standards established by the Nazi regime, and in a general way, of

its philosophy. This aspect of Germanization implies criminal activity

at once as a means and as an end—as a means, because the criminal means

is very often highly effective, and we know that Nazism professes

indifference in regard to the immorality of the means; as an end, on the

other hand, since the final organization of Nazi society postulates the

elimination of elements hostile to it or which it regards as

undesirable. Under these conditions the criminal activities therefore do

not appear as accidents or regrettable incidents of war and of

occupation. They must not be ascribed to un-coordinated action on the

part of subordinates due to overzealousness or lack of discipline.

As the elimination of adversaries is recommended in principle, it will

be carried out in fact by the normal and regular functioning of the

administrative apparatus. If Nazism has a philosophy of criminal action,

it also has, properly speaking, a bureaucracy of criminal activity.

The will which inspires this action is transmitted from one to another

of the chief and secondary centers of the state organism. Each of the

misdeeds or series of misdeeds of which we have told you already or

shall do so again, assumes the existence of a whole series of

transmissions: orders passed by superiors to inferiors, requests for

orders or reports passed by inferiors to superiors, and finally the

relations maintained between corresponding echelons of different

services. This administrative organization of criminal activity appears

to us a very important datum for the determination of responsibility and

the proving of the charges formulated in the Indictment against the

higher leaders and against the group organization.

The responsibility of any one of these superior leaders in regard to a

determined criminal activity does not, indeed, require that an exhibit

or a document signed by the person himself be produced or that it should

involve him by name. The existence or non-existence of such a document

is a matter of chance.

The responsibility of the higher leader is directly established by the

fact that a criminal activity has been carried out administratively by a

service at whose head we find this leader.

This is all the more true in the case of a criminal activity pursued

over a long period of time, affecting a considerable number of persons

and whose development has given rise to a series of complications, of

consultations, and of solutions. There is in every graded state service

a continuous circuit of authority which is at the same time a continuous

circuit of responsibility. Moreover, concerning charges made against

organizations described as criminal organizations, their criminal nature

springs from the very fact that their activity produces criminal results

without there being any lack of knowledge or modification of the normal

rules of competence and of functioning of their different organisms.

The collaboration which develops with a view to such an end between a

series of agents belonging to the organization both vertically between

the upper and lower grades and horizontally between the different

specialist departments implies no less forcibly the existence of a

collective criminal intent.

I shall speak first of the persecution of persons qualified as Jews by

the German code. The Tribunal already knows from other evidence the Nazi

doctrine on the subject of Jews. The historians of the future will

perhaps be able to determine how much of this doctrine was the result of

sincere fanaticism and how much was the result of premeditated intent to

deceive and mislead public opinion.

It is certain that the Nazis found the theories which led them to

undertake the extermination of the Jews extremely convenient.

In the first place, anti-Semitism was an ever accessible means of

averting public criticism and anger. Moreover, it was a method of

psychological seduction that was very cleverly calculated to appeal to

simple minds. It made it possible to give a certain amount of

satisfaction to the most needy and underprivileged person by convincing

him that he was nevertheless of a superior quality and that he could

despise and bully a whole category of his fellow men. Finally, the Nazis

obtained for themselves by this means the possibility of whipping up the

fanaticism of their members by awakening and encouraging in them the

criminal instincts which are always latent to a certain extent in the

souls of men.

Indeed, it is a German scientist, Feuerbach, who developed the theory

that disposition to crime does not necessarily proceed from long

preparation. The criminal instinct present may spring to life in an

instant. The Nazis gave to the elite of their servants the possibility

of giving free rein to any inclination they might possess for murder,

looting, the most atrocious actions, and the most hideous spectacles. In

this way they fully assured themselves of their obedience and of their

zeal.

In order to avoid repetition, I shall not speak in detail of the great

sufferings endured by the persons qualified as Jews in France and in the

other countries of western Europe. I should like simply to indicate here

that it also caused great suffering to all the other inhabitants of

these countries to witness the abominable treatment inflicted upon the

Jews. Every Frenchman felt a deep affliction at seeing the persecution

of other Frenchmen, many of whom had earned the gratitude of the

fatherland. There is no one in Paris who did not feel deeply ashamed to

learn that the dying Bergson had to be carried to the police commission

to satisfy the census requirements.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, you will forgive my interrupting you, but the

Tribunal feels that what you are now presenting to us, however

interesting—and it is interesting—is really an argument and is not

presenting evidence to us. And as we have already heard an opening on

behalf of the United States, an opening on behalf of Great Britain, and

an opening on behalf of France, we think that you really ought to

address yourself, if possible, to the evidence which you are presenting,

rather than to an argument.

I feel sure that, with your readiness to meet the wishes of the Tribunal

in expressing your presentation, you will perhaps be able to do that.

M. FAURE: I understand perfectly the feeling of the Tribunal. I simply

intended to say a few words referring to the feeling shown by Frenchmen

in regard to these persecutions. But these words have now been spoken,

and I have just arrived at the object of the demonstration which I am to

present to the Tribunal with the documents. To show the Tribunal that

the spirit of my presentation is in accordance with the requirements of

the Tribunal, I should like to indicate that I am not presenting in this

brief any document which constitutes an individual story or even a

collective story, and no document which comes from victims themselves,

or even from impartial persons.

I have tried to select only a certain number of German documents in

order to furnish evidence of the execution of a criminal enterprise

consisting in the extermination of Jews in France and the western

countries.

I should like to observe first of all that the Nazi persecution of the

Jews included two sets of actions. This is important from the point of

view of the direct responsibility of the defendants. The first category

of actions is that resulting from the actual texts of laws and

regulations and the second category is that resulting from the way in

which these were applied.

As regards the texts of laws and regulations, it is evident that these

texts, which were issued by the German authorities—either military

authorities or commissioners of the Reich—constituted particularly

flagrant violations of the sovereignty of the occupied countries.

I do not think that it is necessary for me to present these laws and

regulations in detail, for their main features are common knowledge. In

order to avoid reading, I have had two tables drawn up and these are

before the Tribunal in the document book, although they are not

documents properly speaking. These documents are to be found in an

appendix. I should like to explain what the two tables in this appendix

show. The first table, in the left-hand column, is arranged in

chronological order; the other columns indicate the names of the

different countries. The Tribunal will find arranged in chronological

order the measures taken against the Jews in different countries.

The second table classifies them according to subject—the concept

“Jews,” economic measures, bullying and petty irritations, the yellow

star—and you will find in this table appropriate texts, arranged

according to subject.

I likewise present in the form of documents under Document Number

RF-1200 a certain number of decrees which were issued in France

concerning the Jews, and as these decrees are public acts I shall simply

ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of them.

I must now make this observation: These texts, taken as a whole,

considerably lowered the status of the Jews. Yet there are no texts in

existence of German decrees ordering the mass deportation or murder of

Jews. On the other hand, you must remember that this legislation was

developed by progressive stages up to 1942, after which a pause ensued.

It was during this pause that, as we shall see, genuine administrative

measures for the deportation and consequently for the extermination of

the Jews were introduced.

This leads us to consider the fact that we are not dealing with two

separate actions—the legislative action, to be ascribed to the military

authorities, and the executive action, to be ascribed to the police.

This point of view, which regards the military authority only as the

author of the decrees and, therefore, as bearing a lesser degree of

criminal responsibility, would be false. In reality we are looking at

the development of a continued action which employs by turns different

means. The first means, that is to say, the legislative means, are the

necessary preparatory measures for putting into force the other, or

directly criminal means.

In order to put into practice their plan of extermination, the Nazis had

first of all to single out the Jewish elements in the population and to

separate them from the rest of the population of the country. They had

to be able to find the Jews easily and to find them with decreased

powers of self-defense and lacking in the material, physical, and

intellectual resources which would have enabled them easily to avoid

persecution.

They had to be able to destroy the whole of this doomed element of the

national community at a single blow, and for this reason they had first

to put an end to the constant interweaving of interests and activities

existing between all the categories of the population. The Germans

wished to prepare public opinion as far as possible; and they could

succeed in this by accustoming the public to no longer seeing the Jews,

as the latter were practically forbidden to leave their houses.

I shall now present to the Tribunal a few documents bearing on this

general extermination deliberately undertaken by the Nazis. I shall

first present a series of documents, Documents RF-1201, 1202, 1203,

1204, 1205, and 1206. I present these documents with reference to a

particular question, the emigration of the Jews who tried to leave the

occupied territories.

Inasmuch as the Germans made their desire to get rid of the Jews

apparent in every way, it would seem logical for them to look favorably

on the solution offered by emigration. On the contrary, as we shall see,

they forbade emigration and did so by a permanent measure of general

application. This is a proof of their will to exterminate the Jews and a

proof of the ferocity of the measures employed. Here, to begin with, is

Document Number RF-1201. These documents are submitted to the Tribunal

in a series of photostatic copies for each member.

Document Number RF-1201 is a letter of 22 July 1941 emanating from the

Bordeaux service and requesting certain instructions from Paris. I wish

to read the beginning of this message:

“It has just been established that about one hundred and fifty

Jews are still in the territory of the District Command of St.

Jean de Luz. At the time of our conversation with the District

Commander, Major Henkel, the latter asked that these Jews should

leave his district as quickly as possible. At the same time, he

pointed out that in his opinion it would be far better to allow

these Jews to emigrate rather than to transfer them to other

departments or even to concentration camps.”

Here is the reply to this telegram. It is Document Number RF-1202, dated

26 July 1941. The second sentence:

“We do not approve Major Henkel’s point of view as the Reich

Security Main Office has stipulated again in a decree the

principle that the emigration of Jews residing in the occupied

territories of the West, and if possible also of those living in

Unoccupied France, is to be prevented.”

Here is an exhibit which I submit as Document Number RF-1203 and which

comes from the Military Command in France under date of 4 February 1942.

We are no longer dealing with the SS but with the Military Command.

“The Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police at the

R.M.d.I. has given orders that the emigration of Jews from

Germany or the occupied territories has to be prevented, on

principle.”

The rest of the letter indicates that exceptions may be made. This

document establishes the collaboration between the Army and the police,

the Army assuring the execution of the orders given by the Supreme Chief

of Police.

I now submit Document Number RF-1205. This document relates to the same

subject, but I nevertheless submit it because it shows the intervention

of a third German authority, the diplomatic authority. This is a note of

the German Consulate General of Casablanca. I read the first sentence:

“The number of European emigrants hitherto leaving Casablanca

for the American continent only at long intervals has greatly

increased during the last month. On 15 March . . .”

The rest of the letter indicates that these are Jewish emigrants.

Document Number RF-1204, which is joined to this one, constitutes a new

report to the same effect from the Consulate General Casablanca, under

the date of 8 June 1942. I read the last paragraph of this document:

“The emigrants leaving Casablanca are, for the most part, Jewish

families from Germany and Central Europe and also some French

Jews. There is no reason to suspect that young people fit for

military service have left Casablanca with the avowed intention

of entering military service on the side of the enemy. It is

left to your discretion to inform the military authorities about

this.”

I have quoted this document to show that there was no question of a

military emigration which they would have had an interest in preventing,

and also to show that this document would normally have concerned

firstly the German Embassy, to which it was addressed, and secondly the

military services which it suggests should be informed.

Now, what is the sequel to these two communications? The sequel is shown

by Document Number RF-1206, of which the two documents just read

constitute appendixes. This Document RF-1206 emanates from Berlin, from

the Reich Security Main Office, and is addressed to the Chief of Police

for France and Belgium.

“Attached are two copies of confidential reports from the German

Consulate General in Casablanca to the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs for your information.

“You are asked to give your special attention to the state of

affairs described and to prevent, as far as possible, an

emigration of this kind.”

I therefore draw three conclusions. Firstly, as I have indicated, the

Nazis opposed the emigration of the Jews, although they claim that they

are undesirable. Secondly, this decision was made at a higher level and

with a general application. Thirdly, all the services, the police, the

Army, and the Department of Foreign Affairs intervened to ensure the

execution of these barbarous orders.

I now present to the Tribunal Document Number RF-1207. This document is

a voluminous German report. It is in fact 70 pages in length. It was

found in the German archives in Paris. This document is interleaved with

a series of graphs, drawings, and models of census cards. It is

mimeographed, and the copy which we present does not bear the author’s

signature, but simply the indication “SS Obersturmführer.” This is

Obersturmführer Dannecker, who played an important role in regulating

Jewish questions in France and who was chief of this bureau.

THE PRESIDENT: That fact which you have just stated to us, has that been

verified by the French authorities, namely, that it was a captured

document in Paris?

M. FAURE: According to the report submitted to the Tribunal, we took

possession of these documents at the archives of the Sûreté Nationale.

They were among the documents found in the German offices at the time of

the liberation. Besides, I point out to the Tribunal that the other

documents produced do bear the signatures of the German officials. This

report is the only document without a signature. The fact that it was

written by Dannecker will be proved by other documents, which constitute

a résumé of it.

I shall not read to the Tribunal the 70 pages of this report, but I

should like to read certain paragraphs which I think may interest the

Tribunal. Here is the first page. To begin with, it is entitled, “The

Jewish Question in France and Its Treatment. Paris, 1 July 1941.” First

page:

“Final solution of the Jewish question—this is the heading and

the goal for the work of those services of the Sipo and SD which

are handling the Jewish problem in France. It has always been

clear that practical results cannot be achieved without a study

of the political situation in general as well as of the

situation of the Jews.

“The following pages, next to giving a general draft of our

planning, are to explain the results achieved up to now as well

as the immediate aims.

“Everything touching the principle must be considered from the

following point of view: Since the chief of the Sipo and SD has

been charged by the Führer with preparing the solution of the

Jewish question in Europe, his offices in France are to carry

out the preliminary work in order to be able to serve abroad as

the absolutely reliable agents of the European Commissioner for

Jewish Affairs, at the appointed time.”

I shall now point out to the Tribunal the chief headings of the

paragraphs in order to pursue the development of the idea and of the

operations of this German office.

THE PRESIDENT: I was considering, M. Faure, why this document has not

got any identifying mark upon it. I mean, of course, we do not doubt for

an instant what you say to us is true, but at the same time it is not

the correct way to do it—for us to have to rely on counsel’s statement

as to the nature of the evidence. And there is nothing on the document

itself to show that it was captured in Paris or to show what it is

except what it states.

M. FAURE: Mr. President, the joining of this document to the file of the

French Prosecution was done by a report made in Paris, which I shall

present before the Tribunal, because as this report concerns a certain

number of documents, it was not especially joined to the file of this

particular document. On the other hand, when I received these documents

from the police, I did not wish to write anything on the document or to

place it under a seal, for I wished to avoid altering the normal

appearance of the document in any way.

I must state that if the Tribunal prefers not to receive this document

inasmuch as I do recognize that it does not bear a signature, I shall

not submit the document for I have a second report by Dannecker which is

signed by him. I submitted both in order to make clear the continuity of

the operation.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, in the case of the documents presented by the

United States, the captured documents by the United States, as Sir David

Maxwell-Fyfe reminded us the other day, there is an affidavit, I think,

of Major Coogan, which states that all those documents of a certain

series, PS, L, R, and various other series, were all captured in Germany

by the United States forces. If there were such an affidavit with

reference to documents captured in Paris which might be identified by

some letter such as PS or some letter similar to that, the matter would

seem to us to be in order. But when a document is presented to us which

has no identifying mark upon it at all, we are then in the position

which we are in now of simply hearing the statement of counsel, which,

of course, is not evidence that the document was found in Paris or found

somewhere else; and therefore it occurs to me that one way that it might

be dealt with would be an affidavit by somebody who knows the facts that

this document and any other documents of a similar sort were captured in

the archives of the German forces in Paris or elsewhere.

M. FAURE: I could very easily produce before the Tribunal the affidavit

which it requests. I say that if we do not have it in this form it is

because our habitual procedure is not exactly the same as that which may

be followed in the United States. In fact, as the Charter of the

Tribunal indicates that the Prosecution was charged with the collection

of evidence, we ourselves have authorized magistrates in our service to

look for documents in the archives of the police and if the Tribunal

wishes I shall ask the police in addition for attestation of the seizure

of these documents in the German archives. I shall then ask the Tribunal

to allow me to produce this affidavit in a few days’ time, so that I can

ask the police for it.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, the Tribunal think that we might admit the

document, subject to your undertaking that you would do that in the

course of a day or two.

M. FAURE: I cannot guarantee that I will have this document in a day or

two.

THE PRESIDENT: I wasn’t stressing the number of days. If you will

undertake to do it that is sufficient.

M. FAURE: Certainly, Mr. President. I shall go on then with the analysis

of the Dannecker report. The first chapter is called, “History of the

Jews in France.” I shall not read it. It includes a series of ideas on a

very elementary intellectual level. The following chapter is entitled,

“Organization of the Jews in France.” It includes a first part under the

heading, “Before 14 June 1940.” This part does not seem to me

interesting. The second part of this chapter is entitled, “Operations of

the Sipo and the SD (SS Einsatzkommando Paris) against these

Organizations and against Leading Jewish Personages.” The report comes

from the SS Hauptsturmführer Hagen. I think I might read the beginning:

“From a study of the records collected in Germany, Austria,

Czechoslovakia, and Poland, it was possible to conclude that the

center of Judaism in Europe and with it the chief lines of

communication to overseas must be sought in France. Realizing

this, first of all, the offices of great Jewish organizations

already known, such as World Jewish Congress”—then follows an

enumeration—“have been searched and sealed.”

Beginning with Page 14, the report attempts to demonstrate the existence

of a bond between Judaism and Catholicism. It presents the results of

searches made in the homes of various persons: The Rothschild family,

the former minister, Mandel, the press attaché at the British Embassy,

and other persons, including the lawyers Moro-Giafferi and Torrès. The

end of this chapter is as indicated, Page 16, last paragraph:

“To sum up, we can say on the basis of the records which have

been collected, that France, where Judaism was linked with

Catholicism and with certain important politicians, was its last

bulwark on the continent of Europe.”

The following section has the title, “Life of the Jews after the Entry

of the Germans.” The text describes the way in which the Germans created

a central and unified organization of the Jews and imposed it on them.

This is the beginning of the plan which I have just described to the

Tribunal, which consisted in singling out the Jewish elements in the

population, massing them together, and separating them entirely from the

rest of the population. I should like to read the first paragraph, for

the analysis of it is very important:

“After the Armistice and the return to normal life it appeared

that almost all the Jewish associations had ceased to exist (in

the absence of responsible officials and financial supporters

who had fled into the unoccupied zone) while there was a growing

need for aid. The progressive German anti-Jewish legislation

caused a steady aggravation of the Jewish social problems.

Generally considered, these circumstances should have provided a

favorable ground in France for a Jewish all-round organization.”

In this text there is a very subtle idea. We note that the German

legislation, that is to say, the legislation of the Military Command,

brought about a great aggravation of social problems; and we conclude

that this will facilitate the general organization of the Jews. This

reasoning confirms, I think, what I said to the Tribunal a while ago,

namely, that we were faced with a whole system of measures, the first of

which were intended to facilitate the separation of the Jewish community

which was to be exterminated.

Dannecker then explains how a co-ordination committee was created. I

skip the details and come to Page 21, Paragraph 2:

“An agreement has been made with the office of the Commander of

Greater Paris that, in the future, Jewish organizations may

address themselves to the German services only by way of the

Committee of Jewish Co-ordination. This resulted in an enforced

amalgamation of all minor Jewish organizations.

“Moreover, an agreement has been made with the Paris Office for

National Relief (Bureau du Secours National) that, after the

expiration of a period of 4 weeks, no Jew can any longer be fed

and housed by National Relief. The S.N. will appoint a special

representative for controlling the co-ordination committee on

this matter. The blocking of Jewish accounts will compel the

Jews in the very near future to ask that the co-ordination

committee be authorized to receive gifts intended for it from

these blocked holdings. The granting of this request will

demonstrate the actual existence of an enforced Jewish union.

“As can be seen this question too will be solved in the manner

desired, even if it is a ‘cold manner.’”

The following chapter bears the title, “Political Activities of the

Office for Jewish Affairs of the Sipo and of the SD.” I should like to

read some passages from this:

“After the promulgation of the Jewish statute of 3 October 1940

by the French Government, a certain slowing-down occurred in the

handling of the Jewish question in France; and for this reason

the Office for Jewish Affairs worked out plans for a Central

Jewish Bureau. The plan was discussed with the military

administration on 31 January 1941. The latter showed no

interest; and, as the question was a purely political one, it

was referred to the SD in agreement with the German Embassy.”

This is followed by an analysis of various discussions with the French

Commissioner Vallat, with Ambassador Abetz, and with De Brinon and

indicates the various demands presented by the Germans to the French

authorities. I pass now to Page 26, the last paragraph:

“The proposal of the Office for Jewish Affairs has been referred

to SS Brigadeführer Dr. Best by SS Obersturmbannführer Dr.

Knochen. This proposal suggests that a liaison office ought to

be created which should comprise the representatives of the four

offices cited above. The management was to be in the hands of

the Director of the Office for Jewish Affairs of the SD in

compliance with the rules stipulating the competency of the OKW,

the OKH, and the Commander in France. As a result of this

suggestion, a conference was held on 10 June 1941. Those who

attended were: Ministerial Counsellor Dr. Stortz for the

Commander in France”—then German titles follow which have not

been translated into French and which are a little hard for me

to read—“Dr. Blancke, (Economic Service), Counsellor to the

Embassy Dr. Zeitschel (German Embassy), and SS Obersturmführer

Dannecker. The representatives of the military administration

stated clearly that the competence of the SD resulted from the

decrees of the OKW and of the OKH as well as from the last

confidential decree of 25 March 1941 of the Commander in France.

Dr. Stortz declared that for various reasons it would be better

to abstain from creating a special liaison bureau, under the

direction of the SD. SS Obersturmführer Dannecker explained for

his part that we are concerned with the final solution of the

question only; and, therefore, the SD must have the possibility

of carrying out the orders given by the RSHA.”

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, can’t you summarize this? It is a very long

document, and we have so many documents and so much evidence in

connection with the Jews already.

M. FAURE: I shall simply read one sentence on the same page:

“The result of the conference was the decision to meet every

week at the Office for Jewish Affairs. In the course of these

meetings they would discuss in common all their aims,

experiences, and objections.”

I think it is interesting to note these regular conferences held every

week and in which representatives of the military services, the embassy,

and the police took part.

The following pages of the report can be passed over. They contain

remarks about Vallat, notes relating to the establishment of files

concerning the Jews, and an analysis of the German ordinances. This is

important as showing that these ordinances have their place in the

general plan. Dannecker likewise speaks of the Anti-Jewish Institute,

and observes that this institute was financed by the German Embassy.

The report goes on to give statistical notes and concludes with a

statement of which I shall read only one paragraph:

“I hope I have succeeded in giving an idea of the present

situation, and a summary of the manifold difficulties which had

to be surmounted. I cannot help but acknowledge in this

connection the really friendly and thorough support which has

been given to our work by Ambassador Abetz and his

representative, Minister Schleier, as well as by SS

Sturmbannführer and Counsellor to the Embassy Dr. Zeitschel.”

To meet the desire of the Tribunal, I shall not submit all the documents

included in my document file. I shall therefore pass now to Document

Number RF-1210. I have not submitted Documents RF-1208 and 1209. This

Document Number RF-1210 is a new report of Dannecker’s. It is dated 22

February 1942. I submit it to show the regular and progressive character

of the activities of the German offices. This is a letter of the 22d of

February 1942. I shall read simply the headings, and I shall quote two

passages.

The first heading is “Task of the Sipo and of the SD in France”; the

second is “Card Index of Jews”; the third, “French Commission for Jewish

Questions”; the fourth, “The French Anti-Jewish Police.” The fifth is

entitled “Activity.” I shall quote this paragraph:

“Up to now three operations have been carried out against the

Jews of Paris on a large scale. On each occasion the local

office has been responsible for selecting the Jews who were to

be arrested, as well as for the preparation and technical

organization of the operations. The Jewish card index described

above has considerably facilitated the organization of all these

operations.”

The next heading is “Anti-Jewish Institute”; next is “Compulsory Jewish

Amalgamation”; and finally “Tuesday Conferences.” I shall read Paragraph

2:

“A conference has been held every Tuesday since the middle of

1941”—Page 5 of the document—“attended by representatives of

the following offices: 1) Military Command, Administrative

Staff, Administrative Section; 2) Administrative Staff, Police

Group; 3) Administrative Staff, Economic Section; 4) German

Embassy in Paris; 5) Operations Staff West of Reichsleiter

Rosenberg.

“The result of these conferences was that (of course, for very

rare exceptions caused by outsiders) the policy regarding Jews

in the occupied territories can be followed on absolutely

uniform lines.”

THE PRESIDENT: We will break off now.

[_A recess was taken._]

M. FAURE: Gentlemen, in order not to prolong the discussion too much, I

should like, if it please the Tribunal, to submit as documents all the

documents in my book, but to read and analyze only some of the most

important.

I shall then pass over Documents RF-1211, 1212, 1213, and 1214. I should

like, however, to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the end of the

mimeographed French text. As the letter “K” appeared on the document,

the word “Keitel” was written in, quite wrongly. I should like to say

that this does not occur in the document. I should like to read this

Document Number RF-1215, which is very short:

“Secret—13 May 1942. To the Chief of Area A.

“In accordance with instructions from OKH, Quartermaster

General, the words ‘dispatch to the East’ must not be used in

announcements referring to the forced evacuation of the

population, in order to avoid a defamation of the occupied

regions in the East. The same applies to the expression

‘deportation,’ this word being too strongly reminiscent of the

banishment to Siberia at the time of the Czars. In all

publications and correspondence we must use the phrase ‘dispatch

for forced labor.’”

Document Number RF-1216, which I offer in evidence now, is another

memorandum from Dannecker, dated 10 March 1942. The purpose of this

memorandum is defined as “Deportation from France of 5,000 Jews.” The

quotation of the title suffices to indicate the subject of the document.

Dannecker alludes to a meeting of the Office for Jewish Affairs, a

meeting which took place at the RSHA in Berlin on 4 March 1942 at which

it was decided that negotiations would be undertaken for the deportation

of 5,000 Jews from France. The memorandum specifies Paragraph 4, second

sentence:

“Jews of French nationality must be deprived of their

nationality before being deported, or at the latest on the day

of the deportation itself.”

In a subsequent passage of the document Dannecker explains that the

expenses of this deportation would have to be paid by the French Jews,

since in the case of impending mass deportations of Jews from

Czechoslovakia provisions had been made for the Slovakian Government to

pay a sum of 500 marks for each Jew deported and, in addition, to bear

the cost of deportation.

I now offer in evidence Document Number RF-1217, which is a memorandum

of 15 June 1942 headed “Other Transports of Jews Coming from France.” It

is still dealing with the same operation, but I believe it is

interesting to submit these documents without reading them, since they

show the extremely complex and regular working of this administration

whose purpose was to arrest and deport innocent people. The beginning of

the memorandum alludes to a new conference held in Berlin on 11 June

1942 and attended by those responsible for the Jewish departments in

Brussels and The Hague, as well as by Dannecker himself. In the fourth

paragraph on Page 1 of this document I read the last sentence of the

paragraph, “Ten percent of Jews unfit for labor may be included in these

convoys.” This sentence shows that the purpose of this deportation was

not merely to procure labor, even if it involved labor to be

exterminated by work.

I should like also to read the fifth paragraph, which contains only one

sentence:

“It was agreed that 15,000 Jews should be expelled from Holland,

10,000 from Belgium, and up to 100,000 from France, including

the unoccupied zone.”

The last part of the memorandum relates to the technical execution. It

alludes first to negotiations with the transport service to obtain the

necessary trains. It then alludes to the necessity of inducing the _de

facto_ French Government to take steps to deprive of their nationality

all Jews resident outside of French territory. This would mean that

deported Jews would no longer be considered as French citizens. Lastly

the French State was to pay the cost of transport and various expenses

connected with the deportation.

I now present Document Number RF-1218, which is a memorandum dated 16

June 1942, entitled “The Transportation of Jews from France: Subject,

Order from the SS Obersturmbannführer Eichmann to SS Hauptsturmführer

Dannecker, 11 June 1942.” The first three paragraphs of this memorandum

show that there was difficulty in transporting deportees, because of the

large quantity of railway stock necessary for the preparation of the

eastern campaign. I should like to read the last two paragraphs of this

letter:

“We are now carrying out a large-scale reorganization of the

German transport agencies in France. The main feature of this is

that the numerous organizations existing hitherto will be taken

over by the Reich Ministry of Transportation, which will be

responsible for them. This reorganization, which was ordered

without notice, takes a few days to complete. Before that date

it is impossible to give approximate information as to whether

the transportation of Jews can be carried out in the near future

or at a later date, on the scale anticipated, or even

partially.”

These remarks seemed to me interesting as defining the responsibility of

the Reich Cabinet. Such a large undertaking as the deportation of so

many Jews required the intervention of many different administrative

services, and we see here that the success of this enterprise depended

on the reorganization of transport on the responsibility of the Reich

Ministry of Transportation. It is certain that a ministerial department

of this kind, which is above all a technical department, intervened to

help carry out that general enterprise of deportation.

I now submit Document Number RF-1219 which is a memorandum by Dr.

Knochen dated 15 June 1942. This memorandum is entitled, “Technical

Execution of New Convoys of Jews from France.” Not to take too much time

I shall read only the first paragraph of this memorandum:

“To avoid any conflict with the operation in progress with

regard to ‘French workmen for Germany,’ mention will be made

only of Jewish resettlement. This version is confirmed by the

fact that the convoys may include entire families and therefore

the possibility is left open of sending at a later date for the

children under 16, who were left behind.”

The remainder of the memorandum, like all these texts, which are so

extremely painful from a moral point of view, continues to discuss the

question of the deportation of the Jews in round figures as if all these

human beings were mere goods and chattels.

I now submit Document Number RF-1220, which is a letter from the German

Embassy in Paris, from Dr. Zeitschel, dated 27 June 1942. I should like

to read this letter, which is thus expressed:

“Following my conversation with Hauptsturmführer Dannecker on 27

June, during which he stated that he needed, as soon as

possible, 50,000 Jews from the free zone for deportation to the

East and that something had to be done to support the operations

of Darquier de Pellepoix, the Commissioner General on Jewish

questions, I immediately informed Ambassador Abetz and

Counsellor Rahn of this matter. Counsellor Rahn is to meet

President Laval this afternoon and he promised to discuss with

him at once the handing over of these 50,000 Jews, demanding at

the same time plenary powers for Darquier de Pellepoix, in

conformity with the laws already promulgated, and the immediate

granting of the credits promised him.

“As unfortunately I shall be away from Paris for a week, I

request, in view of the urgency of the question, that

Hauptsturmführer Dannecker contact Counsellor Rahn directly, on

Monday, 29 June, or Tuesday, 30 June, at the latest, to learn

Laval’s reply.”

I thought it useful to read this letter, for it shows the responsibility

of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Defendant Ribbentrop in this

abominable matter of handing over 50,000 Jews as required. It is quite

evident that such a step cannot be taken by a counsellor at an embassy

unknown to his minister and without the latter’s full knowledge and

consent.

I submit now Document Number RF-1221. It is a memorandum dated 26 June

1942 of which I shall give only the title, “Directives for the

Deportation of Jews.”

Now I come to Document Number RF-1222, of which I shall also read only

the title, “Conference with the Specialists for Jewish Questions of the

Security Police, Command of the Section IV-J on 30 June 1942.

Deportation to Auschwitz of Jews from the Occupied Territories.”

In this memorandum Dannecker again alludes to the conference which took

place at the RSHA, according to which 50,000 Jews were to be

transferred. There follows a list of trains, the stations in which they

were to be assembled, and a request for reports.

I now submit Document Number RF-1223. It is a memorandum, dated 1 July

1942, summing up a conference between Dannecker and Eichmann, who, as we

already know, was in Berlin but had to come to Paris on that occasion.

“Subject: Departmental Conference with SS Hauptsturmführer Dannecker,

Paris, Concerning the Impending Evacuation from France.” It still deals

with the preparation of the great operation envisaged.

I now submit Document Number RF-1224, of which I read only the title and

the date, “4 July 1942: Directives for a Major Round-up of Jews in

Paris.”

I now offer in evidence Document Number RF-1225, which is a Dannecker

memorandum dated 6 July 1942. Subject: “Deportation of Jews from

France.” It concerns a conference held with representatives of French

authorities. We see in the document the expression “Judenmaterial,”

which was translated in a roundabout way by the words “Jewish

livestock.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1226. I should like to read, if the

Tribunal please, the first paragraph of this document which is very

revealing both in regard to the collaboration with the transport

services and the horrifying mentality of the Nazi authorities. The

memorandum is the sequel to a telephone conversation between the

signatory Röthke and the SS Obersturmführer Eichmann at Berlin:

“The SS Obersturmführer Eichmann in Berlin telephoned on 14 July

1942 about 1900 hours. He wished to know why the train provided

for the transport of 15 July 1942 had been cancelled. I replied

that originally the star bearers in the provinces were to be

arrested too but that by virtue of a new agreement with the

French Government only stateless Jews were to be arrested to

begin with.

“The train due to leave on 15 July 1942 had to be cancelled

because, according to information received by the SD Kommando at

Bordeaux, there were only 150 stateless Jews in Bordeaux. There

was no time to find enough other Jews to fill this train. SS

Obersturmführer Eichmann replied that it was a question of

prestige. They had to conduct lengthy negotiations about these

trains with the Reichsminister of Transportation, which turned

out successfully; and now Paris cancels a train. Such a thing

had never happened to him before. The matter was highly

shameful. He did not wish to report it to SS Gruppenführer

Müller right now, for the blame would fall on his own shoulders.

He was reflecting whether he would not do without France as an

evacuation country altogether.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1227, which gives statistics indicating

that up to the 2d of September 1942 27,069 Jews were evacuated and that

by the end of October a total figure of 52,069 might be reached. They

are anxious to accelerate the pace and to attack also the Jews in the

unoccupied zone of France.

I now submit Document Number RF-1228. It is also an account of a

conference where there were invited representatives of the French

authorities. I should like to read only the last paragraph of this

document:

“On the occasion of the meeting which took place on 28 August

1942 in Berlin, it was stated that most of the European

countries are much nearer to a final solution of the Jewish

problem than France. In fact, these countries began much

earlier. We then must catch up with them in many matters between

now and 31 October 1942.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1229 without reading it. It is a

memorandum by Dr. Knochen on this same subject of deportation dated 31

December 1942.

I now submit Document Number RF-1230, which is a memorandum dated 6

March 1943, headed, “Ref: Present Situation of the Jewish Question in

France.” In the first part of this document, the deportations are stated

to have reached a total of 49,000 Jews as on 6 March 1943. This is

followed by a statement of the nationalities, which are extremely

varied, of a certain number of Jews who were deported in addition to the

French Jews. Paragraph 3 of this memorandum is headed, “Attitude of the

Italians with Regard to the Jewish Question.” I shall read only the

first and the last lines of this long paragraph:

“The attitude adopted up to now in the French territory occupied

by Italy must be changed by all means if the Jewish problem is

to be solved. A few conspicuous cases. . . .”

I break off the quotation here. These conspicuous cases were cases in

which the Italians opposed the arrest of Jews in the zone occupied by

them.

I now read the last paragraph:

“A.A. has been informed by the RSHA (Eichmann) about proceedings

of the Italians.”—A.A. appears to be the initials of the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and this is confirmed by the

following sentence. I continue the quotation—“The Minister of

Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, meant to discuss, in negotiations

with the Duce, the attitude adopted by the Italians with regard

to the Jewish question. We do not yet know the results of these

discussions.”

I shall not submit Documents RF-1231 and RF-1232. I pass then to the

last documents which I want to present to the Tribunal. These documents

relate more specifically to the deportation of children.

I submit Document Number RF-1233, which is a memorandum by Dannecker

dated 21 July 1942. I shall read Paragraph 2:

“The question of deporting children has been examined with SS

Obersturmbannführer Eichmann. He decided that as soon as

deportations to the Government General could be resumed, convoys

of children could be sent by rail. SS Obersturmführer Nowak

promised to arrange about six convoys to the Government General

at the end of August or the beginning of September, which may

comprise all sorts of Jews (also disabled and old Jews).”

Now I offer in evidence Document Number RF-1234. It is a memorandum

dated 13 August 1942. Before pointing out the interest of this document

I remind the Tribunal that I have already submitted Document Number

RF-1219 and in that document there was a formula which I recall, namely,

“The possibility is left open of sending at a later date for children

under 16 who were left behind.” The Nazis wished to give the impression

that they deported entire families at the same time or at least that

they did not deport whole trainloads of children. To give this

impression, they invented a device which is wholly incredible unless you

actually see it in black and white: the mingling of children and adults

in definite proportions. I read Paragraph 4 of this Document Number

RF-1234:

“The Jews arriving from the unoccupied zone will be mingled at

Drancy with Jewish children now at Pithiviers and

Beaune-la-Rolande, so that out of a total of 700 at least 500

Jewish adults 300 to 500 Jewish children will be allotted.

According to instructions of the Reich Security Main Office, no

trains containing Jewish children only are to leave.”

I read the next sentence too:

“Leguay has been told that 13 trainloads of Jews would also

leave Drancy in September and that Jewish children from the

unoccupied zone could be handed over.”

I now submit the last document of the series dealing with the Jewish

question, Document Number RF-1235. I am going to read it, as it is very

short.

“6 April 1944, Lyons, 2010 hours. Subject: Home for Jewish

Children at Izieu, Ain.

“The home for Jewish children, ‘Child Colony,’ at Izieu (Ain)

was raided this morning and a total of 41 children aged from 3

to 13 were apprehended. Moreover, the arrest of the entire

Jewish personnel, numbering 10 in all and including 5 women was

successfully carried out. Money or other property could not be

seized. The convoy for Drancy will leave on 7 April 1944.”

This document also bears a memorandum written by hand and couched in the

following terms:

“Matter discussed in the presence of Dr. V. B. and

Hauptsturmführer Brunner. Dr. V. B. stated that in cases of this

kind, special measures were provided for the billeting of the

children by the Obersturmführer Röthke. The Hauptsturmführer

Brunner stated that he knew of no such instructions or plans and

that on principle he did not approve of such special measures.

In this case he would also follow the lines of the usual

regulations for deportation. For the moment I made no decision

affecting the principle in this respect.”

For me what is even more striking and more horrible than the concrete

fact of removing these children is the administrative color given to the

proceedings, the report made through official channels, the meeting at

which different officials placidly discussed the matter as if it were

part of the normal business of the department. All the administrative

mechanism of the State—I am speaking of the Nazi State—was set in

motion on such an occasion and for such a purpose. It is a perfect

illustration of the word used by Dannecker in his report: “The cold

manner.”

I now present the Tribunal with a continuation under the same head,

including a certain number of documents which have been collected in

order to show in accordance with our general line of presentation the

perpetual interference of the German administrative services.

As I am a little behind my timetable, I shall give the numbers of only

those documents which I should like to offer in evidence and which I

have no time to describe. These documents will be numbered Documents

RF-1238 to 1249.

I would like to read to the Tribunal only the document which bears the

Number RF-1243, which is interesting as showing the organic character

and the juridical claims of the German organizations. I shall quote a

few sentences from this document:

“In the report made by the Chief of the Administrative Staff on

experience concerning the arrest from 7 to 14 December 1941 it

was proposed to evade the execution of hostages in the future by

having the death sentences passed through court-martial

proceedings.”

I shall skip the following two lines and continue:

“The reprisal will be carried out by pronouncing and inflicting

capital punishment on prisoners who would normally be sentenced

only to imprisonment, or else be acquitted altogether. To

influence the discretion of the judge concerning the meting out

of punishment for committing murder or sabotage would answer the

formalistic legal reasoning of the French.”

I should like now, in the last paragraph of my presentation, to submit

documentary evidence in connection with criminal actions of which the

Tribunal has not yet been informed and which involve the personal

responsibility of certain of the defendants present here. I must remind

you that the criminal actions of the Nazis took extremely varied forms

which have already been put before the Tribunal at some length. A

particularly new and unusual manifestation of this consisted in causing

crimes to be committed by organized bands of murderers, who were

ordinary criminals, under conditions which made it appear as if these

crimes were committed by ordinary bandits or even by resistance

organizations which they tried in this way to dishonor.

Such crimes were committed in all the occupied countries; but the

precautions taken, with good reason, to camouflage them sometimes make

it difficult to trace back the responsibility for these crimes to the

ringleaders, the leaders of the Nazi State. We were able to find this

evidence in the records of proceedings instituted in Denmark. All the

elements are contained in Danish reports of which we were able to get

possession only a short time ago.

I can indicate the position very briefly. It concerns a series of

murders which were committed in Denmark and which were known as

“compensatory” or “clearing” murders. This definition is

explained. . . .

Counsel for the Defense tells me that there is an error in translation

in the last document which I read—RF-1243. He says that “acquittal” is

not the correct translation of “Begnadigung.” As I do not know German,

it is quite possible that this error exists and that the word means

“pardon.”

THE PRESIDENT: Which part of the document?

M. FAURE: This error really exists. I hope the Tribunal will excuse me,

because there is a considerable amount of translation work. I shall read

line 14 of Document Number RF-1243: “. . . who would normally be

sentenced to imprisonment only or else be acquitted altogether.”

According to Counsel for the Defense that should be, “. . . who would

normally be sentenced to imprisonment only or else be pardoned.” The

construction of the sentence does not seem to be as good when this word

is used, which explains the error in translation if there was one. In

any case, I think it is sufficient to note the instructions given: The

imposition of “capital sentences” in cases where only a sentence of

imprisonment would normally have been justified.

To come back to the subject I was discussing, I should like to make the

situation clear by reading the definition given in the Danish report. It

is found on Page 19 of the supplementary memorandum of the Danish

Government. This document was submitted last Saturday under Number

RF-901. As it is very bulky, I see that it is not included in the

document book but that the passages which I cite can be found in my

brief.

The page numbers start again at the end of this brief, and I am now on

Page 3 in the last series of numbers. I quote Page 19 of the Danish

report:

“From New Year 1944 onwards, a large number of persons, most of

them well known, were murdered at intervals which grew steadily

shorter. The doorbell would ring, for instance, and one or two

men would ask to speak to them. The moment they appeared at the

door. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: I do not have it. Is it in this dossier of the

administrative and juridical organization of the criminal actions? Under

which document?

M. FAURE: It is not in the document book. It is in the dossier of the

brief.

THE PRESIDENT: No. In the dossier? Which part of the dossier?

M. FAURE: It is the last part of the dossier. The numbering of the pages

starts again after Page 76. If the Tribunal will turn to Page 76, the

page numbers begin again after that with Page 1.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have it.

M. FAURE: I read from Page 19 of the report, the extract reproduced on

Page 3:

“From New Year 1944 onwards, a large number of persons, most of

them well known, were murdered at intervals which grew steadily

shorter. The doorbell would ring, for instance, and one or two

men would ask to speak to them. The moment they appeared at the

door they were shot by these unknown persons. Or, someone would

pretend to be ill and go to a doctor during the latter’s

consulting hour. When the doctor entered the room, the unknown

shot him. At other times, unknown men would force their way into

a house and kill the owner in front of his wife and his

children, or else a man would be ambushed in the street by

civilians and shot.”

I do not need to read the following paragraph. I go on reading at the

last paragraph on Page 19:

“As the number of victims increased it was borne in upon the

Danes, to their amazement, that there was a certain political

motive behind all these murders; for they realized that in one

way or another the Germans were the instigators.

“After the capitulation of the German forces in Denmark,

investigations by the Danish police established the fact that

all these murders, running into hundreds, were in reality

committed on the direct orders of the supreme authorities and

with the active collaboration of Germans who occupied the

highest positions in Denmark.”

I end my quotation here and I shall summarize what follows: The Danish

authorities were able to clear up these criminal affairs, 267 in number;

and they are analyzed in the official Danish report and the documents

attached to it. These acts consisted not only in actual crimes but also

in other criminal activities, notably explosions. It was established

that all these acts were committed by bands, consisting of Germans and

some Danes, who constituted real groups of bandits but who acted, as I

am going to prove to you, on orders from the highest quarters.

The Danish report contains in particular the detailed story of the

investigation made into the first of these crimes, whose victim was Kaj

Munk, the well-known Danish poet and pastor of a parish. The crime was

confessed by the men who carried it out.

I summarize the document in order not to take too much time. The pastor

was taken from his home, forced into a vehicle, and killed on the

highway. His body was found next day with a sign pinned on it with the

words, “Swine, you worked for Germany just the same.”

The Tribunal sees how many similar crimes were committed in the vilest

possible way. Now one of the first things discovered was that the

members of the gangs of bandits who committed these different crimes had

all received a personal letter of congratulation from Himmler. The text

of this letter, which was found on one of the murderers, constitutes

Appendix 14 of the Danish report; and, on the other hand, we have here

photostatic copies with Himmler’s signature.

But these extraordinary crimes involve in the most incredible way other

persons responsible besides Himmler, himself. The Danish police were

able to arrest Günther Pancke, who exercised the functions of Chief of

Police in Denmark from 1 November 1943.

The inquiry was established by the tribunal of first instance in

Copenhagen and is in the Danish report. It contains an account of the

interrogation of Günther Pancke on 25 August 1945. It is necessary for

me to read to the Tribunal an extract from this document, which involves

several of the defendants. I quote:

“On 30 December 1943 Pancke and Best were present at a meeting

at the Führer’s headquarters attended by Hitler, Himmler,

Kaltenbrunner, General Von Hannecken, Keitel, Jodl, Schmundt,

and others. This agrees with Best’s diary for 30 December 1943.

There is a copy of this. A representative of the German Foreign

Office also attended; but Pancke does not remember his name nor

whether the person in question made a speech. During the first

part of the meeting, Hitler was in a very bad temper and

everything led one to believe that the information that he had

obtained concerning the situation in Denmark was rather

exaggerated.”

I should like to skip the following page, which is not indispensable and

go on to Page 14 of my brief. In the passage which I am omitting, the

witness Pancke reports that he and Dr. Best advised that saboteurs be

fought in a legal way. He also points out on Page 14 that Hitler—I

quote—“ . . . was strongly opposed to the proposals of Pancke and Best,

declaring there could be absolutely no question of judging saboteurs

before a tribunal.” He then said that such methods would lead to those

condemned being considered as heroes.

I resume the quotation on Page 15, Line 3:

“There was only one way of dealing with saboteurs, namely, to

kill them, preferably, at the moment when the crime was

committed; otherwise, on arrest. Both of them received strict

orders from Hitler personally to start compensatory murders.

Pancke replied that it was very difficult and dangerous to shoot

people on arrest, as they could not be sure when the arrest was

made if the person arrested was really a saboteur. Hitler

demanded compensatory murders in the proportion of at least five

to one. In other words: Five Danes were to die for every German

killed.”

The rest of the document shows that General Von Hannecken made a report

on the military situation. I shall read this paragraph, Page 16 of my

brief:

“Moreover, General Keitel took part in the conversation; but he

confined himself to a proposal to reduce food rations in Denmark

to the same level as rations in Germany. This proposal was

rejected by all the three representatives in Denmark. As a

result, the meeting ended with Hitler’s express order to Pancke

to start compensatory murders and counter-sabotage. After this

meeting, Pancke had a conversation alone with Himmler, who told

him that he, Pancke, had now been told by the Führer, himself,

how to act and that he thought that he could rely on Pancke to

execute the order which he had received. It seemed that up to

now he had executed only those of Himmler. Pancke knows that

Best had a conversation with Ribbentrop immediately after the

meeting, but doesn’t remember the result.”

The document then shows that these compensatory murders were carried

out, not in the proportion of five to one, but in the proportion of one

for one. It shows that reports on these compensatory murders were sent

to Berlin.

I read on Page 18 of my brief, second paragraph:

“Pancke explained that in his opinion these murders were decreed

deliberately by the supreme jurisdiction in Germany, as being

necessary for the protection of Germans stationed in Denmark and

Danes working for Germany; and so Pancke had to obey the order.

Bovensiepen stated the facts and made suggestions when subjects

of importance were raised. Pancke does not know whether

Bovensiepen selected his own subjects in every case or whether

in certain cases the subjects were selected by his subalterns;

but he, too, said that he was subjected to strong pressure from

the military side, especially from General Von Hannecken,

although General Von Hannecken was at first opposed to reprisals

by terror. Later still more pressure was exercised by Colonel

General Lindemann. When soldiers were killed or damage was

caused to military objectives, Pancke was immediately asked what

steps he had taken and what they were to report to general

headquarters, that is, to Hitler himself, from a military point

of view. Pancke had to give a satisfactory reply, and he also

had to take action.”

I end my quotation here. General Pancke then explains how these terror

groups were organized.

I must now say that the Danish police were also able to arrest Dr. Best,

the German plenipotentiary, and make an inventory of his papers. Among

them they found Dr. Best’s private diary. This diary has one leaf, dated

30 December 1943, which agrees with the information given in the

preceding testimony about the meeting held on 30 December 1943 in the

Führer’s tea house. This is at Page 21.

“Lunch with Adolf Hitler, Reichsführer Himmler, Dr.

Kaltenbrunner, SS Obergruppenführer Mr. Pancke, Field Marshal

Keitel, General Jodl, General Von Hannecken, Lieutenant General

Schmundt, Brigade Lieutenant Scherff. Lunch and discussions on

the Danish question lasted from 1400 to 1630 hours.”

Dr. Best was naturally interrogated on the subject. From official Danish

documents, extracts from which are found on Page 23 of my brief, it

appears that Dr. Best corroborated the note in his diary dated 30

December which I have cited. With regard to the fundamental questions

concerned, here is what Dr. Best says at the bottom of Page 23:

“Dr. Best does not remember whether Hitler, who spoke at

considerable length, said anything about compensatory murders

being carried out in the proportion of five to one. Himmler and

Kaltenbrunner agreed with Hitler. The rest of those present

apparently expressed no opinion. The names given by Best agree

with Pancke’s list.”—This is on Page 24—“The Ministry of

Foreign Affairs was not represented, so that Sonnleitner did not

attend the conference. After the conference, Dr. Best had a

conversation alone with Ribbentrop, to whom he explained what

had taken place. Ribbentrop shared his opinion that some protest

should be made against such methods but that after all, nothing

could be done.”

It is proved, therefore, that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Keitel, and

Jodl were present at a department meeting where it was decided that

murder, pure and simple, should be organized in Denmark. The witnesses

certainly do not say that the Defendants Keitel and Jodl showed any

enthusiasm for this proposal, but it is established that they were

present and that they were present in the exercise of their functions

along with their subordinate, the military commander of Denmark. This is

a question of responsibility for several hundred murders abominable in

themselves but undoubtedly constituting only a small part of the crimes

implied by the Prosecution and carried out on millions of victims. I

think, however, that it is important to learn that the military and

diplomatic leaders knew and accepted the systematic organization of acts

of banditry and murders committed by professional killers who fled when

they had committed their crimes.

The documents which I have just cited are the last of the series which I

wanted to present to the Tribunal. I shall not follow them up by

commentary. I think that there is so much monotony and at the same time

so many shades of variety in the innumerable crimes committed by the

Nazis that the human mind finds it difficult to grasp their whole

extent. Each of these crimes has in itself all the intensity of horror

and reflects the distorted values of the doctrine responsible for them.

If it be true that life has any meaning whatsoever, if there is around

and within us anything else than “sound and fury,” such a doctrine must

be condemned with the men who originated it and directed its

enterprises.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us what is proposed for tomorrow?

M. FAURE: Tomorrow, M. Gerthoffer will, if it suits the Tribunal, make a

statement on pillage of works of art. A problem is involved here. For at

the time when this would normally have been done, we decided to dispense

with it, thinking that a reference to the American documents would be

sufficient. On consulting our American colleagues, however, it appeared

that they themselves relied on that part of the matter being presented

by the French Prosecution. So, if the Tribunal does not object to our

returning to the subject now, a statement will be presented to this

effect.

On the other hand, one of the magistrates of the French Delegation

proposes to present a brief which recapitulates systematically the

charges against each of the defendants, according to the documents and

briefs submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would hope that the exposé on the

pillage of objects of art will be quite short because it must be

cumulative, because you will remember that we had at some stage of the

Trial presented to us 39 books, or 30, or some number of books of

objects of art which had been taken away from various parts of Europe

and France and all photographed by the Germans themselves; and,

therefore, any evidence which would now be given would be cumulative to

that spoliation.

M. FAURE: That is why I asked the Tribunal whether it would agree to

this procedure; but at any rate, if the Tribunal considers that the

statement can be made, it will be only a very short statement which will

take about two hours.

DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): If I understood M.

Faure correctly, he asked the Tribunal whether the confiscation and

plundering of works of art in France would again be dealt with tomorrow.

I should like to add that the American Prosecution has already declared

before this Tribunal that the question of the plundering of works of art

could not be dealt with again. Accordingly, I myself, representing

Rosenberg, and my colleague, Dr. Stahmer, representing Göring, took

steps to cancel the calling of witnesses whom we had planned to bring.

If, however, the French Prosecution intends to submit new material, we

must have these witnesses called again. For this reason, I should like

to ask the Tribunal to decide whether it is necessary for the

confiscation of works of art objects in France to be taken up once more.

THE PRESIDENT: I think defendant’s counsel must be wrong in thinking

that the United States counsel said anything which meant that the French

Prosecution could not produce evidence with reference to the spoliation

of objects of art. I can’t think the United States had any authority to

do that and I had understood myself that this part of the Prosecution

had been omitted by one of the French Counsel on account of the request

of the Tribunal to shorten their argument. Was that not so?

M. FAURE: That is quite true, Mr. President. Your interpretation is

exact.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would wish that the presentation

should be made, if the French Prosecutors wish it; and it should be made

as shortly as possible.

M. FAURE: Thank you.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 6 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]

FIFTY-SECOND DAY

Wednesday, 6 February 1946

_Morning Session_

M. FAURE: If it please the Tribunal, M. Gerthoffer will now present the

brief concerning the pillage of works of art.

M. CHARLES GERTHOFFER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic):

The Economic Section of the French Delegation had prepared a report on

the pillage of works of art in the occupied countries of western Europe.

We had thought, at the session of 22 January last, of waiving the

presentation of this statement in order to expedite the proceedings,

while holding ourselves at the disposal of the Tribunal should they

consider the presentation necessary. However, since then—on 31

January—the American Prosecutor was good enough to inform us that the

Defendant Rosenberg intended to maintain that the artistic treasures

were collected only in order to be “protected.”

We consider, from the documents which we are holding at the disposal of

the Court, that this cannot be a question of protection only but that

this was genuine spoliation; and I am at the Tribunal’s disposal to

prove this, in a statement which I shall make as brief as possible,

while offering in evidence the documents which we had already collected.

If the Tribunal wish, I can make this very brief statement. In any case,

I am at the disposal of the Tribunal.

Mr. President, Gentlemen, the pillage of works of art has a cultural

significance to which I shall not refer again since it was the subject

of a statement presented by Colonel Storey on 18 December 1945. I shall

simply regard the subject from the economic point of view in order to

complete the report on the general spoliation of the western European

countries.

As the Tribunal will realize, the leaders of the Reich primarily and

systematically seized works of art belonging to private individuals,

mostly under the pretext that these individuals were Jews, thus

procuring for themselves very valuable means of exchange. In Belgium,

Holland, Luxembourg, and France picture galleries, public as well as

private collections, ancient furniture, china, and jewelry were stolen.

It was not a question of individual looting, of pillaging by soldiers,

such as is encountered in all wars and of which we still find examples;

this campaign of plunder was carried out in a systematic and disciplined

manner. The methods introduced varied in character. Personal judgment

and personal initiative could be exercised only insofar as they

contributed to the execution of plans already elaborated by the National

Socialist leaders before the month of June 1940.

The official organization for pillaging was primarily Minister

Rosenberg’s Einsatzstab for the occupied territories of western Europe

and the Netherlands. If this organization was not the sole agent, it was

the most important one. Colonel Storey has already drawn the attention

of the Tribunal to this criminal behavior.

The urge to seize works of art, as well as material wealth, underlies

the policy of National Socialist expansion. The behavior in Poland of

the Defendant Frank has already given sufficient proof of this. The idea

of protecting this valuable booty arose at the time of the invasion of

western Europe. From the very beginning, in their haste and their desire

to seize as much as they could, several parallel authorities would carry

out the confiscations, firstly by the military authorities, either

indirectly, as in Holland through the special services of the

Devisenschutzkommando or directly as in France through the Department

for the Protection of Works of Art. Further, the same mission was

entrusted simultaneously to the civil authorities, whether represented

by the German Embassy in Paris or, in Holland, the Office for Enemy

Property under the auspices of the Reich Commissioner. This plurality of

control, moreover, did not end with the establishment of the Rosenberg

Staff.

This is the first phase in the pillage of works of art. According to

official correspondence, as well as to the statements of Otto Abetz, the

initiative may be attributed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs,

beginning with the Defendant Ribbentrop. The first phase lasted from the

entrance of the Germans into the countries of western Europe until

October 1940.

The second phase opened with the arrival of Einsatzstab Rosenberg which

appeared on the scene under the aegis of the Defendant Göring. From now

on this Einsatzstab must be considered primarily responsible for the

organized pillage.

Towards July 1942 a third phase opens in the history of the Staff

Rosenberg. The person primarily responsible is the Defendant Alfred

Rosenberg. The activities of this staff did not cease in Europe until

the liberation. One part of the archives of the Rosenberg services fell

into the hands of the French armies; another part, which had been sent

to Füssen, was seized by the American Army which also picked up the

archives of the Defendant Rosenberg. This is the origin of the PS

documents submitted to the Tribunal.

The seizure of works of art began with the entrance of the German troops

into Holland, Belgium, and France. In Paris, as from the month of June,

there was an Embassy service directed by Dr. Von Kunsberg and Dr.

Dirksen similar to a specialized service of the Military Governor

directed by Count Wolff Metternich. This order of seizure, in defiance

of the Hague Convention, applied to public as well as to private

property. The Defendant Keitel, on 30 June 1940, issued an order to the

Governor of Paris, General Von Bockelberg. I submit a copy of this order

as Document Number RF-1301. Here it is:

“The Führer, on receiving the report of the Reich Minister for

Foreign Affairs, has issued an order to safeguard for the time

being, in addition to objects of art belonging to the French

State, also such works of art and antiquities which constitute

private property. Especially Jewish private property is to be

taken in custody by the occupational power against removal or

concealment, after having been labelled with the names of their

present French owners. There is no intention of expropriation

but certainly of a transfer into our custody to serve as a pawn

in the peace negotiations.”

Identical measures were soon taken in Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

Exhibit Number RF-1302, which is a document discovered by the Army of

the United States and which was registered under Document Number 137-PS,

a copy of which I submit, was drawn up by Defendant Keitel on 5 July

1940:

“Reichsleiter Rosenberg has suggested the following to the

Führer:

“1. State libraries and archives to be searched for documents of

value to Germany.

“2. The chancelleries and high authorities of the Church, as

well as the Masonic lodges, to be searched for proofs of

political activities directed against us and the proofs in

question to be seized.

“The Führer has ordered that this suggestion be carried out and

that the Gestapo, assisted by the archivists of Reichsleiter

Rosenberg, be placed in charge of the search. The Chief of the

Security Police, SS Gruppenführer Heydrich, has been informed.

He is to contact the military commander competent to deal with

the execution of these orders.

“These measures to be executed in all regions of the

Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France which are occupied

by us.

“It is requested that subordinate offices be informed.

“The Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, (signed)

Keitel.”

I submit under Exhibit Number RF-1303 a copy of Document Number 139-PS,

drawn up for Holland and expressed in approximately the same terms, and

under Exhibit Number RF-1304 I submit a copy of Document Number 140-PS

which is an analogous order for Belgium.

At the same time, by a decree of 15 July 1940 in execution of Keitel’s

orders, a decree for the protection of works of art was issued in the

occupied territories. This decree appeared in the German _Official

Bulletin_ VOBIF Number 3, Page 49 and following. I submit a copy of this

decree under Document Number RF-1305, and I request the permission of

the Tribunal to quote the two following paragraphs:

First paragraph, Section 1:

“Moveable works of art will not be taken from the place where

they are at present or modified in any way whatsoever without

the written authorization of a commander of the military

administration.”