“Moveable works of art whose value exceeds 100,000 francs must
be declared by their owners or custodians in writing prior to 15
August 1940, to the competent field command or some other
authority indicated by the latter.”
If the Tribunal will kindly recall the explanation which I had the honor
of presenting 2 weeks ago, it will remember that the Germans had, at the
same time, issued similar decrees for freezing or immobilizing private
property, currency, and other wealth.
In this decree, intended to be known by the population of the occupied
territories, the question of safekeeping and confiscation had not yet
arisen; the decree merely dealt with immobilization and
declaration—preparatory measures, these, to future spoliation, and an
indication of bad faith to be remembered.
Beginning with that period, seizures of the most famous French-Jewish
art collections were carried out; seizures made under such conditions
that they provoked numerous protests which were submitted to the
Armistice Commission at Wiesbaden. I submit in the document book, as
Document Number RF-1306, a letter of the French Secretary for Finance of
18 December 1941 containing one of these protests. So as not to waste
the time of the Tribunal I shall not quote the document but shall merely
offer it in evidence.
No dividing line was drawn between the activities or powers of civil
authorities and those of military authorities. There were conflicts and
rivalries but as from March 1941 Staff Rosenberg occupied the
foreground; and it is possible to say that from 1940 to 1944 it enjoyed
a monopoly in the confiscation of works of art in Luxembourg, Belgium,
Holland, and France. Staff Rosenberg originated in the Office of Foreign
Affairs of the Party. Hence the first function, in theory, of Staff
Rosenberg, consisted in gathering political material which could and
might be exploited in the struggle against Jewry and Free Masonry by the
Hohe Schule. This is the Advance School, whose purpose Hitler defined in
his order of 29 January 1940 to be found in the American documentation
under Number 136-PS, a copy of which I submit in evidence as Exhibit
Number RF-1308. The document is very brief and I shall read it to the
Tribunal:
“The Hohe Schule is some day to become the center for National
Socialist doctrinal research and education. It will be
established after the war. However, in order to expedite the
preparatory work already initiated, I order that Reichsleiter
Alfred Rosenberg continue this preparatory work, especially in
the field of research and the establishment of a library. The
offices of the Party and the State organizations are required to
support his work in every way.
“Berlin 29 January 1940, (signed) Adolf Hitler.”
Entrusted with the finding and seizing of Jewish collections which had
been left “ownerless” in the occupied territories, Staff Rosenberg did
not content itself with looting private houses; its activities also
applied to the seizure of many trusts, especially of those deposited in
strong boxes in banks. This is evident from the passage of the document
that I submit as Document Number RF-1307 from which, the Tribunal
permitting, I shall read a passage. This is on Page 2 of the translation
and is also to be found in the brief:
“On 26 September 1941 M. Braumüller, acting on Rosenberg’s
behalf, removed two cases filled with objects of art, which are
listed and deposited with the agency of the Société Générale at
Arcachon under the name of the depositor, M. Philippe de
Rothschild, who has not yet regained his French nationality.”
As a matter of fact, the field of activity of Staff Rosenberg was not
confined to the pillage of Jewish or Masonic property. It rapidly
absorbed all it could of the artistic heritage of the occupied
countries, a heritage which Staff Rosenberg appropriated by invariably
illegal means without distinguishing between private property and public
property.
This action of Staff Rosenberg was inspired by the orders of the
Defendant Göring himself. It is thus that I submit as Exhibit Number
RF-1309, a document, discovered by the Army of the United States and
filed under Document Number 141-PS, which consists of an order of the
Defendant Göring, Paris, dated 5 November 1940 and which extends the
activities of Staff Rosenberg. Here is the order:
“To carry out the present measures for safeguarding Jewish
property taken over by the Chief of the Military Administration
in Paris and by Einsatzstab Rosenberg, the following procedure
will be observed in connection with the art treasures deposited
at the Louvre:
“1. Those art objects regarding which the Führer has reserved to
himself the right of further disposal,
“2. those art objects which could serve to complete the
collection of the Reich Marshal,
“3. those art objects and libraries which appear suitable for
equipping the Hohe Schule within Reichsleiter Rosenberg’s sphere
of duty.”
THE PRESIDENT: I think this document has already been read, M.
Gerthoffer. I think this document was read by Colonel Storey.
M. GERTHOFFER: I shall omit the quotation, Mr. President.
I now come to an order, issued by the Defendant Keitel, of 17 September
1940, a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1310, filed in the
American documents as Document Number 138-PS. Here is the principal
passage:
“Implementing the order of the Führer transmitted to
Reichsleiter Rosenberg and made known to you at the time, to the
effect that the premises of Masonic lodges, together with
libraries and archives in the occupied countries, must be
searched for material of value to Germany and that this material
must be safeguarded by the Gestapo, the Führer has made the
following decision:
“Reichsleiter Rosenberg, or his representative
Reichshauptstellenleiter Ebert, has received from the Führer,
personally, unequivocal instructions concerning the right of
confiscation. He is authorized to transport to Germany such
objects which appear to him of value and to place them here in
security. You are requested to inform the competent military
commanders or offices.”
The activities of Staff Rosenberg were multiple. Thus, for instance, on
18 December 1941, Rosenberg suggested to Hitler the seizure of Jewish
furniture in the occupied territories of the West to serve for the
establishments of Party organizations in the regions of the East.
Here is a copy of the document which was discovered by the Army of the
United States, which bears the Document Number 001-PS, a copy of which I
include in the document book under Exhibit Number RF-1311.
“Everywhere in the East the administration found terrible
housing conditions, and the possibilities of getting supplies
are so limited that it is practically impossible to obtain
anything. That is why I request the Führer to concede that the
furniture belonging to Jews who have fled, or those who are
leaving Paris or any of the occupied territories of the West, be
confiscated in order to supplement, as far as possible, the
furniture for the establishments of the eastern administration.”
I have reached the bottom of Page 15.
Moreover, the Germans concealed their intentions. This is evident from
the letter, dated 28 February 1942, addressed to the German Armistice
Commission by the German Military Commander in France, of which I offer
a photograph as Document Number RF-1312, Page 16. Here are a few
extracts from this letter:
“Taking into consideration the special mission entrusted to
Staff Rosenberg for seizing art objects of Jewish ownership,
protests by the French Government against the activities of
Staff Rosenberg have always been forwarded by us to the OKH
while the reply was sent to the French Government that the
protest has been forwarded to the office in charge in Berlin for
investigation and decision.”
Further on, in the same letter, we read:
“The mission of Staff Rosenberg must, as in the past, be kept
secret from the French authorities.”
A letter addressed to the Section Chief of the Military Administration
in Paris of 7 April 1942, which I offer in evidence as Document Number
RF-1313, contains the same directives. Here is the passage:
“Furniture belonging to Jews of English or American nationality
will not be confiscated for the time being but only the
furniture of Jews who are nationals of the Reich or of a country
partially or totally occupied by the Reich or of Jews who are
stateless. The confiscated objects become the property of the
Reich. No receipt will be given. The right of third parties,
especially those of lessors or of owners of store houses, is to
be considered as cancelled.”
Further on in the same instructions, Page 17 of the brief:
“6. The operations must be carried out as discreetly as
possible. As to general questions, inquiries by the local French
authorities concerning the operations must be answered verbally
to the effect that these are punitive measures ordered by a
higher authority. Further arguments are to be avoided.
Individual complaints are to be forwarded to the Einsatzstab.”
And further on:
“Discussions by the press concerning the utilization of vacant
Jewish premises are undesirable for the time being.”
I turn to Page 19 in the brief to quote a very short passage of a letter
dated 18 June 1942, signed by Rosenberg and addressed to the Defendant
Göring. I offer in evidence a copy of this letter as Document Number
RF-1314. Here is the passage which I shall read to the Tribunal. Page 20
of the brief, Page 2 of the document book:
“Some time ago I explicitly approved the instructions given by
the Chief of my Einsatzstab, Stabsführer Party member Utikal,
that Party member Dr. Lohse of the Bildende Kunst Office be put
at your disposal for any purpose you may desire.”
I now come to a few explanations, Gentlemen, on the seizure operations,
Page 22 of my written report:
“Since the first confiscations were made by the military
authorities, the Devisenschutzkommando, and the German Embassy,
Staff Rosenberg did not appear on the scene until the time when
the great collective seizures had already been completed.
“The greater part of the Rothschild, Kahn, Weil-Picard, and
Wildenstein collections had been confiscated and they
represented three-quarters of the total booty of Staff
Rosenberg.”
As far as the methods which were used to seize these works of art are
concerned, I submit to the Tribunal a document which is a letter of the
Secretary of French Finance, dated 25 October 1941. I offer it in
evidence as Document Number RF-1315; and so as not to waste the
Tribunal’s time I shall merely deposit this document since it is quite
probable that my colleague will allude to it in his turn. Page 24 of the
written report. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: How do you prove that the greater part of the Rothschild,
Kahn, Weil-Picard, and Wildenstein collections was confiscated in the
middle of November 1940? What is the evidence of it?
M. GERTHOFFER: General information furnished by the Fine Arts
Department.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you put in a report of a government committee which
states that?
M. GERTHOFFER: No, Mr. President, I have not got the report in my
dossier. I did not believe it was necessary to present it in evidence,
because I thought that it was admitted that nearly all the Rothschild
collections were seized at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think we can take judicial notice of it in the
absence of some government report and simply upon the statement.
M. GERTHOFFER: I think the question is not of great interest.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal cannot take any notice of statements
which are not supported by evidence; therefore we shall disregard that
statement. We must have the evidence first.
M. GERTHOFFER: I consider that the question is not of interest, since
the Tribunal will soon see the enormous quantities of works of art which
were removed by the Germans and I thought it would be useless to mention
the individual owners by name.
THE PRESIDENT: I see that in the Document Number 1015-PS, which is in
your second document book, the facts are stated. I do not know whether
you are going to make use of that Exhibit Number RF-1323.
M. GERTHOFFER: Number RF-1323 (Document Number 1015-PS(b)) is the report
of Dr. Scholz on the activities of Staff Rosenberg. This report contains
details of quantities of works of art which were seized. I will quote
this document later on.
THE PRESIDENT: And it includes the dates October 1940 to July 1944, and
includes the Rothschild collection. I do not know whether it refers also
to the other collections which are mentioned in your exposé.
M. GERTHOFFER: I shall cite this document a little later on. The report
in question was also quoted on 18 December by Colonel Storey.
THE PRESIDENT: I intervened only for the purpose of saying that we
cannot take any notice of statements of facts unless there is some
evidence to support them.
M. GERTHOFFER: After the seizures had been effected (Page 44 of the
exposé) the Germans carried out the work of listing, cataloging, and
preparing for the presentation of the objects confiscated. This was a
very great task indeed, rendered excessively long and complicated by
lack of order and method. Objects of art were brought to the museum of
the Jeu de Paume and to the Louvre; they arrived mostly in one sole lot
and from extremely varied sources, hence the impossibility of drawing up
an inventory of the objects seized. The vast quantity of material was
classified as “Unknown” insofar as its origin was concerned.
Nevertheless, in a report of Staff Rosenberg of 15 April 1943,
discovered by the Army of the United States and registered under
Document Number 172-PS, a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number
RF-1316, we find the following passage:
“By this detailed study of the material confiscated, an
absolutely reliable basis has been afforded for a final and
summary account of the entire operation of seizure. The
preliminary studies were made in such a way that after
formulation of the final report the latter has to be considered,
in every respect, as an incontestable document of a historically
significant seizure of works of art unique in its kind.”
I come to Page 26 of my brief. Certain of these works of art were
considered by the Germans as degenerate, and their admittance into
National Socialist territory was forbidden. Theoretically speaking they
should have been destroyed; but within the scope of total war economy
these pictures, although condemned, were none the less of commercial
value and as a means of barter their value was both definite and high.
So these pictures, carefully selected from among the great public
collections and from private collections, were confiscated; and as
already provided for in Section 5 of the decree of 5 November 1940,
placed on the French and German art markets. In addition to these
condemned pictures, others were set aside as being of lesser interest in
the official collections. They formed the object of numerous fraudulent
transactions.
We now come to the traffic in works of art. We are not, in this case,
dealing with secret and unlawful operations, the personal acts of
such-and-such a member of the Rosenberg Service; we are dealing with
official operations. Two kinds of operations were currently carried out
by the Einsatzstab, that is, exchanges and sales.
Exchanges. On this subject we have, by way of an example, the evidence
of M. Gustav Rochlitz, received by the examining judge, M. Frapié, in
Paris on 6 January 1946. I submit the evidence as Document Number
RF-1317 and shall read a passage to the Tribunal.
“During the years 1941 and 1942 I exchanged various old pictures
for 80 modern ones, delivered by Lohse, who always told me that
these exchanges were carried out on Göring’s order, and that the
pictures received had been intended for Göring. I have since
learned that all the pictures given in exchange are contained in
the Göring collection. I delivered in exchange about 35
pictures, possibly more.”
These facts are confirmed by the Defendant Rosenberg himself in the last
lines of his report of 15 April 1943, filed under Document Number 172-PS
already quoted, of which I have entered a copy under Exhibit Number
RF-1316. Here is an interesting passage of the report.
“By order of the Reich Marshal a certain number of these works
of modern and degenerate French art were favorably bartered with
French art dealers for pictures of a recognized artistic value.
In this way, 87 works of old Italian, Dutch, and German masters
of high and recognized value were acquired on very favorable
conditions.”
Numerous works of art, books, and especially pictures, were sold by
representatives of Staff Rosenberg. Some were sold in France, others in
Germany or Switzerland. The fact that this was a calculated procedure is
evident if we consider that the value of these pictures, confiscated
under the legally fallacious pretext of keeping them in safe custody,
could be realized if they were sold on neutral markets and paid for in
foreign currency.
I now consider that I should give you some brief explanations of the
justifications offered by the Germans concerning their confiscations.
Primarily these justifications are mere quibbles relating to the nature
of the seizures. The seizures were only temporary and preservative
measures for the safekeeping of the art treasures. Count Metternich,
Chief of the Department for the Protection of Works of Art in France
from July 1940 to 1942, made this point quite clear in a report, a copy
of which has been discovered in France and which I submit as Document
Number RF-1318. Here are some brief excerpts from this report, at the
bottom of Page 29 of the exposé:
“Shortly after arriving in France, I realized that various
departments which did not belong to the Military Administration
were interested in removable objects of art.”
And further on, in the same paragraph:
“It has been said that there was no intention of expropriation
but that these objects were to be considered as pawns to be used
in future peace negotiations. No detailed instructions were
given as to how the operations should be carried out; and in
particular, no interpretation was given of the term ‘custody’.”
The vague expression “in custody” has been subjected to every variety of
interpretation. According to some the seizure was only a temporary
measure, although the question of definite appropriation nevertheless
remained unclarified. For the Defendant Rosenberg the solution was
simple; he expresses it in a letter, previously quoted, of 18 June 1942
addressed to Göring, which I have just submitted under Document Number
RF-1314. This is the relevant passage:
“I therefore believe you will be in agreement with me on this
point, namely, that art objects of Jewish ownership taken into
custody should be considered as seized for the benefit of the
NSDAP. With regard to material for research work, the Führer has
already decided that these objects, now in the custody of the
Einsatzstab, shall become the property of the Hohe Schule. It
would be only just and fair that the great art treasures now in
custody should one day become the property of the NSDAP.
Needless to say, the decision of this question rests with the
Führer. However, since the NSDAP has financed a war of 20 years’
standing against Jewry, such a decision would appear
permissible.”
And we are justified in saying that these confiscations are now no
longer measures of preservation or requisition, but a species of booty
which perforce must fall into the hands of a German people triumphing
over the Jewish race whom they have outlawed.
In a report justifying their action, demanded by the Army Commander and
drawn up on the order of the Defendant Rosenberg by the Chief of the
Einsatzstab, Utikal, in November 1941, the latter went so far as to
state—I submit this report as Documents RF-1319, RF-1320, and RF-1321;
and I quote a brief passage from the attached supplement Number RF-1321,
Page 31:
“The German measures of reprisal against the Jews are likewise
justified by international law. It is a recognized principle of
international law that, in war, reprisals may be taken by
resorting to the same procedures and the same concepts as
primarily used by the enemy. Since time immemorial the Jews
have, in their Jewish laws codified in the Talmud and the
Schulchan Aruch, applied the principle that all non-Jews are to
be considered as so much cattle, as outlaws; and the property of
non-Jews should be dealt with as a thing which has been
abandoned, that is to say, as derelict property.”
Thus, Gentlemen, the confiscations of the Einsatzstab were sheltered by
this strange interpretation of law. It seems useless to discuss the
value of this argument before the Tribunal. The Belgian, Dutch, and
French authorities made frequent protests, based on the most elementary
principles of international law, but always met with refusals.
It would at any rate be suitable to define the extent of these seizures.
It is difficult to give a total estimate, although Rosenberg, himself,
on several occasions made an estimate of his booty, especially in a
letter to the Treasurer of the Party, Schwarz, 14 November 1940, a
document discovered by the Army of the United States and bearing the
Document Number 1736-PS, a copy of which I offer in evidence as Exhibit
Number RF-1322. At that date Rosenberg already considered that the booty
amounted to 500,000,000 Reichsmark.
The documents of the Einsatzstab are sufficiently numerous and precise
to allow us to establish certain quantitative data. First, the seizures
by the General Staff for Art Treasures. The fundamental document is a
report of Dr. Scholz, dated 14 July 1944, which we have just mentioned.
This is Document Number 1015-PS, which was presented in part to the
Court by Colonel Storey and which I offer in evidence as Exhibit Number
RF-1323. From this report I shall extract only some very brief
indications concerning the quantities of art objects carried off.
According to this report, 21,903 objects taken from 203 private
collections, were removed, notably from, the Rothschild, Alphons Kahn,
David Weil, Lévy de Benzion, and the Seligmann brothers collections.
According to the same report there were “all told, 29 transports, 137
trucks, and 4,174 cases.”
I shall not quote any further from this report, because I think that my
colleague, also entrusted with making the charges, will allude to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
[_A recess was taken._]
M. GERTHOFFER: Staff Rosenberg was not only interested in paintings and
objects of art, but in books as well. Thus it appears, in a document
discovered by the United States Army and registered under Document
Number 171-PS, of which I submit a copy as Exhibit Number RF-1324, that
550,000 volumes were seized in France.
Holland also provided a heavy contribution in books. Libraries rich in
early prints, books, and manuscripts were pillaged. It appears from
Document Number 176-PS, discovered by the United States Army, a copy of
which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1325, that the value of the books
amounted to about thirty or forty million Reichsmark.
It must also be noted, as proved by Documents 178-PS and 171-PS, which I
submit as Exhibit Number RF-1326, that archives of the Rothschild Bank
were taken away in the month of February 1941.
Staff Rosenberg likewise pillaged furniture. This is quite evident from
a note addressed by the Defendant Rosenberg to the Führer, dated 3
October 1942, submitted under Document Number RF-1327. I read the
following passage:
“For carrying out action ‘M’ the Dienststelle Westen was created
in Paris with special branches (Einsatzleitungen) in Belgium,
France, and the Netherlands. This service has to date sent about
40,000 tons of furniture to the Reich, utilizing all available
transport, ship, and railroad facilities. Since it was
recognized that the needs of bombed-out people of the Reich
should be given preference over the needs of those in the East,
the Reich Ministry has placed a considerable part of this
furniture (over 19,500 tons) at the disposal of bombed-out
people in the Reich. . . .”
A copy of a Rosenberg report, dated 4 November 1943, Document Number
1737-PS(b), a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1328, tells
us:
“52,828 Jewish lodgings were seized and sealed in favor of the
bombed-out victims. Including special orders, furniture has been
removed from 47,569 dwellings for shipment to the bombed
cities.”
Document Number L-188, found by the American 7th Army, is a report
issued by the offices of the Defendant Rosenberg, Item 8 of which I
submit as Exhibit Number RF-1329, shows that over 69,619 Jewish lodgings
were looted, that the furniture occupied over 1 million cubic meters,
and that it took 26,984 freight cars, that is, 674 trains, to remove it.
In the same file there is a document which I submit, Document Number
RF-1330, which indicates that in Paris alone 38,000 Jewish lodgings were
emptied of their contents.
Document Number 1772-PS, already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-1325,
indicates that in Holland, from March 1942 to July 1943 inclusive,
22,623 lodgings were emptied of their contents and that it took 586
barges and 178 freight cars to move this furniture. These few figures
undeniably suffice to support the accusation of economic pillage levied
against Staff Rosenberg on behalf of the western European countries.
As has already been stated, although the material elements of the breach
of the law remain unaltered, there can be no comparison between the
pillaging typical of the history of this or that conqueror and practiced
throughout the centuries, and the pillaging as understood by the
defendants.
What prevents any comparison between the past pillaging and the looting
practiced by Staff Rosenberg or the National Socialist chiefs, is the
difference in purpose, however difficult and delicate a matter it may be
to analyze it. The looting in the past of works of art may primarily be
traced to the vanity of the conqueror, in which his egoism, his taste,
and his love of glory played the determining part in the pillaging. It
is of course possible to identify the same feeling as underlying the
criminal activities of one or the other of the defendants. But—and here
we find the fundamental difference—the National Socialist leaders, when
estimating the value of this and that painting or of this or that work
of art, wittingly took into account both the standard of aesthetic
wealth, that is the value of the object to the individual, and the
standard of material wealth, that is its exchange value, an exchange
value in which it is a matter of retaining a pledge, if not to
facilitate, at least to bring pressure to bear when negotiating future
peace treaties, as is evident from the documents submitted to the
Tribunal.
Whatsoever the pretexts or excuses submitted by the National Socialist
leaders when seizing the artistic heritage of western Europe, whether by
theft, by so-called preservative confiscations, or by direct purchase
from the owners or the markets for the sale of objects of art, the
criminal intention is always the same.
The German motive was undeniably the establishment of a reserve of
securities, if not for the satisfaction of the individual desire, then
for the satisfaction of a collective need in conformity with the myth of
the “Greater Germany.”
This reserve of securities would have a triple advantage: A cultural
advantage, that is, the advantage of the Hohe Schule. Secondly, an
economic advantage, a basis for financial speculation and a reserve of
securities easily negotiable in the markets of the world; above all, a
reserve of fixed value entirely unaffected by the fluctuations in the
cost of raw materials and unaffected either by the lowering or the
manipulation of the currency. And, lastly, reserves of securities of
political importance in the hands of those negotiating the peace
treaties.
The Defense will perhaps object that exchanges and purchases on free
markets cannot be held against the defendants, because they are in the
nature of contracts, and there were agreements, and because equivalents
existed. But the facts presented to the Tribunal render it possible to
declare that these operations have merely an appearance of regularity,
if we remember the conditions under which the contracts were drawn up,
that the operations were made under duress, or if we consider the rights
over the equivalents supplied, equivalents of exchange represented by
stolen objects or works of art, by sales paid for in national currencies
coming from contributions of a more or less regular nature, and
especially by occupational indemnities or clearing operations.
Most of these particulars, from the point of view of the general
principles of criminal law, are doubly tainted: On the one hand they
were paid in stolen currency, since the work of art forming the object
of the sale could never legitimately have become the heritage of the
purchaser. On the other hand, fraud and deceit tainted a considerable
share of the negotiations, as proved by numerous statements, such as the
extract from the minutes of M. Rochlitz’s statement of 8 January 1946,
which I have just read to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-1317 and
which the Tribunal will allow me to recall to its notice by a brief
reading of a few more passages. Rochlitz, picture dealer in Paris,
states:
“Lohse came to see me in February 1941. He told me that he was
looking for pictures for different highly placed persons,
chiefly for Göring. I showed to him a painting by Wennix of
which I was the owner and a “Portrait of a Man,” by Titian, of
which two-thirds belonged to Birchentski and one-third to me.
Lohse bought them. Then 8 or 10 days later he offered me some
paintings in exchange, instead of money. Incidentally he
considered that I had sold the paintings at too high a price.
The price was about 2,000,000. He added that Göring had seen the
paintings, that he did not want to pay for them at the price
agreed, but that he had given an order to exchange them for
modern paintings brought from Germany. He showed me a certain
number of paintings and offered me 11 of them in exchange for
the 2 paintings. He prevented me from looking at the backs of
the paintings.”
Further on, the same witness states:
“I thought at that time that the paintings came from Germany. I
found out shortly after that these paintings and those
subsequently exchanged with Lohse were paintings confiscated
from Jews. When I saw that these had been confiscated I
protested and Lohse answered, ‘I am acting under Göring’s
orders, you have nothing to fear. These confiscations have been
anticipated by the Armistice Convention and the exchanges are
regular.’ As I still protested, he called me an enemy of the
people.”
Never—and this is the last remark I shall make on the subject—has
history furnished an example of wholesale pillaging organized on so
completely an administrative basis. The pillaging, together with the
Einsatzstab, became a recognized institution in the sphere of culture,
just as it became a recognized institution in the “Economic Detachments”
of the ROGES, whose activities have been exposed before the Tribunal.
The pillaging of works of art was organized by the highest leaders of
the Reich. My colleague of the Prosecution, who has been entrusted with
the individual accusations, will return to this matter. I shall content
myself with submitting a few more documents and making a few more
quotations on this point.
Alfred Rosenberg was the responsible Chief of the Einsatzstab. The
orders emanated from him, as is shown in the course of the
interrogatory; he was heard by Colonel Hinkel, and I submit a copy of
the interrogatory of 28 September 1945 as Document Number RF-1332.
The Defendant Göring was the official protector of Staff Rosenberg. He
himself wrote to Rosenberg on 21 November 1940, Document Number 1651-PS,
a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1335, as follows:
“I have promised to support energetically the work of your staff
and to make available to them what they could not obtain so far,
namely, means of transport and guard personnel. The air force
has received the order to render utmost assistance.”
There was discovered, in France, a sheet of gilt-edged paper containing,
in an unknown writing, instructions issued by Göring in Paris—a date is
written in by an unknown handwriting—on 11 February 1941. I submit the
original document to the Tribunal, as well as the translation, as
Document Number RF-1333:
“All paintings marked ‘H’ are for the Führer.”
THE PRESIDENT: I think this has been read already by the United States.
Has this been read already?
M. GERTHOFFER: It has never as yet been read, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then please proceed.
M. GERTHOFFER: “. . . one case marked ‘AH’ for me. Everything that is
marked ‘G’. . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: Is this identified as a captured document?
M. GERTHOFFER: It was seized by the French authorities who transmitted
it to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the identification to show this is the document
captured by the French authorities?
M. GERTHOFFER: This document was transmitted to me as it is, with a
series of other documents, of which I have only produced a certain
number. If the Tribunal wish I can let them have a special
authentication for this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I suppose there is probably a report of the French
authorities which sufficiently refers to this document.
M. GERTHOFFER: The document was sent to me with a series of other
documents; since they were extremely numerous, we took those that seemed
to be the most important in order to present them to the Tribunal, but
if the Tribunal wish, I can obtain an affidavit indicating under what
conditions the documents were discovered by the French authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, the document hasn’t anything on it to indicate
that the French Government really found it, nor that they have ever seen
it; and therefore the Tribunal does not consider that it is properly
proved by mere introductions of the document, without anything on the
document. Perhaps you can furnish some supplementary proof.
M. GERTHOFFER: I can bring an affidavit to the Tribunal in order to have
it authenticated.
THE PRESIDENT: In what way have the other documents been certified?
M. GERTHOFFER: The other documents were certified as a whole in the
covering letter. They were not certified individually. This formality
can be carried out subsequently.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we must wait until this is properly
identified.
M. GERTHOFFER: I continue with the reading of my report and I would
point out to the Tribunal that in all the occupied countries the
Defendant Göring employed a whole group of buyers, the best known of
whom were Dr. Lohse, who was a member of the Einsatzstab, and Hofer.
Hofer and Lohse (Page 52) acted for the defendant most often, however,
under their own names. The personal collection of the Defendant Göring
flourished considerably. In this regard I submit a document under Number
RF-1332 to which my colleague, in charge of personal and individual
accusations, will soon refer.
Among the principal leaders of the Reich connected with the Einsatzstab
(Page 55) Rosenberg had, as his superior in the hierarchy, Ribbentrop in
his capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs (Page 56). It was Von
Ribbentrop who was responsible for the Führer’s order of 30 June 1940,
which I presented a short time ago under Document Number RF-1301, and
which I read to the Tribunal.
Ribbentrop’s activities are likewise shown in a letter of 1 July 1940,
addressed by Ambassador Abetz to the Military Commander of Paris, a copy
of which I submit under Document RF-1334 (Page 56). I can read it to the
Tribunal, if they wish. It shows Ribbentrop’s activities. Here is the
letter:
“I beg you to be good enough to have transmitted by radio. . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: What does this “COL” at the top of the document mean?
M. GERTHOFFER: It is the seal of the office which seized the letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Government in any way certify this
document? You see, we do not know what that stamp on it may mean.
M. GERTHOFFER: This document was supplied by the General Agency of
Studies and Research. It is one of the supplementary services which
affixed this seal and registered it under Number 9724.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see what that is; but it does not of itself show
that it is a French document, does it? Is there any French Government
report, anything which could be considered to be, within the meaning of
the article of the Charter, an official government document or report or
an act or a document set up by the government itself? Unless it comes
within Article 21, we are not at liberty to consider it as in evidence;
unless there is an affidavit which deals with it.
M. GERTHOFFER: I do not insist on the presentation of this document
since the activities of Ribbentrop as Minister for Foreign Affairs
proceed from other PS documents which have never been disputed. It is a
superfluous piece of evidence. I therefore do not insist on presenting
it. It was merely a further piece of evidence, that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: If you find that there is some government report which
identifies it, anything which proves that that stamp on it shows that it
is a government document within Article 21, then of course, you may
renew your application.
M. GERTHOFFER: I think that it is not necessary, Mr. President. There
are sufficient other documents. I do not insist. The activities of the
Defendant Keitel are also to be borne in mind.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment! You are passing over that document then. Very
well.
M. GERTHOFFER: Exhibit Number RF-1336 is composed of a series of orders,
of reports of the army and of the Einsatzstab. It was Document Number
1015-PS(k), submitted by the Prosecutor of the United States as Exhibit
Number USA-385.
“The directives concerning the co-operation with the Armed
Forces will be issued by the Chief of the High Command of the
Armed Forces in agreement with Reichsleiter Rosenberg.”
I shall not insist on the responsibility of the Defendant Keitel. My
colleague, who is charged with the individual indictments, will lay
special stress on the development of this point, and to expedite the
proceedings I shall merely mention the following: The Defendant
Seyss-Inquart bears a grave responsibility for the pillaging in Holland
of works of art and books.
I thus come to the conclusion of my presentation (Page 64). Whatever the
markets, whoever the purchasers where the traffic in works of art is
concerned, the motive is the same and the methods are the same. It is
difficult to conceive that identical acts of pillaging, committed
simultaneously in all the occupied countries of western Europe, were not
the result of one single will, a ruthless will to dominate in every
sphere, which expressed itself in a desire to invest the most irregular
acquisitions with an appearance of legality. This is proved by the
numerous declarations of the defendants, such as have been submitted to
the Tribunal. A will to dominate the cultural sphere was expressed by
the intention to extend the “action” of confiscation to ever fresh
fields. A will to despoil the occupied countries manifested itself right
up to the very last hours of the occupation. And this will be my last
reading to the Tribunal, Document Number 160-PS, entered in the document
book under Exhibit Number RF-1346. Here is the text. It is extremely
brief:
“14 August 1944—Mission.
“The Chiefs of Special Missions (Haupteinsatzführer), Dr. Lohse
and Dr. Borchers, of my Einsatzstab for the occupied
territories, are charged with the immediate removal, from the
Jeu de Paume Museum and the Louvre depot, of works of art taken
into safe custody by order of the Führer and still stored in
Paris, by all means of transport still available.
“The Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich has recently, by
a personal directive of 13 August 1944, placed the two
above-named persons at the disposal of the Einsatzstab until the
completion of this operation. It is requested that every
possible assistance be rendered to these Chiefs of Special
Missions.”
Whatever the reasons of a juridical nature submitted by the Germans to
justify the seizures of Jewish property (Page 65), this property has
never lost the character of private property; and it has, for this
reason, always remained guaranteed by the clauses of the Hague
Convention and especially by Article 46. The seizure of this property
cannot, in particular, be explained as a measure of protection rendered
necessary by circumstances, since, for France at least, the French
Administration of Domains was in a position to take all the measures
desired. As for the fate reserved for the seizures by the National
Socialist leaders, the documents produced have sufficiently shown their
intentions and their plans.
The Defense will undoubtedly object that important treasures of national
works of art from the occupied territories were not taken to Germany. If
such an argument were presented, I should answer:
1. For various reasons the occupying authorities did not have the
possibility to do so since they barely had time to centralize, to
catalog, and to transport the numerous objects of art of which the
occupied countries had been dispossessed. 2. It is obvious that the
occupational authorities seized by priority the private works of art
which are, generally speaking, easily negotiable even in neutral
countries, whereas national works of art are, in a certain sense,
outside the commercial sphere and are in any case difficult to negotiate
in foreign countries.
It may perhaps be claimed that, a great number of works of art having
been recovered, the accusation of removing them no longer applies.
You will consider, Gentlemen, that if many works of art have been
recovered by the Allied armies, usually in hiding places, the
reprehensible fact held against the defendants nevertheless remains. As
a matter of fact these works of art have been recovered against their
will and thanks to the victory of the Allied armies. The crime had,
therefore, been entirely consummated at the time of their discovery. It
is clear from the declaration that it is chiefly works of art belonging
to private individuals of Belgian, Dutch, and French nationality, mostly
qualified as Jews by the occupying power, which were looted—looted with
the obvious intention of gratifying their personal vanity and of
obtaining valuable property, viewed from an economic standpoint,
contrary to the principles of international law.
These acts of pillage were often accompanied by aggravating
circumstances, not the least of which was the constant menace of
violence threatening the population of the occupied countries. The
looting of works of art, therefore, appears as a form of general
economic pillaging and the defendants must answer for this before your
high jurisdiction.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell me what Document FA-20, 21, and so forth,
refers to? There is an inscription which is on these various documents.
If you look at Document RF-1333 or RF-1334, you will see that on the
copies that are before us there is an inscription “International
Military Tribunal” and then the “French Delegation, the Public Ministry,
Economic Section” and then “LVR, Document FA-21” and “Document FA-20.”
Now, where is Document FA-21, and where is Document FA-20?
M. GERTHOFFER: It is a serial number referring to the document sent to
us. It is 1334 which was rejected by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what is Document FA-20 or Document FA-21, what
does it mean?
M. GERTHOFFER: FA-20 is the serial number which had been given to this
document in the series of documents which we received. It is of no
importance.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that it is only a number given by you or that it
is a number given by the Economic Section of the. . . ?
M. GERTHOFFER: It is a number given to it by the Economic Section.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then if that is so, if it is the number given to
this document by the Economic Section, it does identify the document as
a document of a public nature.
M. GERTHOFFER: We had likewise given to the document which I quoted a
short time ago, a number which was 1333 for Document FA-21.
THE PRESIDENT: Document FA-21, 1333.
M. GERTHOFFER: We likewise gave it a number.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, the Economic Section is merely a section of the
French Prosecution.
M. GERTHOFFER: Yes, it is a section of the French Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier.
M. PIERRE MOUNIER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr.
President, your Honors, Gentlemen of the High International Military
Tribunal, we have the honor of appearing before your high jurisdiction
in order to submit the conclusions of the French Prosecution in
connection with the responsibilities individually incurred by the
defendants brought before this bar of justice. In pursuance of the
allotment of the various tasks incumbent on each of the four nations,
resulting both from the Indictment presented in compliance with the
Charter of 8 August 1945 and the agreements reached between the four
Delegations, the French Prosecution, in its presentation, has
particularly applied itself to the study of the war crimes under the
third Count of the Indictment, that is, the crimes committed by the
defendants in France and in the countries of western Europe during
hostilities and during the German occupation. It arises quite naturally
that, in the explanations about to follow, the case of some of the
defendants will be set aside, although their responsibility will already
have been established by the other delegations who are, if I may say so,
more interested in the crimes committed by the defendants and which
correspond to the first, second, and fourth Counts of the Indictment.
The French Prosecution, nevertheless, intends to join in the accusations
raised by the other delegations against such of the defendants as
concern them directly, especially against the Defendants Von Neurath and
Von Ribbentrop. The French Delegation associates itself with the
statement presented against them by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The same
holds good as far as the Defendants Hess, Kaltenbrunner, Frank, Bormann,
Funk, Schacht, Von Papen, Baldur von Schirach, Streicher, Raeder,
Dönitz, and Fritzsche are concerned.
On the other hand, Mr. President, your Honors, we should like, in this
brief presentation, slightly to deviate from the order of priority in
which the defendants appear, both in the Indictment and in the dock, so
as to elucidate matters. As a matter of fact it would appear desirable,
when presenting some of the chiefs of the National Socialist conspiracy,
as viewed from the angle of crimes committed in the West, to show how
they materialized their philosophical, political, economic, diplomatic,
and finally their military conceptions. Consequently, this order will
determine the order in which we shall present the case of these
defendants.
On the other hand the defendants, in pursuance of the rule adopted by
the Tribunal for governing the proceedings which it intends to follow in
this Trial, have not yet given their oral explanations before the Court;
and the hearing of the majority of the witnesses, or at least of the
more important witnesses, has not yet taken place.
That is why the French Prosecution, with the permission of the Tribunal,
reserves the right of completing at a later date its statement regarding
the defendants taken individually on the one hand, and the groups
accused—according to the expression used by my eminent friend,
Prosecutor Boissarie—of “international indignity,” on the other hand.
Needless to say, the final impeachment would be carried out with the
utmost sobriety, since the French Delegation is anxious to avoid, as far
as possible, any unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings.
An imposing number of documents has been submitted to the Tribunal.
Their reading, presented in the first instance for the information of
the Tribunal, then for the information of the Defense, and finally, be
it said, for that of universal public opinion, has already taken up a
very considerable time. That is why, with the permission of the
Tribunal, we shall abstain, as far as possible, from presenting the
Tribunal with still more copious documents. Sufficient written evidence
has already been furnished by the American, British, and French
Prosecutions which, when added to those still to be submitted by the
Prosecution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, will assure the
Tribunal of the defendants’ guilt.
We shall therefore content ourselves, in general, with quoting documents
already produced, in order to correlate the facts which we shall bring
forward with the evidence already supplied. I should like, however, Mr.
President, before approaching the case of the defendants whom I wish to
accuse individually, to make a statement of a very general nature. It
would be idle to pretend that a certain part of this public opinion—and
not the least enlightened part at that—in the Old as well as in the New
World, has evinced surprise in seeing this Indictment, which is the
foundation of the present proceedings, collectively denounce the
criminal character of certain organizations of the Reichsregierung, the
Leadership Corps of the National Socialist Party, the SS including the
SD, the Gestapo, the SA, the General Staff, and the High Command.
In this connection the Tribunal has been good enough to invite the
various prosecutions to present written memoranda in order to establish
the validity of the imputations contained in the Indictment. But may I
be allowed, before a more complete memorandum is handed to your high
jurisdiction, to present to the Tribunal a few ideas which appear to me
necessary to be recalled. It appears, as a matter of fact, that this
concept of a collective responsibility of the various groups goes hand
in hand with the concept of conspiracy constituting the other governing
ideas of the Indictment. There is no doubt, as far as this idea of a
conspiracy is concerned as featured in the Indictment, that one finds,
in the first instance, in the acts of the defendants that mystery which
generally accompanies any conspiracy, whatever its nature, and that the
various documents already supplied to the Tribunal are sufficient to
confirm the existence of all the elements which render it possible for
me to state that the defendants, their co-authors, and their accomplices
had, in fact, conceived and realized the fraudulent agreement which was
to enable them to make an attempt on the peace of the world by means
contrary to the laws of war, to international law, and to international
morality.
There is no doubt that the Nazi leaders had invested all their meetings
with a guise of secrecy, whether these meetings were regular and
administrative in nature or whether they were of a casual or of an
informal variety. This fact in itself would be normal if one could
isolate it from all the others; but added to all the other elements in
the case, it clearly shows the guilty intent of the conspirators, for
this absolute secrecy alone could imply the use of the criminal means
which we shall have to emphasize.
I shall moreover remind the Tribunal that very often, where the orders
transmitted were concerned, very often it happened that certain
paragraphs had been erased so that no traces could remain. The Defendant
Hermann Göring admitted this in the course of the interrogations.
Consequently this fact proves the intent not only to act in the greatest
secrecy, but also the intent of doing away with every trace of what had
happened.
If I were permitted to transpose an expression used during the War of
1914-18, an expression applied to the sinking of certain ships of
friendly or allied nations, I should say, where this particular
paragraph is concerned, that it was a case of “spurlos versenkt,” that
is, sunk without trace.
On the other hand, the proof of this fraudulent agreement is evident
from the eminently and evidently criminal nature of the decisions taken
in these secret councils for incorporation.
THE PRESIDENT: It is just one, now, would it be convenient for Counsel
to break off at this time?
M. MOUNIER: I am at the disposal of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
[_A recess was taken until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, owing to technical difficulties we will not
be able to continue the sitting this afternoon because the technical
difficulties, we are advised, cannot be remedied for some hours; and
under those circumstances, the Tribunal thinks it better to adjourn now.
But the Tribunal hopes that you will be able tomorrow to conclude the
case on behalf of the French Prosecution, and that the case against the
Defendant Hess will be presented on behalf of the British Prosecution.
M. MOUNIER: I understand, Mr. President, and I shall get in touch with
my British colleague as requested by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, do you wish to say anything?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom):
No, My Lord, we are ready to go on with the presentation against the
Defendant Hess, and we think that it should take two and a half hours,
approximately.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 7 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]
FIFTY-THIRD DAY
Thursday, 7 February 1946
_Morning Session_
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, Your Honors, before the adjournment yesterday
I had begun to explain to you very briefly the relation which, in our
opinion, exists between two of the main themes in the Indictment, to
wit, the accusation of conspiracy brought against certain groups
designated in the Indictment and which I enumerated yesterday, on the
one hand; and, on the other hand, the various acts which enable us to
form our conclusions as to the criminal character of the activity of the
National Socialist conspirators.
I told you, to begin with, that what appeared to us to be at the bottom
of this criminal activity was the profound mystery, the absolute mystery
surrounding their meetings, both official and unofficial, a fact which
is corroborated by statements made by certain of the defendants in their
interrogatories from which it frequently emerged that some of the orders
emanating from high places were to be suppressed and annulled, so as to
leave no trace.
We consider, likewise, that proof of the fraudulent collaboration which
existed among the conspirators is afforded by the criminal character of
the decisions made at these secret councils, which aimed at the conquest
of neighboring countries through wars of aggression.
Finally, proof of this fraudulent collaboration is afforded, in our
opinion, by the way in which these criminal plans were carried out by
the employment of all sorts of means condemned both by international
morality and by the letter of the law; for example, in international and
diplomatic spheres the most cynical plots, the use in foreign countries
of what is known as the “Fifth Column,” financial camouflage, the
exertion of improper pressure backed by demonstrations of violence, and
finally—when these methods no longer proved effective—the waging of a
war of aggression.
As for those individuals who regularly and of their own free will took
part in meetings of groups and organizations, such as those denounced in
the Indictment as internationally odious, their voluntary membership in
these groups or the active and deliberate part which they took in their
activities suffice to show that they had every intention of giving their
active co-operation to these groups in a way which admits of no possible
doubt. In view of the aims pursued and the means adopted, this intention
could only be a guilty one.
In the opinion of the Prosecution, engaged in seeking the elements
constituting the crime, it would appear that this suffices to prove what
we call the _consilium fraudis_ and to enable us to verify the causal
link between this will to evil, on the one hand, and the criminal deed,
on the other, and to make it possible to retain the criminal character
of the understanding between the conspirators, which is also the
criminal character of their individual acts.
Could the chief of the Four Year Plan, when he ordered the
Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation to recruit 1 million foreign
workers for the Reich, forget that this act was contrary to
international conventions and leave out of consideration the tragic
consequences which the execution of this murderous action would entail,
and has in fact entailed, for these people and for their families?
Could the Minister for Armaments and War Production who set up, in
agreement with or by order of the Chief of the Air Force, underground
aircraft factories in the internment camps—could he, I say, fail to be
aware that under such conditions to use prisoners who were already
exhausted was equivalent to causing their premature death?
Could the diplomat who, on various pretexts, treated diplomatic
instruments intended to assure the stability and the peace of the world
as scraps of paper—could he lose sight of the fact that these acts
would plunge the civilized world into catastrophe?
Whether their conscience was at that moment disturbed by the feeling,
more or less obscure, that they were infringing human and divine laws is
a question which need not be asked on the juridical plane on which you
will be working. But even assuming that we should consider it our duty
to put this question to ourselves on the psychological plane as a result
of scruples, we should then have to remember two essential concepts. The
first is that the German, as a French writer puts it, at times combines
in himself the identity of contraries. Consequently, it is possible that
in certain cases he may consciously do evil while remaining convinced
that his act is irreproachable from the moral point of view. The second
concept is that, according to the law of National Socialist ethics
sometimes put into words by certain National Socialist leaders, that
which promotes the interests of the Party is good; that which does not
promote the interests is evil.
And yet, our personal impression on the occasion of the masterly speech
given by M. François de Menthon was that some of his words, striking in
their accent of deep humanity, had stirred some consciences. Even today,
after so many accumulated proofs, we may wonder whether the defendants
admit their responsibility as chiefs, as men, as representatives of the
incriminated organizations. This will perhaps be revealed in the course
of the proceedings.
Mr. President, Your Honors, with the permission of the Tribunal we shall
now take up the question of the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg.
Gentlemen, the young French student who in 1910 had the joy of spending
his vacation in Bavaria, then one of the happiest of the German
provinces, could hardly suspect that thirty-five years later he would be
called upon to apply international law against the masters of that
country. When, after stopping at the Bratwurstglöcklein, he climbed up
to the ramparts to look at the sunset from the heights of the Burg,
while the lines of a ballad by Uhland rang in his memory, he did not
think that evil masters and false prophets would twice in a quarter of a
century unchain the lightning over Europe and the rest of the world, and
that through them so many treasures of art and beauty would be
destroyed, so many human lives sacrificed, so much suffering piled up.
Indeed, when one studies the genesis of this unheard-of drama there can
be no question of romanticism; what we have to deal with rather is a
perverted romanticism, a morbid perversion of the sense of greatness,
and the mind is baffled by the true significance of the ideas of
National Socialism—ideas which I shall touch upon only in passing to
show how they led the Defendant Rosenberg, since it is he of whom I am
speaking, and his codefendants to commit the crimes which are held
against them:
The concept of race, to begin with, which we see arising in a country
which in other respects resembles any other but where the intermingling
of ethnic types of every variety took place through the centuries on a
gigantic scale; this anti-scientific confusion which mixes the
physiological features of man with the concept of nations; this
neo-paganism which aims at abolishing the moral code, the justice, and
security which 20 centuries of Christianity have brought to the world;
this myth of blood which attempts to justify racial discrimination and
its consequences: slavery, massacre, looting, and the mutilation of
living beings!
I shall not dwell, Mr. President, on what we consider a jumble of
nonsense which claims to be philosophy and in which may be found to be
the most heterogeneous fragments of all kinds taken from every source,
from the megalomaniac concepts of Mussolini, Hindu legends, and the
Japan of the samurai, the cradle of fascism, which swept over the world
like a tidal wave. The previous presentations have already adequately
dealt with these conceptions. I shall simply stress today that these
pseudo-philosophic conceptions tended solely to set back humanity
thousands of years by reviving the clan conception, which assumes the
law of might as the supreme law—the Faustrecht already formulated by
the Iron Chancellor, the right to cheat others, the right to take the
property of others, the right to reduce man to slavery, the right to
kill, the right to torture.
But _homo sapiens_ refuses to return to the state of _homo lupus_.
International law is not morality without obligation or sanction. The
Charter of 8 August has recalled and specified the obligation; it is for
you, Gentlemen, to apply the sanction.
One of the consequences of these theories of the superiority of the race
or of the so-called “Germanic Race” was to lead certain of the
conspirators, particularly the Defendant Rosenberg, of whom we are
speaking, to become plunderers; and it is this aspect of the activities
of the Defendant Rosenberg which I should like very briefly to stress,
for it concerns France and the occupied countries of the West and had
deeply harmful consequences for their artistic, intellectual, or merely
utilitarian heritage.
I wish to speak of all the measures decreed or applied by Rosenberg with
the aim of removing from France and the western countries cultural
treasures, works of art, and property belonging to groups or
individuals, and transferring to Germany all these riches.
Gentlemen, owing to the limited time which we have at our disposal, I
shall limit myself today to recalling how certain organisms were made to
collaborate in this pillaging through orders from higher quarters. I
shall indicate, first of all, the part played by the Gestapo, which was
ordained by a decree issued by the Defendant Keitel, dated 5 July 1940,
which bears the Document Number 137-PS and which was submitted by the
American Delegation, under Exhibit Number USA-379, on 18 December 1945
(Exhibit Number RF-1400). I refer likewise to a second order dated 30
October 1940, which reinforced and detailed the orders given in regard
to pillaging by what was known as the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This is
Exhibit Number RF-1304 (Document Number 140-PS), which was quoted by the
Economic Section of the French Prosecution.
Thus, Keitel and Rosenberg went back to the conception of a booty
exacted by the triumphant German people from the Jewish people with
regard to whom it was not bound by the conditions of the Compiègne
Armistice. This intervention by the chief of the army, as indicated by
the orders to which I have just referred, suffices in my opinion to
prove the important part played by the German Army in this looting; and
the Tribunal will not fail to remember that when it makes its decisions
as to the guilt of the Defendant Keitel and the Defendant Göring.
If I mention the Defendant Göring, it is because a third document proves
that this defendant gave the operation his full support, inviting all
the organizations of the Party, the State, and the Army to afford the
fullest possible support and assistance to Reichsleiter Rosenberg and
his collaborator Utikal, whom Rosenberg himself had appointed Chief of
the Einsatzstab on 1 April 1941. This is the order of 1 May 1941, which
we produced under our Exhibit Number RF-1406 (Document Number 1614-PS).
If we examine the text of this decree carefully we cannot fail to be
struck by the first paragraph. The Tribunal will surely allow me to
reread it rapidly:
“The struggle against the Jews, the Freemasons, and other
ideologically opposed forces allied to them, is a most urgent
task of National Socialism during the war.”
Thus, it was enough for one to have a philosophy of life different from
that described as the Nazi Weltanschauung, to be exposed to the danger
of seeing one’s cultural property seized and transferred to Germany. But
the Tribunal will surely remember from the documents already presented
to it, that not only cultural property was involved, but that anything
with any kind of value was taken away.
The Defendant Rosenberg tried, in the course of an interrogation carried
out by the superior officers in charge of the preliminary investigations
to claim, without much conviction, it seems to me, that the cultural
property in question was intended solely to adorn the collections of the
National Socialist Hohen Schulen. We shall see presently, in presenting
the text of this interrogation, how we may judge this. But it is a fact
which I wish to present now that, from the documents which we possess,
at least, it does not seem that the Defendant Rosenberg appropriated
works of art, precious stones, or other objects of value for himself.
Consequently, in the light of the proceedings as conducted thus far, no
accusation of this kind can be brought against him. We shall not say as
much for the Defendant Hermann Göring, of whom we shall speak a little
later and who, according to the documents that we possess, may be
convicted of having appropriated to his own use part of the objects of
art taken from the countries of the East and the West.
I shall not dwell on the discussion which might arise about these
misappropriations. I shall go straight on to the interrogatory of the
Defendant Rosenberg. This is the document that was introduced yesterday
by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution, which bears the
Exhibit Number RF-1331, and which we use today as Document Number
ECH-25.
I think that the Tribunal will easily be able to refer to this
interrogatory, but meanwhile I should like very briefly to summarize the
essential points which I think should be brought up.
Colonel Hinkel, questioning the Defendant Rosenberg, asked him on what
legal grounds such looting could be justified. The Defendant Rosenberg
first answered that these seizures were justified by the hostility which
certain groups had manifested toward the National Socialist ideology.
But a little further on, on Page 4, the Defendant Rosenberg made the
following verbatim statement:
“I considered them”—he is referring to the measures which he
himself had taken—“a necessity caused by the war and by the
reasons which caused the war.”
A few moments later, pressed by Colonel Hinkel, the Defendant Rosenberg
invoked the necessity of putting into safekeeping property thus seized,
a necessity which will certainly constitute one of the main points of
his defense. But Colonel Hinkel replied to the Defendant Rosenberg:
“And so if your idea was to safeguard art objects, it sounds
rather strange, doesn’t it, that you were going to safeguard
only some art objects and not others?
“On the other hand, with regard to the maintenance of the
objects, there were objects at least equal in value to those
which had been removed, but to which no one paid any attention.”
Finally, the Defendant Rosenberg admitted that he had very often given
no receipt to those concerned, which in itself precluded any idea of
eventually returning the property to the legitimate owners.
The truth of the matter is that these were treasures of very
considerable value, and the Defendant Rosenberg in the end admitted that
he regarded these acquisitions as an accomplished fact. We consider that
the fact of having thus removed works of art and objects of value is
purely and simply what is known in civil law as misappropriation. These
misappropriations were made on a vast scale with the grandiose means
which the Third Reich had at its disposal, means which were further
facilitated by the intervention of the Army and the Luftwaffe. But it is
nonetheless true that the criminal character of these misappropriations
remains; and we urge the Tribunal, when it delivers judgment, to declare
that it was by fraudulent seizure that the Defendant Rosenberg and his
codefendants robbed France and the western countries of all the objects
of value and all the art treasures and cultural treasures.
As to what the objects themselves consisted of, Mr. President and Your
Honors, I would respectfully refer the Tribunal to the report submitted
by the Economic Section yesterday, which was made by Dr. Scholz, the
associate of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This report was submitted by the
Economic Section under Exhibit Number RF-1323 (Document Number 1015-PS),
and in it the Tribunal will find enumerated everything that the
Einsatzstab took out of France. In this connection I shall make an
incidental remark in answer to the question that the President asked my
colleague yesterday about the Rothschild collections. The President
asked my colleague, “Have you proof that certain collections and objects
of value were taken from the Rothschild collections?”
I should like, Mr. President, to point out that there are two proofs of
this. The first is the immediate result of the Rosenberg interrogation
of 23 September 1945. I have just spoken to the Tribunal of the
all-important questions put to the Defendant Rosenberg as to the
legitimacy and legal basis of these removals. I beg the Tribunal to
refer to Page 5 of these minutes. I read from the text the question
asked by the American officer in charge of the interrogation, my eminent
friend, Colonel Hinkel:
“Question: ‘How do you justify the confiscation of art treasures
belonging to the Rothschild family?’”—A very precise question.
It concerned the art treasures taken from the Rothschild family
by Rosenberg’s organization.
“Answer: ‘Still from the same general point of view.’”
That means that the Defendant Rosenberg claimed to justify the
confiscations made to the detriment of the Rothschilds by the reasons
which I had the honor of analyzing to the Tribunal a few moments ago.
A second consequence: The Defendant Rosenberg thus admitted with his own
lips that the Rothschild family was among those despoiled. That
confession, Mr. President, Your Honors, can be considered as one of the
proofs, one of the main proofs. This is the first answer, then, to the
question that the President asked yesterday.
The second proof which I wish to present to the Tribunal is the
following: I beg the Tribunal to refer to the report by Dr. Scholz
mentioned above and produced yesterday in the document book of the
Economic Section. This is Exhibit Number RF-1323 (Document Number
1015-PS).
If the Tribunal will kindly refer to it, that is to say, the report by
Dr. Scholz, the second paragraph of Page 1, it will find the following
statement, “The special staff not only seized a very considerable part
of the collection. . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] As I said the other day, we cannot keep
all the books before us; but it seems to me that, as you have shown that
the Defendant Rosenberg agreed that this collection had been taken, that
is quite sufficient.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I understand perfectly your point of view. I
should like respectfully to point out to you that I was to speak
immediately after my colleague, and if I had done so you would have had
this document book before you. We had a delay of one day, and I
apologize for not having thought of asking you to bring this document
again this morning.
However, I respectfully ask the Tribunal to be good enough to note this
reference which it will easily find. It is a very short passage, which I
should like to read to the Tribunal. It will not take very much time.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
M. MOUNIER: This declaration is simply the following:
“The special staff”—that is to say, the Einsatzstab
Rosenberg—“not only seized a very considerable portion of the
collection which the Rothschilds had left behind in their Paris
mansion. . . .”
I shall not read the rest.
Here then, Gentlemen, is an official report which cannot be disputed and
which demonstrates, like the previous proof, that the Rothschild
collection was among those pillaged.
I do not insist on these facts, which are known to you. It seems to me
that the two points on which I have just cast a ray of light suffice to
make it clear that illegal seizures—fraudulent seizures—were really
operated by the Defendant Rosenberg to the detriment of France and to
the detriment, likewise, of the western countries. As for their
importance, I do not want to abuse the patience of the Tribunal by
quoting statistics. I respectfully ask the Tribunal to refer to the
Scholz report which I have twice mentioned in the course of my previous
statements.
I should not, however, wish to leave the case of Rosenberg, for the time
being, without quoting to the Tribunal a passage from an article by the
French writer François Mauriac, of the French Academy. François Mauriac
was present on 7 November 1945 at the inaugural session of the National
Constituent Assembly at the Palais Bourbon. On this occasion François
Mauriac invoked a memory which was recalled in _Le Figaro_ of 6 November
1945 in the following terms:
“Almost five years ago to a day, from the height of this
rostrum, the most illustrious in Europe, a man spoke to other
men dressed in field grey. His name was Alfred Rosenberg. I can
testify to the exact date. It was 25 November 1940.
“Rosenberg leaned his elbows on this rostrum, where the voices
of Jaurès and of Albert De Mun were once heard and where, on 11
November 1918, Clemenceau nearly died of joy. Here are his
words:
“‘In one gigantic revolutionary burst’—he said—‘the German
nation has reaped such a harvest as never before in its history.
The French will admit one day, if they are honest, that Germany
has freed them from the parasites of which they could not rid
themselves unaided.’
“And the Nazi philosopher”—continues Mauriac—“then proclaimed
the victory of blood. He meant”—writes Mauriac—“the victory of
race; but it happens that a man may utter prophetic words
unwittingly and without realizing the full import of the words
which God places upon his lips. As Rosenberg predicted at the
Palais Bourbon on 25 November 1940, it was indeed blood that won
the victory. It was the blood of the martyrs which in the end
choked the executioners.”
M. President, with the approval of the Court, and with the same brevity
as heretofore—and I hope the Tribunal will appreciate the care I am
taking not to abuse its patience—I should like to say a few words on
the individual charge against the Defendant Fritz Sauckel.
Your Honors, the Tribunal is already acquainted with the really
remarkable work, the genuinely positive work, presented to it some time
ago by my colleague and friend, M. Jacques Bernard Herzog. This is why,
with your permission, I shall pass over the facts themselves, which are
known to you, and limit myself to the part beginning on Page 3 of my
brief; and we shall examine together, if it please the Tribunal, the
grounds for the pleas advanced up to now by the Defendant Fritz Sauckel.
One question must be asked first of all: Was Fritz Sauckel acting under
orders when he carried out this recruiting—so-called voluntary in part
but compulsory in most cases—this recruiting of laborers destined to
supply the needs of the German Reich?
According to Sauckel, when he was appointed Plenipotentiary for the
Allocation of Labor on 27 March 1942, his initial program did not
include the conscription of foreign workers; and it is supposed to have
been Hitler who intervened then. For it is striking, Your Honors, when
you read the minutes of the interrogations and also, I am sure, when the
defendants speak before the Tribunal, you will see that most of them
take refuge behind two great shadows; the shadow of the former Führer
and the shadow of his accursed second, Himmler. Here we can see Hitler
intervening to tell Sauckel, according to the latter, that the use of
foreign workers in the occupied territories is not contrary to the Hague
Convention for two reasons; firstly, the countries involved surrendered
unconditionally and consequently we can impose any kind of labor
conditions on them, and secondly because Russia has not signed this
convention. If, therefore, we use Russian workers on compulsory labor
and make them work to death, we are not violating the Hague Convention.
This, Your Honors, is the reasoning of the Defendant Sauckel on this
point, without the addition of a single word. Hitler is supposed to have
ordered him to recruit workers, at first using persuasion and then all
the means of compulsion which you already know; suppression of ration
cards, for instance, which compelled men, who saw their wives and
children starving, to volunteer for work which would be used against
their own fellow citizens and against the soldiers of the Allied armies
with whom all their sympathies lay.
The Tribunal will know how to deal with such an excuse for, in the first
place, Sauckel, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by his
office, enjoyed full authority in regard to everything to do with the
labor necessary for the execution of the Four Year Plan. On the other
hand, on taking up his appointment as Plenipotentiary for Labor
Allocation, Sauckel knew that he would be unable to carry out his
mission without resorting sooner or later to means of coercion. In any
case, Sauckel, as well as most of the defendants who are before you,
enjoyed the most extensive powers, indeed autonomous powers.
Consequently, he cannot shelter behind orders received.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you must forgive me if I interrupt you; but
as I pointed out yesterday, I think, we have already had an opening
statement which contained argument from the United States, from Great
Britain, and from M. De Menthon on behalf of France, and we have, in the
past, confined other counsel. . . .
Do you hear me? I was saying that after having heard the opening
statement from the United States, from Great Britain, and from France,
we have in the past, confined the counsel who have followed them to a
presentation of evidence and have not permitted them to go into an
argument.
I am not sure that that rule has been strictly carried out in all cases
because it is, perhaps, somewhat difficult to confine the matter; but we
have, on several occasions, pointed out to counsel who have followed the
counsel who made the leading statement that they ought to confine
themselves to a presentation of the evidence. I think the Tribunal would
wish you, if possible, to adhere to that rule and, therefore, not to
argue the case but to present the evidence, that is to say, to refer us
to the evidence insofar as it has already been put in evidence; to refer
us to it by its number, possibly stating what the substance of the
evidence is; and, in reference to any document which has not yet been
put in evidence, to read such parts of that document as you think
necessary.
M. MOUNIER: Very well, Mr. President, to meet the wishes of the
Tribunal, I shall limit myself, as concerns the Defendant Sauckel, to
referring to figures which, it seems to me, do not admit of argument,
since they are the figures given by the Defendant Sauckel himself under
interrogation. This does not seem to me to infringe upon the rule which
the President has just drawn to my attention.
The figures stated are the following: In 1942 there were already a
million foreign workers in Germany. In one year Sauckel incorporated
into the economy of the Reich some 1,600,000 war prisoners to meet the
needs of war economy.
I beg to refer the Tribunal to Exhibit Number RF-1411 in my document
book. This is an interrogation of the Defendant Speer under the date of
18 October 1945, which has already been submitted by the United States
Prosecution on 12 December 1945, under Exhibit Number USA-220 (Document
Number 3720-PS). In this interrogation the Defendant Speer states that
40 percent of all prisoners of war were employed in the production of
arms and munitions and in related industries.
I likewise offer under Exhibit Number RF-1412 (Document Number 1292-PS)
of 13 December 1945, a memorandum signed by Lammers, Secretary of the
Reich Chancellery, giving an account of the discussion which occurred at
a conference held on 4 January 1944. On that date, 4 January 1944, in
the course of a conference, at which, in addition to the Defendant
Sauckel, the Führer himself, Himmler, Speer, Keitel, Field Marshal
Milch, and others were present, the number of new workers to be
furnished by Sauckel was fixed at four million.
I must mention in this connection that in the course of this meeting,
Sauckel expressed doubts as to the possibility of furnishing this number
of workers unless he were given sufficient police forces. Himmler
replied that he would try to help Sauckel to achieve this objective by
means of increased pressure.
Consequently, when the Defendant Sauckel claims, as he probably will do,
that he had absolutely nothing to do with the institution now spurned by
everyone, known as the Gestapo, we may answer him by official German
documents showing that for the recruitment of labor he really did employ
the police with all the more or less condemned means already pointed out
to you.
As for France alone, the demand for workers at the beginning of 1944
amounted to one million; and this figure was over and above the number
of men and women workers already sent to Germany, who in June 1944
numbered one million to one and a half million.
The Defendant Sauckel, therefore, committed the offenses already known
to the Court. We have an old adage, an old slogan we may say, according
to which “The court is the law”; and it is proper to present only the
facts. I shall, therefore, abstain from reading the passage on Page 9 of
my presentation dealing with those articles of the law under which the
activities of the accused, Sauckel, are punishable.
Mr. President, Your Honors, I should like now to summarize the activity
of the Defendant Speer, for as regards France and the western countries
the Defendant Speer incurs responsibilities of the same nature as those
of the Defendant Sauckel. Like the defendant of whom I have just spoken,
he permitted violations of the laws of war, violations of the laws of
humanity, in working towards the drafting and carrying out of a vast
program of forced deportation and enslavement of the occupied countries.
Speer, Mr. President, first took part in working out the program of
forced labor and collaborated in its adoption. In the course of his
interrogatory, he stated under oath: First, that he took part in the
discussion at which the decision to use forced labor was made; second,
that he collaborated in the execution of this plan; third, that the
basis of this program was the removal to Germany by force of foreign
workers on the authority of Sauckel, Plenipotentiary for Allocation of
Labor under the Four Year Plan. The Tribunal will kindly refer to
Document Number 3720-PS, submitted by the United States Delegation on 12
December 1945, which I quote under Exhibit Number RF-1411 of our
documentation.
As regards France, in particular, Hitler and the Defendant Speer held a
conference on 4 January 1943 in the course of which it was decided that
more severe measures would be taken to expedite the recruiting of French
civilian workers without discrimination between skilled and unskilled
workers. This is made clear by a note to which I would ask the Tribunal
to refer. That is a note signed by Fritz Sauckel, himself. It has
already been presented by the American Prosecution under Document Number
556-PS (Exhibit Number RF-67).
The Defendant Speer knew that the levies for forced labor in the
occupied territories were obtained by violence and terror. He approved
the continuation of these methods from September 1942 onward. He knew,
for instance, that workers were deported by force from the Ukraine to
work in the Reich. He knew, likewise, that the great majority of workers
in the occupied regions of the West were sent to Germany against their
will. He even declared before the American magistrate who was
questioning him that he considered these methods regular and legal.
The Defendant Speer, knowing that the foreign workers were recruited and
deported for forced labor in Germany, made specific demands for foreign
workers and provided for their employment in the various branches of
activity placed under his direction.
The preceding paragraphs summarize all the declarations made by the
defendant in the course of the interrogation already mentioned and to
which I have just referred.
I beg to remind you that Speer, in addition, was a member of the Central
Committee of the Four Year Plan. On account of this, and in common with
Field Marshal Milch, only Hitler and Göring were superior to him as far
as demands for labor were concerned. He likewise took part, in this
capacity, in discussions which took place with Hitler to settle the
numbers of foreign workers required. He knew that most of these forces
were obtained by means of deportation, through coercion and enslavement
of the occupied countries. Proof of this is furnished by various
passages of the minutes of the Central Committee of the Plan and from
Speer’s conferences with Hitler. I refer to Document Numbers R-123 and
R-124 which have been submitted under Exhibit Number USA-179, on 12
December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1414).
Speer did not hesitate to resort to methods of terrorism and brutality
as a means of achieving a peak output from the forced workers. He found
justification for the action of the SS and of the police and for the use
of concentration camps to subdue recalcitrants.
I beg to recall to the Tribunal the document relating to the minutes of
the 21st meeting of the Central Committee of the Four Year Plan, 30
October 1942, Page 1059, already quoted. This is the document which I
quoted previously, Exhibit Number USA-179, Document Numbers R-123 and
R-124 on 12 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1414).
The Defendant Speer likewise bears responsibility for the use of
prisoners of war in military operations directed against their
countries; for in his capacity as chief of the Todt Organization, he
forced citizens of the Allied nations to work for this organization,
particularly, in the building of fortifications and, among other things,
the famous West Wall. He likewise forced Frenchmen, Belgians,
Luxembourgers, Dutchmen, Norwegians, and Danes to manufacture arms to be
utilized against the allies of the countries to which they themselves
belonged.
Finally—and this is a very important question regarding the
responsibility of the Defendant Speer—he participated directly in the
use of internees from the concentration camps. He proposed the use of
internees from the concentration camps in the armament factories. Now,
in view of the wretched physical condition of the prisoners, no profit
but only the extermination of the prisoners could be expected from this
measure. The use of internees from the concentration camps in the
factories had the effect of increasing the demand for this type of
labor; and this demand was satisfied in part, at least, by sending to
the concentration camps persons who, in ordinary times, would never have
been sent there.
Speer went so far as to establish, near the factories, concentration
camps which served solely to feed them with labor.
He knew the Mauthausen Camp. The Spanish witness, Boix, whom the
Tribunal heard a few days ago, attested under oath that he had seen,
with his own eyes, the Defendant Speer visit the camp at Mauthausen and
congratulate the directors of this camp. He even declared that he had
worked on the preparation of photographs of this scene. Consequently
this visit to the camp must be considered, absolutely beyond doubt. He
therefore saw for himself the barbarous conditions in which the
prisoners lived. Nevertheless, he persisted in utilizing labor from the
Camp of Mauthausen in the factories under his authority.
I have concluded the case against Speer.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, Your Honors, considering the strictly limited
time at my disposal, I shall be compelled, in dealing with the Defendant
Göring, of whom I shall have the honor to speak to you, to skip Pages 1,
2, and 3 of this presentation. I ask the Court now to turn to Page 3 of
my statement.
I should like to present to the Tribunal the question of the
responsibility of the Defendant Göring for the measures taken against
the commandos and against Allied airmen who fell into the hands of the
Germans during their missions.
During the Trial we have on several occasions mentioned an order given
by Hitler on 18 October 1942, which was first submitted by the American
Delegation on 2 January 1946 under the Document Number 498-PS (Exhibit
Number RF-1417). It is an order detailing the measures to be taken
against commandos in operations in Europe and Africa. They were to be
exterminated to the last man, even if they were in military uniform, and
no matter what their mode of transport might be: boat, plane, or
parachute. An order was given to take no prisoners. In the occupied
territories isolated members of commandos who might fall into the hands
of the German forces were to be handed over immediately to the
Sicherheitsdienst, RSHA branch. This order did not apply to enemy
soldiers who were captured or who surrendered in open battle and within
the scope of combat operations.
Among those notified was the Oberkommando of the Luftwaffe.
Consequently, the Defendant Göring knew of this order; and in his
capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, as well as in his
capacity as Commander-in-Chief of one of the three military services, he
has joint responsibility with the leaders of the other services.
We know, also, that on the same date, 18 October 1942, Hitler had a
memorandum distributed annotating the previous instructions and
announcing that if one or two prisoners were spared for the time being,
so that information might be obtained from them, they were to be put to
death as soon as they had been interrogated.
I refer to Exhibit Number RF-1418 (Document Number 503-PS) of 9 January
1946. The American Prosecution which produced this document has also
submitted to the Tribunal—and I shall not come back to this fact—a
certain number of cases proving that this order was frequently carried
out.
On the other hand, the Tribunal already knows that numerous Allied
airmen, who found themselves in German territory after losing their
planes, were maltreated and lynched by the Germans with the connivance
of the authorities. As evidence we present only the order of 10 August
1943 by which Himmler forbade the police to take part in these lynchings
and forbade them equally to oppose them. I refer to Document Number
R-110, presented 19 December 1945 as Exhibit RF-1419.
Goebbels, in an article in the _Völkischer Beobachter_, intervened in
the same way. Bormann, in a memorandum of 30 May 1944, confirmed these
instructions and stipulated that they should be passed on to the
administrative authorities, not in writing but by word of mouth only. I
refer to Document Number 057-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1420), cited on 17
December 1945 by the American Delegation.
These instructions were carried out to the letter, to such an extent
that the American forces have brought to trial, since the capitulation,
a considerable number of German civilians who had murdered unarmed
Allied airmen.
But the Defendant Göring was not satisfied simply to let these things
happen. At a conference which took place on 15 and 16 May 1944 he stated
that he would suggest to the Führer that not only parachutists but also
American or English crews who attacked, indiscriminately, cities and
civilian trains in motion should be put to death on the spot forthwith.
This is Exhibit Number RF-1421 (Document Number L-166), cited by the
French Prosecution, 31 January 1946, under Exhibit Number RF-377.
In fact, Göring saw Hitler between 20 and 22 May 1944. The Air Force
General, Korten, sent the Defendant Keitel a memorandum pointing out
that Hitler had decided that enemy airmen who were shot down should be
put to death without trial if they had participated in acts described as
terroristic. This is Document Number 731-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1407),
which we submit to the Court in the form of a photostatic copy. I ask
the Tribunal’s permission not to read this document. I think the
Tribunal will prefer to read it for themselves. However, I am at their
disposal if they wish me to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: No; it has already been put in, has it not?
M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President.
In consequence, an agreement was made with the OKW that Himmler, Göring,
and Ribbentrop should be consulted on the measures to be taken in this
matter. Ribbentrop proposed that any attack upon German cities should be
considered as an act of terrorism. General Warlimont also, in the name
of the OKW, proposed two means: Lynching and what he called
Sonderbehandlung or special treatment, which consisted in delivering the
parties concerned to the Sicherheitsdienst where they were subjected to
diverse treatments, one of the most notorious being the well known Kugel
action, of which the Tribunal has already heard and which was simply a
way of doing away with those in question. Document Number 735-PS
(Exhibit Number RF-1452) was submitted to this effect on 9 January 1946.
On 17 June 1944 Keitel wrote to Göring to ask him to approve the
definition of acts of terrorism drawn up by Warlimont. On 19 June 1944
Göring replied through his aide-de-camp that the population should be
forbidden to act as it had done against enemy airmen and that these
enemy airmen should be brought to trial, since the Allied Governments
had forbidden their airmen to commit acts of terrorism. I refer here to
Document Number 732-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit
Number RF-1405.
Consequently, I draw the Tribunal’s attention to this document, dated 26
June 1944, where Reich Marshal Göring declared that he would support the
taking of judicial action against these airmen. Remember this date, 19
June 1944, because it is important.
But on 26 June 1944 the Defendant Göring’s aide-de-camp telephoned to
the OKW headquarters staff, who had insisted upon a definite reply, and
notified them that his chief, Reich Marshal Göring, was in agreement
with their definition of acts of terrorism and the procedure proposed
which, as I recall it, included two alternatives: The handing over of
those in question for Sonderbehandlung or their immediate execution. I
refer to Document Numbers 733-PS and 740-PS, cited on 30 January 1946 by
the French Prosecution, under the Exhibit Numbers RF-374 and RF-375
(Exhibit Numbers RF-1423 and RF-1424).
In a memorandum dated 4 July 1944 Hitler made it known that since the
British and the Americans had bombed small towns of no military
importance as a reprisal for V-1, he was asking the German radio and
press to announce that all enemy airmen shot down in an attack of that
kind would be put to death as soon as they were caught. Such are the
facts found in these absolutely irrefutable documents, and if I cited in
detail the reply made on 19 June 1944 by the Defendant Göring, or to be
more exact, by his aide-de-camp, it is because I am anxious to introduce
into the proceedings the documents concerning this question in their
entirety.
But I see that in spite of the existence of the order of 19 June 1944 I
am obliged to infer the full responsibility of the Defendant Hermann
Göring.
In fact, the Defendant Hermann Göring states that he never agreed to
these measures, and that Captain Breuer, who telephoned to the General
Staff of the OKW, acted—according to the Defendant Göring—without
having previously consulted him. Göring added, in the statements which
he made, that he could not be held responsible for all the absurd or
insignificant actions carried out by his subordinates.
But, Gentlemen, without even reference to the famous Leadership
Principle—for I see no reason to apply German law to the accused in any
way—the Defendant Göring is in any case responsible in his capacity as
leader. Responsibility begins with authority. Moreover, what did he do
to stop the massacre of airmen by people whom he had ordered to do the
opposite, according to orders which it was forbidden to formulate in
writing?
Even if we consider the position which he takes up in the order dated 19
June 1944, to which I have referred as establishing accurately his views
at that date on the massacre of airmen and parachutists, we are
compelled to see that at that date, 19 June 1944, even in Germany, the
most shortsighted knew that the German forces would soon succumb to the
weight of the Allied Armies.
Allied aviators were put to death in Germany throughout the war.
Moreover, if the Defendant Hermann Göring maintains that the letter of
19 June 1944 was written by his aide-de-camp, he is obliged to admit
that the letter of 26 June 1944, also written by the aide-de-camp, can
be imputed to him, although signed by one of his subordinates. We
consider, then, that this document signed by an aide-de-camp involves
Göring as much as if he had signed it himself.
Mr. President and Gentlemen, I shall not enlarge upon the responsibility
of the Defendant Göring for compulsory labor, but I respectfully beg the
Court to refer in due course to certain rays of illumination that I have
tried to indicate in this brief in order to clarify the position of the
defendant in this matter.
I shall make no further mention of the employment of prisoners of war
and internees from concentration camps, which I detailed on Page 10 of
my brief. I should like simply to say a word concerning economic
pillaging and the pillaging of art treasures. These questions are dealt
with at the bottom of Page 11 of my brief.
Concerning economic pillage, Gentlemen, I shall not stress the
considerable part played by the Defendant Göring as leader of the Four
Year Plan in all the measures which contributed to strip literally all
the western countries of their substance. I shall simply point out one
fact which, I believe, has not yet been brought to your knowledge but
which is found in the next to the last subheading on Page 12. This fact
is the following: After the Armistice in 1940, the Defendant Göring had
brought about through Roechling, the official sequestrator, the cession
to the Hermann Göring Werke of all the factories of Lorraine belonging
to the family of Wendel.
This is connected with all the operations of economic pillaging about
which the Economic Section of the French Prosecution have already
informed the Court. With regard to this, the Court will not fail to
realize that the Defendant Göring shares jointly with the Defendants
Rosenberg, Ribbentrop, and Seyss-Inquart—for the Netherlands—the
responsibility for this spoliation.
With regard to the pillaging of works of art, Gentlemen, we have
documents which permit us to draw our conclusions with regard to this
matter which is obviously an unpleasant one for a man who has occupied
the position of the Defendant Göring, namely, that a part of the works
of art and objects of value which were pillaged from the western
countries were reserved for him without any kind of compensation. I
shall not discuss the exact meaning of this act in municipal law; I
leave it to the Tribunal to apply the proper legal terms for this
matter, when it delivers its judgment. But what I should like to say
today is that the appropriation of works of art by the Defendant Hermann
Göring for his private purposes is proved in documents which cannot be
contested and which have already been submitted to the Tribunal. I refer
particularly to Exhibit Number USA-368 (Document Number 141-PS)
submitted on 18 December 1945. This document was submitted by the
Economic Section of the French Prosecution under the Exhibit Number
RF-1309.
I may rapidly recall that this document prescribes that works of art
brought to the Louvre are to be classified in a certain way:
“Firstly, those works of art of which the Führer reserved the
right to dispose of himself. Secondly, those works of art
destined to complete the collection of the Reich Marshal”—_et
cetera_.
I won’t read the rest of the document.
What followed these levies or these privative appropriations? Did the
Defendant Göring pay anything for these? The opposite seems to be the
case; for in the interrogation of the Defendant Rosenberg, which was
given under the Exhibit Number RF-1332 and to which I referred in the
course of the hearing, it is pointed out that the Defendant Göring made
his selection from the works of art assembled by Rosenberg’s staff and
made no corresponding payment to the Reich treasury.
Not to abuse the patience of the Tribunal, I respectfully beg it to go
back to Page 10 of the transcript previously cited, where it will see
the part played by the Defendant Göring in the appropriation of works of
art, and the fact that no money was paid in compensation.
I simply emphasize, in passing, that at the top of Page 11 you will find
this statement, in reply to a question asked by Colonel Hinkel. Colonel
Hinkel said this to him.
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to Page 10 and Page 11 of which
document?
M. MOUNIER: Page 11, Mr. President, of Document Number ECH-25, which was
submitted yesterday under the Exhibit Number RF-1331, by my colleague M.
Gerthoffer. It is not there, for reasons which I have already pointed
out to the Tribunal.
Colonel Hinkel, at the bottom of Page 10, asked the following question:
“Well, doesn’t that letter state in the last paragraph that you
don’t think that Göring should pay for these articles that he
had selected because he was going to put these articles in an
art gallery?”
The reply of the Defendant Rosenberg:
“Not exactly. I would like to add the following:”—which I
consider important—“I was rather uneasy when at the outset I
heard art treasures which the Einsatzstab had sent to
Germany. . . .”
That is all, Gentlemen, I won’t say anything more. I merely want to
point out to you the annoyance which the chief of the Einsatzstab
himself felt on learning this fact.
Mr. President, Gentlemen, in regard to the participation of the
Defendant Göring in Crimes against Humanity, particularly the
concentration camps, I shall not insist; but I shall ask the Tribunal,
when they have time, to refer to a few paragraphs in which I briefly
recall the question. But there is a document which, as far as I know,
has not been submitted to the Tribunal and which I should like to submit
today. It concerns pseudo-medical experiments which I believe have not
yet been discussed.
You have frequently been told of Dr. Rascher’s experiments in the
exposure of certain persons to alternate heat and cold, but there is a
question which I treat on Page 17 of my brief and which concerns the
document which I submit today as Exhibit Number RF-1427. This is a
document which originally had the Number L-170. It is a report made by
Major Leo Alexander of the United States Army, on an institution known
as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. Major Leo Alexander, at the time of the
defeat of Germany by the Allied Forces, had to conduct certain
investigations. He conducted one in connection with experiments made by
Dr. Rascher and another in connection with these carried out in the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. This report which I submit to the Tribunal is
entitled, “Neuropathology in Wartime Germany.” This Kaiser Wilhelm
Institut was an institute designed for cerebral research. This
institution had formerly been in Berlin-Buch (Page 18 in my brief) and
was split up into three establishments, the first in Munich—I pass over
the one in Munich—the third in Göttingen. The second, the one which
interests me, was established at Dillenburg, in Hessen-Nassau, where
there was a department for special pathology directed by Dr.
Hallervorden. What is interesting, Mr. President. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Could we see the original?
M. MOUNIER: The original? Here it is, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the series “L” referred to in Major Coogan’s
affidavit?
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I should like to point out that this Number
L-170 is the same as that referring to that same Major Leo Alexander’s
document book concerning the experiments of Dr. Rascher. It is the same
number. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: As this document has already been produced in evidence in
the series “L”—it is L-170 I think—the Tribunal will treat it for the
moment as being in evidence and will further consider its admissibility.
M. MOUNIER: Yes, sir. At all events, I should like to remind the
President, who has certainly noticed it, that I reproduce in this brief,
which has already been communicated to the Defense, the passage which I
regard as relevant to my brief. The passage is quoted in full in my
brief.
THE PRESIDENT: [_Turning to Dr. Stahmer._] Yes, we will listen to you in
a few minutes.
[_Turning to M. Mounier._] Which passage do you wish to refer to?
M. MOUNIER: Pages 20 and 21 in my brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, do you wish to read them?
M. MOUNIER: I accept the decision of the Tribunal. If the Court
considers this reading superfluous, I shall limit myself to pointing out
that what I find striking in this document is the manner in which Dr.
Hallervorden ordered the delivery of brains for examination when he
says:
“‘I had heard that they were going to do that.’”—That is, to
say, to kill some sick people in different establishments by
means of carbon-monoxide.—Dr. Hallervorden explained to his
American interrogator, Major Alexander.
“‘. . . I went up to them and told them “Look here now, boys, if
you are going to kill all these people, at least take the brains
out so that the material could be utilized.
“‘They asked me, “How many can you examine?” and so I told them
an unlimited number—the more the better. I gave them the
fixatives, jars and boxes, and instructions for removing and
fixing the brains. . . .’”
I call the attention of the Tribunal to the truly horrible nature of the
measures taken in regard to the people who were to be killed merely to
have their brains examined, for they were, so he said,
“‘. . . selected from the various wards of the institutions
according to an excessively simple and quick method. Most
institutions did not have enough physicians, and what physicians
there were were either too busy or did not care, and they
delegated the selection to the nurses and attendants. Whoever
looked sick or was otherwise a problem patient from the nurses’
or attendants’ point of view, was put on a list and was
transported to the killing center. The worst thing about this
business was that it produced a certain brutalization of the
nursing personnel. They got to simply picking out those whom
they did not like, and the doctors had so many patients that
they did not even know them, and put their names on the list.’”
I shall stop my citation there, Mr. President, but what I should like to
do subsequently, unless the Tribunal is going to call upon Dr. Stahmer
to speak. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we are now going to hear what Dr. Stahmer wants to
say.
DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for the Defendant Göring): I am sorry that I
must contradict what has just been said, for there is no proof that
these things took place or that the Defendant Göring is responsible. The
Defendant Göring states that he was quite unaware of these events and
that he had nothing whatever to do with matters of that kind. As far as
I know, the Prosecution itself. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I have to interrupt you, Dr. Stahmer. You will have a
full opportunity of presenting arguments to us to show that the evidence
which is adduced, which is brought forward now against the Defendant
Göring, has really no reference to him. You will have a full opportunity
to do that at the appropriate stage when you present the defense. The
only question we are considering now, the technical question, is whether
this document is a document which is admissible. We are considering it,
of course, but it is not the appropriate time for you to present your
argument that the document does not refer to Göring and that Göring had
no knowledge of it. That will be your defense. It isn’t an objection to
the admissibility of the document. It is an argument to show that Göring
didn’t know anything about the document and didn’t know anything about
the experiments.
Do you understand what I mean?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I only wanted, by introducing. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Mounier, continue.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I take leave to point out to you that my
friend, Mr. Elwyn Jones, has just pointed out to me that this is
admitted as proof in view of the conditions under which it was
submitted. This is the document entitled, “Neuropathology and
Neurophysiology, including Electroencephalography, in Wartime Germany.”
Besides this reference is found in the English copy which I submitted in
the modest document book which I submitted to the Tribunal just now. I
should like to tell you, Mr. President, in citing this short
passage. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe the Tribunal had better keep the original document
for the present.
M. MOUNIER: My aim, Mr. President, in citing this short passage, is to
demonstrate the truly atrocious way in which they treated people in
order to procure the necessary material for these so-called experiments.
According to the Prosecution this relates to Hermann Göring, for the
Tribunal will take into account the fact that these experiments were
made for the purpose of obtaining information of a scientific or
pseudo-scientific nature concerning the effects upon the brains of
airmen of all the accidents which might happen to them.
These experiments are connected with those of Dr. Rascher, concerning
which some correspondence took place. The Defendant Hermann Göring
cannot have been ignorant of this correspondence, for it directly
concerned the Air Force, which he commanded. I cite, for instance, a
letter dated 24 October 1942, which was addressed by Himmler to Dr.
Rascher and which I submit to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Number
RF-1409 (Document Number 1609-PS).
To save the time of the Tribunal I shall not read this letter. I shall
simply refer to another document which has already been cited as
Document Number 343-PS. It was submitted by the American Prosecution as
Exhibit Number USA-463, 20 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1428), and
it is a letter which proves that as early as 20 May 1942 Field Marshal
Milch was charged by the Defendant Göring with the task of transmitting
to the SS his special thanks for the aid which they had given the
Luftwaffe with these pseudo-medical experiments. Consequently, we
consider that in this respect the responsibility of the Defendant
Hermann Göring is clearly established.
Mr. President and Gentlemen, I have concluded the points concerning the
Defendant Hermann Göring to which I wanted to draw the attention of the
Tribunal. There is a conclusion in my brief against the Defendant
Hermann Göring. With the permission of the Tribunal I shall not read it.
I shall say that this conclusion is an extract from an old book dating
from 1669, which is certainly known to everyone in Germany at least. Its
title is _Simplizius Simplizissimus_ by Grimmelshausen. It is a work in
which persons are seen invoking dreams. Unfortunately the realization
seems to have been achieved by the National Socialist regime.
I now go on to the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, whose case concerns most
particularly our friends in the Netherlands on behalf of whom France is
acting as counsel.
Consequently, Mr. President and Gentlemen, as regards the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart, the French Prosecution is going to outline as briefly as
possible both in the name of the Netherlands Government and in its own
name the separate charges against this defendant. The part played by the
Defendant Seyss-Inquart, his participation in the annexation of Austria,
were carefully studied during the course of this Trial. But it is his
operations in Holland which deserve to be thrown into special relief
today.
On 13 May 1940 the Netherlands Government left Holland for a friendly
Allied country. Its presence there was indicative of its firm
determination not to yield up in any way its sovereign rights.