Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 6

FORTY-EIGHTH DAY Friday, 1 February 1946

Morning Session

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart will be absent from this morning's session on account of illness.

M. DUBOST: I have now completed my presentation of facts. This presentation has consisted of a dry enumeration of crimes, atrocities, extortions of all sorts, which I deliberately presented to you without any embellishments of oratory. The facts have a profound eloquence which suffices. These facts are, it seems to me, definitely established. I do not believe that the Defense, nor history-even German history-will be able to set aside their essential aspects. They will no doubt be exposed to criticism.

Our evidence was hastily collected in a ruined country whose every means of communication had been destroyed by an enemy in flight, in a country where each individual was more concerned with preparation for the future than with looking back upon the past, even to exact vengeance, for the future is the life of our children, and the past is but death and destruction.

For the whole of France, for each country in the West, the demands of daily life, the difficulty of preparing for a better future once again give full meaning to the words of the Scriptures, Sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos (Let the dead bury their dead.); and that is why in spite of all our efforts, all our endeavors, to prepare the work of justice which France and universal conscience demand, we were not able to be more thorough. That is why errors of detail may have slipped into our work, but the rectifications which time and the Defense will effect can be only accessory. They will not -eliminate the fact that millions of men have been deported, starved, exhausted through labor and privation before being put to death, like cattle without value; that innumerable innocent persons have been tortured before being turned over to the executioner. Rectifications may affect circumstances of time, sometimes of place; they will not change the essential facts even if a few details are modified.

But these facts, having been established in their general aspect, it remains for us to complete our task by giving them juridical significance, by analyzing them with reference to the law of which


1 Feb. 46

they constitute a violation, and by making clear the inculpations, in other words, by fixing the responsibilities of each defendant in respect to a law. What law shall we apply? Taken one by one and separated from the systematic policy which conceived, willed, and ordered them as a means of achieving domination through terror and beyond that as a means of extermination pure and simple; these facts constitute crimes against common law as much as violations of the laws and usages of war and of international law. All of them could therefore be defined separately as a violation of an international convention and of a penal provision of one or another of our established domestic laws. Or rather all could be qualified as a violation of a rule of common law which has emerged from each of our own domestic laws, as shown by M. De Menthon in his address; of that common law which, in the last analysis, was designated by him as being the foundation, as the root of international customs, which, beyond the Charter itself, is and remains the one and only guide of your decisions. But it is right to know that this common law springs from our established laws and, like them, punishes in principle actual misdeeds. Now, all of our defendants remained physically divorced from each of the criminal facts which in the ubiquity of their power they multiplied throughout the world. It was their will which commanded; but, as Mr. Justice Jackson recalled, they never reddened their own hands with the blood of their victims. Therefore, if we refer exclusively to our established laws and especially to French domestic law, the defendants could not, in any case, be considered as principal authors but merely as accomplices "who have provoked the act through abuse of authority or of power." All of that is indeed a contradiction to the conception which each person in our countries holds of the guilt of the major war criminals. To solve the problem thus would be to narrow singularly the field of responsibility of each of the defendants. This responsibility would appear merely accessory, where, in fact, it is the principal responsibility; it would appear fragmentary, whereas to be truly fixed it must be presented as one single time, in the whole of their thoughts, intentions, and acts as chiefs of the Nazi government who conceived, willed, ordered, or tolerated the development of that systematic policy of terror and extermination, of which each fact taken separately is but a particular aspect, merely a constituent element. Thus a simple reference to common law does not bring us close enough to reality. If it does not omit, as such, any of the facts to which guilt attaches, it does leave aside the psychological factor and does not give us a complete conception of the guilt of the accused in a single formula embracing all the reality. That is


1 Feb. 46

because common law expresses a certain status of common morality which is accepted by civilized nations as law for the mutual relations of citizens. Profoundly imbued with the concept of individualism, this common law is not adequate to meet the exigencies of collective life which international morality must govern. Furthermore, this common law which is the foundation of our tradition has become static in a Cartesian sense, whereas our custom remains enriched by all the dynamism of international penal law. The Charter has not fixed the manner in which we are to qualify in a juridical sense the facts which I have presented before you. In creating your Tribunal, the authors of the Charter limited themselves to establishing the limits of your jurisdiction: War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, Crimes against Peace; and even then they did not give an exhaustive definition of each of these crimes. The Tribunal may refer on this point to Article 6, paragraphs b and c of the Charter of the Tribunal. This article gives only an indicative enumeration. That is because the authors of the Charter bore in mind that international penal law is only still in the first phase of the birth of a custom in which law is developed by reaction to the deed and where the judge intervenes only to save the criminals from individual vengeance or where law is applied by the judge alone and the penalty pronounced according to his sole judgment. Thus, the authors of the Charter abstained from giving us a fixed method of qualification by reference to common law or on the contrary, to custom. They did not say to you:

"You will take one by one the criminal facts submitted to you, and each fact taken separately shall be isolated from the others to be defined by reference to a stipulation of any one domestic law or to a synthesis of domestic laws, yielding thus a common law."

Nor did they say to you:

"You will take these scattered criminal facts, you will group them together to make of them one single crime of which the definition, respecting in a general sense the rules of common law, will be essentially determined by the sole intention or purpose sought, without attempting to seek by analogy any precedents in the different domestic laws which apply only, moreover, to an entirely different subject."

The authors of the Charter have left you free, entirely free, within the limits of custom; and consequently we, ourselves, within the same limitations are free to propose to you such qualification which appears to us most practical, which appears to us to come closest to the changing reality of facts in their relation to the general principles of law and the broad rules of morality which may seem


1 Feb. 46

to us to be such as to meet best the demands of human conscience expressed by international public opinion duly enlightened on Hitlerian atrocities, which will, in fact, remain within the limits of international penal custom. This custom is indeed still in a formulative stage; but although this Trial is without precedent, the problems that are being examined in this Court have arisen before; and the jurists who preceded us have already given them solutions. These solutions constitute precedents; and, as such, they constitute the first elements of your custom. In their memorandum to the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Sanctions at the Peace Conference of 1919-1920 the French jurists, M. Larnaude and M. De Lapradelle wrote:

"Criminal law could not foresee that through a singular defiance of the essential laws of humanity, of civilization, of honor, an army, by virtue of the instructions of its sovereign, could systematically lend itself to perform deeds through the perpetration of acts such as the enemy has not shrunk from performing in order to achieve success and victory.' Therefore, domestic criminal law has never before been able to make provisions which would permit the repression of such acts. And still one must, in the interpretation of every law, cling to the intention of the law maker... If, in certain cases considered particularly propitious, one might succeed in apprehending individuals bearing responsibility of whom the Emperor could be considered an accomplice one would only succeed, and not without difficulty, in narrowing the field of his responsibility by limiting it to a few precise cases.... It is a very restricted approach to the problem of William II to diminish it and reduce it to the proportions of a criminal or a court-martial case.... The high justice which an anxious world awaits would not be satisfied if the German Emperor were judged only as an accomplice or even as the co-author of a common-law crime. His actions as Chief of State must be considered in conformity with their true juridical character ......

But except for minor details all of this is indeed implicitly contained in the last paragraph of Article 6 of the Charter of your Tribunal:

"Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes"-Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity-"are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan."


1 Feb. 46

Fundamentally, all this is within strict conformity with the primordial German concept of Fuehrertum, which places all responsibility on the leader and those who are with the leader from the very start. Thus we can, by con-ling as close as possible to reality, by applying the Charter of 8 August and Article 6 of the Charter of your Tribunal, by respecting the rules of common law defined by the chief of our delegation, M. De Menthon, and by following custom, which is sketched in the field of international penal law, require of your Tribunal to declare all the defendants guilty of having, in their role as the chief Hitlerian leaders of the German people, conceived, willed, ordained, or merely tolerated by their silence that assassinations or other inhuman acts be systematically committed, that violent treatment be systematically imposed on prisoners of war or civilians, that devastations without justification be systematically committed as a deliberate instrument for the accomplishment of their purpose of dominating Europe and the world through terrorism and the extermination of entire populations in order to enlarge the living space of the German people.

More specifically, we ask you to declare Goering, Keitel, and Jodl guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by ordering the seizure and the execution of hostages in violation of Article 50 of the Hague Convention which prohibits collective sanctions and reprisals.

We ask you to find Keitel, Jodl, Kaltenbrunner, Seyss-Inquart, Bormann, and Ribbentrop guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan:, 1. by ordering the terrorist murders of innocent civilians; 2. by ordering the execution without trial and torture to death of members of the resistance; 3. by ordering devastations without justification:

To declare Goering, Keitel, Jodl, Speer, and Sauckel guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by jeopardizing the health and the lives of prisoners of war, notably by submitting them to privations and hard treatments, by exposing them, or by attempting to expose them to bombings or other risks of war:

To declare Goering, Keitel, Jodl, Kaltenbrunner, and Bormann guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan, by personally ordering or by provoking the formulation of orders leading to terrorist murder or to the lynching by the population of certain combatants, more specifically, of airmen and members of commando groups as well as the terrorist murder or slow extermination of certain categories of prisoners of war:

To declare Keitel guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by prescribing the deportation of innocent civilians and by applying to some of them the NN (Nacht und Nebel) regime which marked them for extermination:


1 Feb. 46

To declare Jodl guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by ordering the arrest, with a view to deportation, of the Jews of Denmark:

To declare Frank, Rosenberg, Streicher, Von Schirach, Sauckel, Frick, and Hess guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan, by justifying the extermination of Jews or by working out a statute with a view to their extermination:

To declare Goering guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan: 1. by creating concentration camps and by placing them under the control of the State Police for the purpose of ridding National Socialism of any opposition; 2. by tolerating and then by approving fatal physiological experiments on the effect of cold, and of increasing or decreasing pressure, which experiments were carried out-with material provided by the Luftwaffe and controlled by Dr. Rascher, medical officer of the Luftwaffe detailed to the concentration camp of Dachau for that purpose-on healthy deportees who were involuntary subjects for the said experiments with which he Goering as chief, associated himself; 3. by utilizing in large numbers internees for exhausting labor under inhuman conditions in the armament factories of the Luftwaffe:

To find Speer guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by employing in large numbers the internees for exhausting labor under inhumane conditions in the armament factories (Document Number 1584-PS):

To find Bormann guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan by participating in the extermination of internees in concentration camps (Document Number 654-PS).

With regard to Doenitz, Raeder, Von Papen, Von Neurath, Fritzsche, Funk, and Schacht, we associate ourselves with the conclusion of our British and American colleagues. And in connection with the acts above defined, we ask you further, in accordance with the stipulation of Article 9 of the Charter of your Tribunal, to find the OKW and the OKH guilty of the execution of this plan by having ordered and participated in the deportation of innocent civilians from the occupied countries in the West:

To find the OKW, the OKH, and the OEM guilty of the execution of this plan by participating in the setting-up of the doctrine of hostages as a means to terrorize and by prescribing the seizure and execution of hostages in the countries of the West, by reducing to a degrading level the material living conditions of prisoners of war, by depriving the latter of the guarantees granted them by international custom and by positive international law, by ordering or by tolerating the employment of prisoners of war in dangerous work or in labor directly connected with military operations, by ordering the execution of escaped prisoners or prisoners attempting to escape,


1 Feb. 46

and the execution of numerous groups of commandos, and by giving the SS and SD directives for the extermination of airmen:

To find the OKL guilty of having participated in the execution of this plan: 1. by employing in large numbers internees in concentration camps for exhaustive labor under inhuman conditions in the armament factories of the Luftwaffe; 2. by participating in fatal physiological experiments on the effect of cold and of increasing or decreasing pressure, which experiments were carried out for the benefit of the Luftwaffe and conducted by Dr. Rascher, medical officer of the Luftwaffe, attached to the concentration camp -at Dachau (Documents 343-PS, 1610-PS, 669-PS, 1,90, 668-PS, UK-56, 835-PS, 834-PS, F-278 (B)):

To find the SS and the SD guilty of the execution of this plan by having deported and participated in the deportation of innocent civilians from the occupied countries in the West and by having tortured them and exterminated them by every means in concentration camps:

To find the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo guilty of the execution of this plan by having given direct orders for the execution or the deportation, with a view to their slow extermination, of members of commando groups, airmen, escaped prisoners, those who refused to accept forced labor, or those who were rebellious to the Nazi order; by forbidding any repression of acts of lynching committed by the German population on airmen brought down:

To find the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo guilty of having tortured and of having executed without trial members of the resistance:

To find the same organizations and in addition, the OKW and the OKH in collusion with the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo guilty of having committed or ordered massacres and devastations without justification (Documents 1063-PS, F-285, R-91, R-129, 1553-PS, L- 7, F-185(A)):

To find the Gestapo guilty of having participated in the execution of this plan by the deportation of innocent civilians from the occupied countries of the West by the tortures and assassinations which were inflicted on them:

To find the Government of the Reich (Reichsregierung) and the Leadership Corps of the National Socialist Party guilty of having, for the purpose of dominating Europe and the world, conceived and prepared the systematic extermination of innocent civilians from the occupied countries of the West through their deportation and their assassination in concentration camps:

To find the Leadership Corps of the National Socialist Party and the Government of the Reich guilty of having, for the purpose of dominating Europe and the world through terrorism, systematically


1 Feb. 46

conceived and provoked tortures, summary executions, massacres, and devastation without cause as described above:

To find the Government of the Reich and the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party guilty of having, for the purpose of dominating Europe and the world, conceived and prepared the extermination of combatants who had surrendered and the demoralization, extensive exploitation, and extermination of prisoners of war, and having participated in it.

Such are the juridical qualifications of the facts which I have the honor of submitting to you. But a few lessons emerge from these facts. May the Tribunal permit me to state them in conclusion.

For hundreds of years humanity has renounced the deportation of the vanquished, their enslavement, and their annihilation through misery, through hunger, steel, and fire. It is because a message of brotherhood had been given to the world, and the world could not entirely forget this message even in the midst of the horrors of war. From generation to generation we observed an upward effort ever since this message of peace had been given. We were confident that it was without any thought of regressing that man had taken the view of moral progress which formed a part of the common heritage of civilized nations. All nations revered, equally, good faith in relations among individuals. All of them had come to accept good faith as the law of their mutual relationship. International morality was little by little emerging and international relationship, like that between individuals, was more and more falling in line with the three precepts of the classical Roman jurists: "Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere." (Live honorably, inflict no harm on another, give each his due.)

Every civilized nation had been impregnated with a common humanism, growth of a long tradition, Christian and liberal. Based on this common heritage and achieved at the price of given experience, each nation, enlightened by the well-conceived interests of man, had understood or was coming to understand that in public as in private affairs loyalty, moderation, and mutual aid were golden rules which none could transgress indefinitely and with impunity.

The defeat, the catastrophe which has fallen upon Germany confirm us in this thought and give only more meaning and more clarity to the solemn warning addressed to the American people by President Roosevelt in his address on 27 May 1940:

"Although our Navy, our guns, and our planes are the first line of defense, it is certain that back of all of that there is the spirit and the morality of a free people which give to their material defense power, support, and efficiency...."

And in this struggle, the echoes of which are still rumbling in our ears, it was indeed those who could rest their strength upon law,


1 Feb. 46

nourish their force with justice, who won out. But because we have followed step by step the development of the criminal madness of the defendants and the consequences of that madness throughout these last years, we must conclude that the patrimony of man, of which we are the recipients, is frail indeed, that all kinds of regressions are possible, and that we must with care watch over their heritage. There is not a nation which, ill-educated, badly led by evil masters, would not in the long run revert to the barbarity of the early ages.

The German people whose military virtue we recognize, whose poets and musicians we love, whose application to work we admire, and who did not fail to give examples of probity in the most noble works of the spirit; this German people, which came rather late to civilization, beginning only with the eighth century, had slowly raised itself to the ranks of nations possessing the oldest culture. The contribution to modern or contemporary thought seemed to prove that this conquest of the spirit was final; Kant, Goethe, Johann Sebastian Bach belong to humanity just as much as Calvin, Dante, or Shakespeare; nevertheless, we behold the fact that millions of innocent men have been exterminated on the very soil of this people, by men of this people, in execution of a common plan conceived by their leaders, and this people made not a single effort to revolt.

This is what has become of it because it has scorned the virtues of political freedom, of civic equality, of human fraternity. This is what has become of it, because it forgot that all men are born free and equal before the law, that the essential action of a state has for its purpose the deeper and deeper penetration of a respect for spiritual liberty and fraternal solidarity in social relations and in international institutions.

It allowed itself to be robbed of its conscience and its very soul. Evil masters came who awakened its primitive passions and made possible the atrocities which I have described to you. In truth, the crime of these men is that they caused the German people to retrogress more than 12 centuries.

Their crime is that they conceived and achieved, as an instrument of government, a policy of terrorism toward the whole of the subjugated nations and toward their own people; their crime is that they pursued, as an end in itself, a policy of extermination of entire categories of innocent citizens. That alone would suffice to determine capital punishment. And still, the French Prosecution, represented by M. Faure, intends to present proof of a still greater crime, the crime of attempting "to obliterate from the world certain ideas which are called liberty, independence, security of nations, which are also called faith in the given word and respect for the human


1 Feb. 46

person," the crime of having attempted to kill the very soul, the spirit of France and other occupied nations in the West. We consider that to be the gravest crime committed by these men, the gravest because it is written in the Scriptures, Matthew, XII, 31-32:

"All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy unto the Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men,, Whosoever speaketh against the Spirit shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.... For the tree is known by its fruit. Race of vipers, how could ye speak good words when ye are evil ......

THE PRESIDENT: [To M. Faure of the French Delegation] Yes, M. Faure.

M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr. President, Honorable Judges, I have the honor of delivering to the Tribunal the concluding address of the French Prosecution. This presentation relates more particularly to the sections lettered (I) and (J) of Count Three of the Indictment: oath of allegiance and Germanization; and on the other hand to section (B) of Count Four, persecutions on political, racial, and religious grounds.

First of all I should like to present in a brief introduction the general ideas which govern, the plan of my final pleading. The concept of Germanization has been stated in the presentation of M. De Menthon. It consists essentially in imposing upon the inhabitants of occupied territories norms for their political and social life such as the Nazis had determined according to their own doctrine and for their own profit. The combined activities which carried out Germanization or which have Germanization for their purpose, and which are illegal, have been defined as a criminal undertaking against humanity. The complete process of Germanization was employed in certain territories to annex them to the Reich. The Germans intended even before the end of the war to incorporate these territories within their own country. These territories, annexed and then germanized. in an absolute manner, are the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Belgian Cantons of Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet, and the three French Departments of Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin and the Moselle.

These territories can be considered relatively small in comparison with the total area of the territories occupied by the Germans. This in no wise mitigates the reprehensible character of these annexations; moreover, we should note at this point two essential aspects of our subject.

The first proposition: The Germans had conceived and prepared more extensive annexations than those actually carried out in an


1 Feb. 46

official manner. For reasons of expediency, they did not proceed with these annexations during the period of time at their disposal.

The second proposition: Annexation, on the other hand, was not the unique or obligatory procedure of Germanization. The Nazis discovered that they could employ different and various means to achieve their purpose of universal domination. The selection of means which vary according to circumstances, to attain and to camouflage an identical result, was characteristic of what has been called Nazi Machiavellism. Their conception is technically much more pliable, more clever, and more dangerous than the classical conception of territorial conquest. In this respect the most brutal competitor has over them the advantage of candor.

To begin with I say that the Germans had formulated the plan to annex more extensive territory. Numerous indications point to this. I would like to give you only two citations.

The first of these is taken from the documentation collected by our colleagues of the American Prosecution, an American document which has not yet been submitted to the Tribunal. I should say in addition that in my final pleading I shall refer only twice to very remarkable American documents. All the other documents which I shall submit will be new ones belonging to the French Prosecution. The document of which I speak now is Number 1155-PS of the American documents, and it appears in the file of documents submitted to you under Number RF-601, which will become, may it please the Tribunal, that number in French documentation.

This document is dated Berlin, 20 June 1940. It bears the notation: "Top Secret Staff Document." Its title is: "Note for the Dossier on the Conference of 19 June 1940, at Headquarters of General Field Marshal Goering."

The notes which are -included in this document reflect, therefore, the views of the leaders and not individual interpretations. I would like to read to the Tribunal only Paragraph 6 of that document, which is to be found on Page 3. It is the first document bearing Number RF-601 (Document Number 1155-PS). I proceed with the reading of Paragraph 6, Page 3:

"General plans regarding the political development.

"Luxembourg is to be annexed by the Reich. Norway is to become German. Alsace-Lorraine is to be reincorporated into the Reich. An autonomous Breton state is to be created. Considerations are pending concerning Belgium, the special treatment of the Flemish in that country, and the creation of a State of Burgundy."

The second citation which I shall submit to the Tribunal on this point refers to a French document which I submit as Document


1 Feb. 46

Number RF-602. This document comprises the minutes of the interrogation of Dr. Globke, a former assistant of State Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Stuckart. It is dated 25 September 1945. This interrogation was taken by Major Graff of the French Judicial Service.

To the minutes of the interrogation has been added a memorandum which was delivered following the questioning by Dr. Globke. I read a passage from this interrogation, at the beginning of the document, Paragraph 1:

"Question: 'Have you any knowledge of plans which envisage the annexation of other French territories at the conclusion of peace between Germany and France? (Belfort, Nancy, Bassin de Briey, the coal fields of the North, the so-called "Red Zone", territory attached to the Government General of Belgium)

"Answer: 'Yes, those plans did exist. They were worked out by Dr. Stuckart, upon the personal instruction of the Fuehrer, and I have seen them. They were communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the OKW, and to the Armistice Commission in Wiesbaden. All these documents have been destroyed (Dr. Globke maintains). The State Secretary, M. Stuckart, was ordered to deliver a preliminary draft at the headquarters of the Fuehrer (End of 1940, before the launching of the Russian campaign).

"'After examination the Fuehrer considered the proposal was too moderate; and he ordered provisions for the incorporation of further territories, specifically those along the Channel.

"'Dr. Stuckart then prepared a second draft, with a map attached, on which the approximate borders were indicated. I have seen it, and I can show it to you roughly on a large-scale map of France. I do not know whether this second plan was approved by Hitler."'

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, did you tell us who Dr. Globke was?

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President,. he was the assistant of Dr. Stuckart, State Secretary in the Ministry of Interior. He styled himself in his interrogation "officer in charge of matters concerning Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg in the Ministry of the Interior, since 1940."

I now read a passage from the attached memorandum, This appears in your document book immediately after the passage I have just read. Still under Document Number RF-602, I now read Paragraph 6 of the memorandum in question; it is the beginning of the document before your eyes.


1 Feb. 46

"The plan of a new Franco-German border was elaborated upon in the Ministry of Interior by the State Secretary Dr. Stuckart, upon the order given to him by Hitler. This plan envisaged that the territory in the north and the east of France which, for historical, political, racial, geographical, or any other reasons ostensibly did not belong to western but to central Europe, should be given back to Germany. A first draft was submitted to Hitler at his general headquarters and it was approved by him in full. Hitler nevertheless wanted..."

DR. STAHMER: The Defense has not received these documents. Consequently, even today we are not in a position to follow the presentation. Above all, we are not in a position to check individually whether the validity of these documents really exists at all.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, is that correct, that none of these documents have been deposited in the Defense Information Center?

M. FAURE: They have been deposited with two photostatic copies in the document center of the defendants! counsel. Moreover, before I complete my statement, I think that the Defense Counsel win have full opportunity to study this very brief document and to make any observations which he may desire; but I can give you assurance that those documents were delivered.

THE PRESIDENT: What assurance can you give me that the orders which the Tribunal has given have been carried out?

M. FAURE: The documents have been delivered to the Defense Counsel in accordance with instruction and two photostatic copies have been delivered in the document room of the Defense. These documents are, moreover, in the German language, which should greatly facilitate the task of the Defense Counsel, as the interrogation was taken in the German language by an officer of the French Judiciary Services.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, did you hear what M. Faure said?

DR. STAHMER: I should certainly not raise any objections if these documents had actually been sent to our document room and put at our disposal. This morning I and several others looked into the matter and made an effort to determine whether the documents were really there. We could not find out. *Dr., Steinbauer and I went there; we could not find the documents. I shall go there again to see whether they may not have come in the meantime.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has stated on a variety of occasions that they attach a great importance to the documents being deposited in the defendants' Information Center and copies supplied in accordance with the regulations which they have laid down. Whether that has been done an this occasion, is disputed by Dr.


1 Feb. 46

Stahmer. The Tribunal proposes therefore to have the matter investigated as soon as possible and to see exactly whether the rules have been carried out or not. And in future they hope that they will be carried out with the greatest strictness. In the meantime, I think it will be most convenient for you to continue.

M. FAURE: The defendants' counsel tells me that the documents are in the Defense Counsel Room, but they have not yet been distributed. It can be seen, therefore, that the orders were fully respected; but because of the burden of work it may be that the Defense may not individually have received these documents. In any event, I am prepared to submit immediately to the Defense Counsel mainly concerned with this, photostatic copies which will enable them to follow my reading of the documents, which, incidentally, are quite brief.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will have the facts investigated by the Marshal. And in the meantime, you can continue. The Marshal of the Court will immediately find out and report to the Tribunal what the facts are about the deposition of the documents and the time at which they were deposited. In the meantime you can continue, and we shall be glad if you will assist the defendants' counsel by giving them any copies you may have available.

M. FAURE: I was reading then, Document Number RF-602, the attached memorandum. If the Tribunal wishes to follow the reading of this document will it kindly take the book entitled "Expose" or "Presentation," and turn to Page 6 thereof. The passage which I am now coming to is the last paragraph of Page 6. "Introduction-Expose," Page 6, third and last paragraph, I am continuing:

"A first draft was submitted to Hitler at his general headquarters and was approved by him as a whole; but, nevertheless, he called for an enlargement of the territory falling to Germany, in particular, along the Channel coast. The final draft was to serve as the basis for future discussions with the administrative departments, concerned. These discussions did not take place. The intended frontier followed approximately a course beginning at the mouth of the Somme, turning eastward along the northern edge of the Paris Basin and Champagne to the Argonne, then bent to the south crossing Burgundy, and westward of the Franche-Comte, reaching the Lake of Geneva. For some districts alternative solutions were suggested."

These German plans were indicated on several occasions by specific measures having to do with the territories in question, measures which might be designated preannexation measures.


1 Feb. 46

I come now to the second proposal which I referred to a while ago. With or without annexation, the Germans had in mind to take and maintain under their domination all the occupied countries. As a matter of fact their determination was to germanize and to nazify all of Western Europe and even the African Continent. This intention appears from the very fact of the conspiracy which has been laid bare before the Tribunal so completely by my colleagues of the American Prosecution. That will also be shown by the applications made of it, of which the principal ones will be retraced in this concluding address.

I merely want to recall to the Tribunal this general point that the plan for Germanic predominance is defined according to the German interpretation itself in a public diplomatic document, which is the Tripartite Pact of 27 September 1940 between Germany, Italy, and Japan. In this connection I would like to quote before the Tribunal a few sentences of a comment made upon this treaty by an official German author, Von Freytagh-Loringhoven, a member of the Reichstag, who wrote a book on German foreign policy from 1933 to 1941. This book was published in a French translation in Paris at the publishing house of Sorlot, during the occupation.

I do not want to submit this as a document, but merely as a quotation from a published work, a book, which is here in your hands. I read from Page 311:

"This treaty granted Germany and Italy a dominant position in the new European order, and it accorded Japan a similar role in the area of eastern Asia."

I am now skipping a sentence that has no significance.

"At first glance, one could realize that the Tripartite Pact had in mind a double purpose."

I shall skip the following sentence which is without interest, and I go to the sentence dealing with the second purpose:

"Moreover, it entrusted the parties with a mission for the future, that is to say, the establishment of a new order in Europe and eastern Asia.

"Without seeking to lessen the importance of the first question, there can be no doubt that this second purpose, dealing with the future, involved vaster projects and was, in fact, the principal point. For the first time in an international treaty, in the Tripartite Pact, the terms 'space' and 'orientation were used linking one with the other."

I now go to Page 314 where the author makes a remark which appears to me to be significant:


1 Feb. 46

"Now, the Tripartite Pact places a clear delimitation of the wider spaces created by nature on our globe. The concept of space, it is true, is employed explicitly only for the Far East, but it is equally applicable to Europe and that within this conception Africa is comprised. The latter is certainly politically and economically a complement, or if one wishes, an annex of Europe. Moreover, it is obvious that the Tripartite Pact fixes the limits of the two great regions or spaces reserved for the partners, that the pact tacitly recognizes the third area, that is Asia, properly speaking, and that it leaves aside the fourth, the American Continent, thus leaving the latter to its own destiny. In this way the whole surface of the globe is concerned; and an idea, which as yet has not been considered except in theory, was given the significance of a political principle derived from international law."

I have felt that this text was of interest because, on the one hand, it clarifies the fact that the African Continent is itself included in the space reserved to the German claimants, and on the other, it states that the government of such an immense space by Germany constitutes international law. This pretense of acting juridically is one of the characteristics of the undertaking to germanize the world from 1940 to 1945. It is undoubtedly one of the reasons which inspired Nazi Germany to proceed only on rare occasions by the annexation of territories.

Annexation is not indispensable for the domination of a great area. It can be replaced by other methods which correspond rather accurately to the usual term of "vassalization."

THE PRESIDENT: Do you not think this will be a convenient time to break off?

[A recess was taken.]

M. FAURE: Mr. President, before resuming my brief, I should like to ask the Tribunal if they could agree to hear, during the afternoon session, a witness who is M. Reuter, President of the Chamber of Luxembourg.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, M. Faure, if that is convenient to you, the Tribunal is quite willing to hear the witness you name.

M. FAURE: I propose on those conditions to have him heard at the beginning of the second part of the afternoon session.

I pointed out a moment ago that the different methods of disguised annexation can correspond to the term "vassalization." From a German author I shall borrow a formula which is eloquent.


1 Feb. 46

It is Dr. Sperl, in an article in the Krakauer Zeitung, who used this expression: "A differentiation in methods of German domination." In using, thus, indirect and differentiated methods of domination, the Germans acted in political matters, as we have seen before, in the same way as they acted in economic matters. I had the opportunity to point out to the Tribunal, in my first brief, that the Germans immediately seized the keys of economic life. If you will permit me to use this Latin expression, I shall say as far as sovereignty in the occupied countries is concerned, they insured for themselves the power of the keys, "potestas clavium." They seized the keys of sovereignty in each country. In that fashion, without being obliged to abolish officially national sovereignty as in the case of annexation, they were able to control and direct the exercise of this sovereignty.

Beginning with these principle ideas, the plan of my brief was conceived as follows:

In the first chapter I shall examine the regime in annexed territories where national sovereignty was abolished. In a second chapter I shall examine the mechanism of the seizure of sovereignty for the benefit of the occupying power in the regions which were not annexed. Then it will be suitable to examine the results of these usurpations of sovereignty and the violation of the rights of the population which resulted from them. I thought It necessary that I should group these results by dealing with the principal ones in a third and fourth chapter. The third chapter will be devoted to spiritual Germanization, that is, to the propaganda in the very extensive sense that the German concept gives to this term. Chapter four, and the last, will bear the heading, "The Administrative Organization of Criminal Action."

I would now like to point out, as far as the documentation of my brief is concerned, I have forced myself to limit the number of texts which will be presented to the Tribunal; and I shall attempt to make my quotations as short as possible. For the fourth chapter, for example, I might point out that the French Delegation examined more than 2,000 documents, counting only the original German documents, of which I have kept only about fifty.

I should like also to point out to the Tribunal how the documents will be presented in the document books which you have before you. The documents are numbered at the top of the page to the right; they are numbered in pencil and correspond to the order in which I shall quote them. Each dossier has a pagination which begins with the number 100.

I would ask the Tribunal now to take up the document book entitled: "The Annexed Territories of Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet."


1 Feb. 46

In carrying out, without any attempt or cloak of legality, the annexation of occupied territories, Germany did something much more serious than violating the rules of law. It is the negation of the very idea of international law. The lawyer, Bustamante y Sirven, in his treatise on international law expresses himself in the following terms regarding this subject:

"It can be observed that never have we alluded at any moment to the hypothesis that an occupation terminates because the occupying power takes possession of the occupied territory through his military forces and without any convention. The motive for this mission is very simple and very clear. Since conquest cannot be considered as a legitimate mode of acquisition, these results are uniquely the result of force and can be neither determined nor measured by the rules of law."

On the other hand, I have said just now that Germanization did not necessarily imply annexation. Inversely, we might conceive that annexation did not necessarily mean Germanization. We shall prove to the Tribunal that annexation was only a means, the most brutal one of Germanization, that is to say, nazification.

The annexation of the Belgian cantons of Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet was made possible by a German law of 18 May 1940 and was the subject of an executive decree of 23 May 1940. These are public regulations, which were published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, Pages 777 and 804. 1 should like to ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this.

As a result of this decree the three Belgian districts were attached to the province of the Rhineland, district of Aachen.

A decree dated 24 September 1940 installed local German government and German municipal laws. A decree of 28 July 1940 introduced the German judicial system in these territories. Local courts were established in Malmedy, in Eupen and St. Vith, and district courts at Aachen, which could judge cases on equality with the local courts.

The Court of Appeal of Cologne replaced the Belgian Court of Cassation for cases where the latter would have been competent. German law was introduced in these territories by the decree of 23 May 1940, signed by Hitler, Goering, Frick, and Lammers and was effective as from September 1940.

A decree of 3 September 1940 regulates the details of the transition of Belgian law into German law in the domains of private law, commercial law, and law of procedure.

By the decree of annexation German nationality was conferred upon the inhabitants of German racial origin in this Belgian


1 Feb. 46

territory. The details of this measure were specified and stipulated by the decree of 23 September 1941. All persons who had acquired Belgian nationality as a result of the ceding of these territories could, according to the terms of the decree, resume their German nationality, with the exception, however, of Jews and Gypsies. All the other inhabitants, on condition that they were racially German, could acquire German nationality, which might be revoked after 10 years.

I shall not take up at great length the situation which resulted from the annexation of these Belgian territories, for the developments of the situation are analogous to those which we shall examine in the other countries. I simply would like to point out a special detail of this subject: A law of 4 February 1941, signed by Hitler, Goering." Frick, and Lammers granted the citizens of Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet representation in the Reichstag, that is to say, the benefits of the German parliamentary regime, the democratic character of which is known.

I shall ask the Tribunal to now take up the file entitled "Alsace and Lorraine." There is a file, "Expose," and a file, "Documents."

Contrary to what took place in the Belgian cantons the Germans did not officially proclaim by law the annexation of the three French departments which constitute Alsace and Lorraine.' The fact of this annexation, however, is in no way doubtful. I should like to remind the Tribunal here of extracts from a document which has already been submitted to it, which is Document Number RF-3 of the French documentation. It concerns a deposition made before the French High Court of Justice, by the French Ambassador, Leon Noel, who was a member of the Armistice Delegation. I did not put this document in your book because I shall cite only one sentence from it. The document has already been submitted to the Tribunal, as I have just said.

Ambassador Noel, in this document, pointed out the conversations which he had at the time of the signing of the Armistice Convention with the German representatives, notably with the accused Keitel and Jodl. The sentence which I would like to remind the Tribunal of is as follows:

"...and likewise, in thinking of Alsace and Lorraine, I required them to say that the administrative and judicial authorities of the occupied territories would keep their positions and functions and would be able to correspond freely with the government." The affirmations are dated 22 June 1940.

I am now going to submit to the Tribunal a document of 3 September 1940, which is a note of protest of the French Delegation, addressed to the Armistice Commission. I submit this to the


1 Feb. 46

Tribunal in order that the Tribunal may see that during the period which. elapsed between these two dates, a period which covers barely 2 months, the Nazis had applied a series of measures which created, in an incontestable manner, a state of annexation.

This document which I submit bears the Number RF-701 of the French documentation. It is the first document of the document book which the Tribunal has before it. All the documents in this chapter will bear numbers beginning with the Number 7, that is to say, beginning with RF-701.

This document comes from the file of the French High Court of Justice, and the copy submitted to the Tribunal has been certified by the clerk of this jurisdiction. I should like to quote from this document, beginning with the fourth paragraph on Page 1 of the Document Number RF-701:

"1. Prefects, subprefects, and mayors, as well as a number of local officials whose tendencies were considered suspicious, have been evicted from their respective offices.

" 2. Monseigneur Heintz, bishop appointed under the Concordat to Metz, was driven from his diocese. Several members of the clergy, secular as well as regular, were also expelled under the pretext that, they were French in tongue and mentality.

"3. Monseigneur Ruch, the bishop appointed under the Concordat to Strasbourg, was forbidden to enter his diocese and, consequently, to resume his ministry.

"4. M. Joseph Burckel was appointed on 7 August, Gauleiter of Lorraine and M. Robert Wagner, Gauleiter of Alsace. The first of these provinces was attached to the Gau of SaarPalatinate; the second to the Gau of Baden.

"5. Alsace and Lorraine were incorporated in the civil administration of Germany. The frontier and custom police were then placed on the western limits of these territories.

"6. The railroads were incorporated in the German network.

"7. The post office, telegraph, and telephone administration was taken over by the German postal authorities, who gradually substituted their own personnel for the Alsatian personnel.

" 8. The French language was eliminated, not only in administrative life but also from public use.

"9. Names of localities were germanized.

"10. The racial legislation of Germany was introduced into the country; and as a result of this measure, the Jews were expelled as well as nationals which the German authorities considered to be intruders.


1 Feb. 46

"11. Only the Alsatians and Lorrainers who agreed to consider themselves as being of German stock were permitted to return to their homes.

"12. The property of associations of a political character and of Jews was confiscated as well as property acquired after 11 November 1918 by French persons.

"Nothing illustrates better the spirit which animates these measures, in themselves arbitrary, than the words pronounced publicly 16 July at Strasbourg by M. Robert Wagner. Stressing the elimination of all elements of foreign stock or nationality which was taking place, this high official affirmed that the purpose of Germany was to settle once and for all the Alsatian question.

"Such a policy, which could not be the function of subordinate occupational authorities, was equivalent to disguised annexation and is strictly contrary to agreements subscribed to by Germany at Rethondes."

Numerous protests were subsequently lodged by the French Delegation. We have attached to our Me a list of these protests; there are 62 of them. This list is found in the book under the Document Number RF-702.

The development of the German policy may now be studied through three series of measures which were carried out. First, a body of measures destined to assure the elimination of what can be called the French complex, that is to say, of everything which can tie an inhabitant of an annexed country to his way of life and to his national tradition. Second, a body of measures destined to impose German standards in all domains of life of the population. Third, the measures of transportation and of colonization. We use here the German terminology.

First, elimination of the French complex.

The elimination of French nationality and of French law resulted automatically from the measures which we shall study relative to the imposition of German standards. I should like to point out particularly, that the Germans tried to fight against an elements of French organization which might have survived the suppression of their national juridical conditions.

At first they proscribed, in an extraordinarily brutal way, the use of the French language. Several regulations were formulated relative to this. I shall cite only the third regulation, bearing the date of 16 August 1940, entitled, "Concerning the Reintroduction of the Mother Tongue." This document is published in the Journal of German Ordinances or Decrees of 1940, (Verordnungsblatt) on Page 2. It bears Document Number RF-703. The Tribunal will


1 Feb. 46

find it in the document book after the Document Number 702, which is the list of French protests. I should like to read a large part of this document, which is interesting; and I shall start at the beginning:

"Following the measures undertaken with a view of reintroducing the mother tongue of the Alsatian people, I decree as follows:

"1. Official Language.

"All public services in Alsace, including administration of communes, of corporations within the meaning of civil law, public establishments, churches, and foundations, as well as tribunals, will use exclusively the German language orally and in writing. The Alsatian population will use exclusively its German mother tongue in both oral and written applications to the above establishments.

"2. Christian and Family Names.

"Christian names will be exclusively used in their German form orally and in writing, even when they have been inscribed in the French language on the birth register. As soon as this present decree comes into force, only German Christian names may be inscribed upon the birth register. Alsatians who bear French Christian names, which do not exist in German form, are asked to apply for a change of their Christian names in order to show their attachment to, Germanism. The same holds good for French family names."

I shall skip the following sentence and go to Paragraph 4:

"4. It is forbidden to draw up, in the French language, contracts and accounts under private seal of whatever nature they may be. Anything printed on business paper and on forms must be drawn up in the German language. Books and accounts of all business firms, establishments, and companies must be kept in the German language.

"5. Inscriptions in Cemeteries.

"In the future, inscriptions on crosses and on tombstones can be written only in the German language. This provision applies as well to a new inscription as to the renewal of old inscriptions."

These measures were accompanied by a press campaign. Because of the resistance of the population, this campaign was carried on throughout the occupation.

I should like to make one citation of an article which is particularly significant, published in the Dernieres Nouvelles de Strasbourg on 30 March 1943. This is not introduced as a document; it is a quotation of a published article. When we read such


1 Feb. 46

an article, we think it at first a joke; but we see, subsequently, that it is serious because repressive measures had to be taken against people who sabotaged the German language. I cite:

"Germans greet one another with 'Heil Hitler.' We do not want any more French greetings, which we still hear constantly in a thousand different forms. The elegant salutation 'Bonjour' is not made for these rough Alsatian throats, accustomed to the German tongue since the distant epoch of Osfried von Weissenburg. The Alsatian hurts our ears when he says 'boschurr.' When he says 'Au Revoir,' the French think they are listening to an Arabic word, which sounds like 'arwar.' Sometimes they say 'Adje' (Adieu).

"These phonetic monstrosities which disfigure our beautiful Alsatian-Germanic dialect resemble a thistle in a flower bed. Let us weed them out! They are not worthy of Alsace. Do you believe feminine susceptibility is wounded by saying 'Frau' instead of 'Madame'? We are sure that Alsatians will drop the habit of linguistic whims so that the authorities will not have to use rigorous measures against saboteurs of the German language."

After this attack on the language, the National Socialists attacked music. This is the purpose of a decree of 1 March 1941, signed by Dressler, the Chief of the Department of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda in the Office of the Chief of Civil Administration for Alsace.

This is Document Number RF-704, published in the German Official Journal (Verordnungsblatt) Page 170 of the year 1941. 1 shall simply cite the title of this decree: "Decree Concerning Undesirable and Injurious Music." The first 3 lines are:

"Musical works contrary to the cultural will of National Socialists will be entered on a list of undesirable and injurious music by the Department for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda."

After music, now, we have the question of hairdress. In this regulation the ridiculous constantly disputes supremacy with the odious. I would almost like to ask the Tribunal to pardon me, but, truly, nothing in this is invented by us.

Here is Document Number RF-705. It is a decree of 13 December 1941 published in the Official Bulletin of 1941, Page 744. This Document RF-705 concerns the wearing of French berets (Basque berets) in Alsace. I read only the first paragraph:

"The wearing of French berets (Basque berets) is forbidden in Alsace. Under this prohibition are included all berets which by form or appearance resemble French berets."


1 Feb. 46

I may add that any violation of this decree was punishable by fine or imprisonment.

The leaders also undertook a long struggle against French flags -which the inhabitants kept in their houses. I cite as an example Document Number RF-706, a German administrative document which we found in the archives of the Gau Administration of Strasbourg. It is dated 19 February 1941. 1 read 3 paragraphs of this document.

"The Gauleiter desires that the Alsatian population be recommended by the organization of the Block- and Zellenleiter to rip up the French flags still in possession of the people and to use them in a suitable way for household needs.

"By the 1st of next May no French Rag should be in private hands. This goal should be attained in a way by which the Blockleiter are to visit each household and recommend the families to use the flags for household needs. It should also be pointed out that after the 1st of next May corresponding conclusions shall be drawn concerning the attitude of owners if, after this date, French flags are still found in private possession."

The following document is our Document Number RF-707, which is also an administrative memorandum on the same subject, dated Strasbourg, 26 April 1941, of which I should simply like to read the last sentence:

"If, after I June 1941, Alsatians are found still to have French flags in their possession, they are to be sent to a concentration camp for one year."

The Nazis feared French influence to such a degree that they even took a special measure to prevent the coming to Alsace of French workers among the laborers brought into this territory for compulsory labor service. This is the purpose of a memorandum of 7 September 1942 of the civil administration in Alsace, which is our Document Number RF-708, also found in the archives of the Gauleitung of Strasbourg. I read the first few lines of this Document Number RF-708.

"Given the general situation of the labor market, the Chief of the Civil Administration in Alsace has decided that foreign labor from all European countries could, in the future, be used in Alsace. There is but one exception, for French and Belgians, who cannot be employed in Alsace . . ."
The German undertaking against the French sentiment of Alsatians ...

THE PRESIDENT: The translation which came through to me came to me as "must." It came through that the foreign workers of


1 Feb. 46

all countries of Europe must, in the future, be used. The word is "pouvait." That does not mean "must," does it? It is "pouvait." Does not that mean "could"?

M. FAURE: "Could," according to necessity. The interesting aspect is that those who are French may not work there, even if labor is needed in Alsace.

The German undertaking against the French sentiments of the Alsatians found its complementary aspect in the attempt also to destroy, on the outside, anything which might be an indication of Alsace belonging to the motherland, France. I shall cite one example in relation to this point. This is our Document Number RF-709.

It is a letter of the German Embassy in Paris, 7 May 1941, which is reproduced in a memorandum of the French Delegation, which is found in the archives of the government. I read this Document Number RF-709, which is short:

"The German Embassy has the honor to point out the following to the General Delegation of the French Government in occupied territory:

"The German Embassy has been informed that in a series of reports on a theme concerning the fatherland, a French radio station in the unoccupied territory, on 16 or 17 April 1941, about 2100 hours, is said to have made a broadcast about the village of Brumath.

"As Brumath, near Strasbourg, is in a German language territory, the German Embassy requests that they inform it if such a broadcast was actually made."

There exist numerous claims and protests of this kind, which fortunately have often an anecdotal character. We must now cite two especially serious cases, for they included assault, flagrant violations of sovereignty, and even crime.

The first case concerns the seizure and profanation of the treasure of the Cathedral of Strasbourg. I shall submit, concerning this subject, Document Number RF-710, which is a letter of protest of 14 August 1943 written by General Berard, President of the French Delegation of the Armistice Commission. I read the beginning of the letter and repeat that the date is 14 August 1943:

"Dear General,

"From the beginning of the war, the treasure of Strasbourg Cathedral and the property of certain parishes of this diocese had been entrusted by Monseigneur Ruch, Bishop of Strasbourg, to the Beaux-Arts Department. This department had put them in a safe place in the castles of Hautefort and of Bourdeilles in Dordogne, where they still were on the date of 20 May 1943.


1 Feb. 46

"The treasure and this property included, in particular, the pontificalia reserved for the exclusive use of the Bishop, several of which were his personal property, the relics of saints, vessels, or objects for the performance of ceremonies.

"After having sought on several occasions-but in vain-to obtain the consent of Monseigneur Ruch, the Ministerial Counsellor Kraft, on 20 May, requested not only the prefect of Dordogne, but also the director of religious matters, for authority to remove the objects deposited. Faced with the refusal of these high officials, he declared that the repatriation to Alsace of the property of the Catholic Church would be entrusted to the Sicherheitspolizei.

"As a result, at dawn on 21 May, the castles of Hautefort and Bourdeilles were opened and occupied by troops, despite the protests of the guardian. The sacred objects were placed in trucks and taken to an unknown destination.

"This seizure, moreover, was extended to consecrated vessels and ceremonial objects and the relics of saints worshipped by the faithful. The seizure of these sacred objects by laymen not legally authorized and the conditions under which the operation was carried out aroused the emotion and unanimous reprobation of the faithful."

Relative to this document I would like to emphasize to the Tribunal one fact which we shall find frequently hereafter, and which is, in our opinion, very important in this Trial. It is the constant interference and collaboration of different or diverse German administrations. Thus, the Tribunal must through this document see that Ministerial Counsellor Kraft, belonging to the civilian service dealing with national education, appeals to the police of the SS to obtain objects which he cannot obtain through his own efforts.

The second case which I would like to cite concerns the University of Strasbourg. From the beginning of the war the University of Strasbourg, which was one of the finest in France, had withdrawn to Clermont-Ferrand to continue its teaching there. After the occupation of Alsace and since this occupation really meant annexation, it was not reinstated in Strasbourg and remained in its city of refuge. The Nazis expressed their great disapproval of this in numerous threatening memoranda.

We would like to submit Document Number RF-711 relative to this. In this document we shall again come across the Ministerial Counsellor, Herbert Kraft, about whom I spoke in the preceding document. The document, which I submit, bears the Document Number RF-711 and is an original signed by Kraft. It was found in


1 Feb. 46

the archives of the German Embassy. In this memorandum, which is dated 4 July 1941, Counsellor Kraft expresses his disappointment at the result of steps which he had undertaken with the Rector of the University of Strasbourg, M. Danjon.

I believe that it is adequate if I read a very short passage of this memorandum in order to show the insolence and the threatening methods which the Germans used, even in the part of France which was not yet occupied. The passage which I am going to read will be the last paragraph on Page 2 of Document Number RF-711. Mr. Kraft relates the end of his conversation with the rector. I cite:

"I cut off the conversation, rose, and asked him, by chance, whether the decisions of Admiral Darlan did not represent for him an order from his government. As I went out I added, 'I hope that you will be arrested.' He ran after me, made me repeat my remark, and called out, ironically, that this would be a great honor for him."

This document gives an amusing impression, but the matter as a whole was very serious.

The 15th of June 1943 the German Embassy wrote a note which I submit as Document Number RF-712. This document is an extract from the archives of the High Court of Justice, and has been certified by the clerk of that jurisdiction. Here is the text of this Document RF-712. I shall not read the beginning of the document:

"The German Embassy considers it very desirable to find a solution of the affair of the University of Strasbourg at Clermont- Ferrand.

"We would be happy to learn that no further publication would appear under the heading 'University of Strasbourg' so that new disagreements may not result from publications of that kind.

"The German Embassy has taken note of the fact that the Ministry of National Education will no longer fill vacant professorial chairs.

"Furthermore, it is requested that in the future no examination certificates be awarded under the title 'University of Strasbourg.'"

I must, in concluding this subject of the University of Strasbourg, point out to the Tribunal a fact which is notorious, that is that Thursday, 25 November 1943, the German police took possession of the buildings of the University of Strasbourg, in Clermont- Ferrand, arrested the professors and students, screened


1 Feb. 46

them, and deported a great number of persons. During this operation, they even shot at two professors; one was killed and the other seriously wounded.

I will be able to produce a document relative to this; but I think that is not indispensable, since there are no proofs for the Prosecution that these murders were committed under orders which definitely show governmental responsibility.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, did you say that you had or had not got proof of the facts that you have just stated about the seizure of the property of the university?

M. FAURE: I said this, Mr. President: We consider that these facts are facts of public knowledge; but because of the interpretation which was given by the Tribunal, I have considered that it would be better to prove it by a document. As this document. was not added to my file at that time, this document will. be submitted as an appendix. I am going to read a passage of this document; but I should like to explain that it is not found in its proper place, as I added it to the brief after the statement of the Tribunal the other day on the interpretation of facts of "public knowledge."

THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.

Tomorrow being Saturday, the Tribunal will sit from 10 o'clock in the morning until I o'clock. We will then adjourn.

DR. KAUFFMANN: It was said that this afternoon there will be a witness. I would like to ask that this testimony be postponed to another day. I believe that we have reached a so-called silent agreement that we shall be notified in advance as to whether there will be witnesses and what the subject of their evidence will be.

I do not know whether there will be cross-examination; but the possibility exists, of course, and pertinent questions can only be put when we know, first of all, who the witness is to be, and secondly, what the subject will be on which the witness is to be cross- examined, perhaps just a clue.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think it is necessary to postpone the evidence of this witness. As a matter of courtesy on the part of the Prosecution, it would be well, perhaps, but the subject matter-not necessarily the name, but the subject matter upon which the witness is to give evidence-should be communicated to the Defense so that they may prepare themselves upon, that subject matter for any cross-examination.

I understand that this afternoon you propose to call. a witness. who will deal with the circumstances in respect to the German. occupation of Luxembourg. That is right, is it not?


1 Feb. 46

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you will give the defendants' counsel the subject matter upon which they can prepare themselves for .cross-examination. I am told that this subject matter has already been communicated to the defendants and is on their bulletin board at the present moment.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]


1 Feb. 46

Afternoon Session

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Seyss-Inquart, and Streicher will be absent from this afternoon's session on account of illness.

THE PRESIDENT: The question which was raised this morning about certain documents has been investigated, and the Tribunal understands that the documents were placed in the Defense Counsel's Information Center yesterday; but it may be that the misunderstanding arose owing to those documents not having been in any way indexed, and it would, I think, be very helpful to the Defense Counsel if Prosecuting Counsel could, with the documents, deposit also some sort of index which would enable the Defense Counsel to find the documents.

M. FAURE: It is understood that we shall present a table of contents of the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: I think if you could, yes.

M. FAURE: Your Honors, I was speaking this morning of the incident which occurred at the Strasbourg faculty in Clermont- Ferrand, on 25 November 1943. 1 pointed out to the Tribunal that I shall produce to this effect a document. This document has not been classified in the document book, and I shall ask the Tribunal to accept it as an annex number or as the last document of this book, if that is agreeable.

This is a report of M. Hoeppfner, Dean of the Faculty of Letters, established on 8 January 1946, and transmitted from Lorraine to the French Prosecution. I should like simply to read to the Tribunal, in order not to take up too much of its time, the two passages which constitute the texts which were submitted to it as an appendix.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the original document here?

M. FAURE: Yes, Your Honor.

"It is the 25th of November' 1943, a Thursday. The 10 o'clock class is drawing to an end. As I come out of the room, a student posted at a window in the hall signals me to approach and shows me in the inner court in front of the Department of Physics a Wehrmacht soldier with helmet, boots, a submachine gun in his arm, mounting guard. 'Let us try to flee.' Too late. At the same moment, wild cries arise from all directions-the corridors, the stairways are filled with the sound of heavy boots, the clanking of weapons, fierce cries, a frantic shuffling. A soldier rushes down the hall shouting, 'Everybody in the courtyard-tell the others! Naturally, everyone understood."


1 Feb. 46

Second passage:

"One of our people, Paul Collomp, was cold-bloodedly murdered with a shot in the chest, and an eyewitness confirms the fact. Alas, it is only too true. Asked to leave the Secretariat where he was, Collomp no doubt obeyed too slowly to suit the policeman, for the latter gave him a violent blow on the back; instinctively, our colleague turned around, and the other then fired a shot directly into his chest. Death was almost immediate, but the body was left lying there alone until that evening. Another rumor reached us. We didn't know from where. A colleague in Protestant Theology, M. Eppel, was apparently also shot down, in his own house, where they had gone to look for him, He received, as was later learned, several bullet shots in the abdomen but miraculously recovered and even survived the horrors of Buchenwald Camp."

As I indicated to the Tribunal this morning, I wish to say that the Prosecution has no proof that such crimes were due to a German governmental order; but I believe that it is nevertheless interesting to advise the Tribunal of this last episode in the German undertakings against the University of Strasbourg, for the episode constitutes the sequel and, in a sense, the climax of the preceding incidents. We have seen, indeed, that German procedure began at first regularly and that after these regular procedures it reached the stage of recourse to the police. Brutality and violation accompanied this recourse.

I wish to advise you that this document which I have just read bears the Document Number RF-712 (bis).

I come now to the second part of this subject, which is the imposition of German standards. The leaders of the Reich began by organizing a specifically German administration. I already indicated a while ago the appointment of Gauleiter as heads of the civil administration. I continue on this point by producing as Document Number RF-713 the Ordinance of 28 August 1940, Official Gazette of the Reich, 1940, Page 22. The Ordinance is entitled: "Concerning the Introduction of the German Regime in Alsace." I shall not read this Ordinance. I simply indicate that its object is to put into effect, from I October 1940 on, the German municipal regime of 30 January 1935.

The text and the organization show that the territories annexed were reorganized on the basis of German administrative concepts. At the head of each district (arrondissement) we no longer have a French subprefect but a Landkommissar, who has under his orders the different offices of Finance, Labor, School Inspection, Commerce, and Health. The large towns, the chief towns of arrondissements


1 Feb. 46

and even of cantons, were endowed with a Stadtkommissar instead of, and replacing, the mayors and elected counsellors, who had been eliminated. The judicial offices were attached to the court of appeals in Karlsruhe. The economic departments and, in particular, the chambers of commerce were run by the representatives of the chambers of commerce of Karlsruhe for Alsace and of Saarbrucken for Moselle.,

After having germanized the forms of administrative activity, the Germans undertook to germanize the staffs. They nominated numerous German officials to posts of authority. They attempted, moreover, on a number of occasions, to make the officials who had remained in office sign declarations of loyalty to the Germans. These attempts, however, met with a refusal from the officials. They were therefore renewed on a number of occasions in different forms. We have recovered from the archives of the Gauleiter of Strasbourg 8 or 10 *different formulas for these declarations of loyalty. I shall produce one of these for the Tribunal, by way of example.

This is Document Number RF-714. It is the formula for the new declaration which the officials are obliged to sign if they wish to retain their positions:

"Name and first name, grade and service, residence.

"I have been employed from 1940 to this date in the public service of the German administration in Alsace. During this period I have had, from my own observation as well as from the Party and the authorities, verbally and in writing, occasion to learn the obligations of a German official and the requirements which are exacted of him from a political and ideological point of view. I approve these obligations and these requirements without reservation and am resolved to be ruled by them in my personal and professional life. I affirm my adherence to the German people and to the National Socialist ideals of Adolf Hitler."

Along with the administration, properly speaking, the Nazis set up in Alsace the parallel administration of the National Socialist Party, as well as that of the Arbeitsfront, which was the sole labor organization.

German currency legislation was introduced in Alsace on 19 October and in Lorraine on 25 October 1940. The Reichsmark became thenceforth the legal means of payment in the annexed territory. The German judicial organization was introduced by a series of successive measures leading up to the decree of 30 September 1941 concerning the simplification of the judicial organization in Alsace. I produce this ordinance as Document Number RF-715, without reading it.


1 Feb. 46

In regard to the teaching system, the German authorities established a series of regulations and ordinances which were aimed at assuring the unification of the Alsatian school system with the German teaching system. I shall simply mention the dates

of the principal texts, which we produce as documents, and which are of a public nature, since they were all published in the Official Gazette of the Reich in, Alsace. Here are the main texts:

Document Number RF-717, regulation of 2 October 1940.

Document Number RF-718, ordinance of 24 March 1941 on elementary teaching in Alsace.

Document Number RF-719, ordinance of 21 April 1941 concerning the allocation of subsidies for education in Alsace.

Document Number RF-720, ordinance of 11 June 1941 on obligatory education in Alsace.

I now quote a series of measures ordering the introduction in Alsace and Lorraine of German civil law, German criminal law, and even procedure. I shall quote as the most important, under Document Number RF-721, the ordinance of 19 June 1941 concerning the application of the provisions of German legislation to Alsatians. I should like to read the first paragraph of Article 1 because it contains an interesting item:

"Article 1:

"1. The legal relationships of persons who acquired French citizenship under the Appendix to Articles 51 to 79 of the Versailles dictate and of those who derive their nationality from those persons, in particular in the domain of personal and family law, are governed by the legislation in force in the former Empire, in accordance with the law of the country of origin, insofar as this legislation applies to the country of origin."

A similar ordinance was drawn up for Lorraine, Document Number RF-722, ordinance of 15 September 1941 concerning the application of German legislation to personal and family status in Lorraine. Official Bulletin of the Reich, Page 817.

I should like to quote, indicating the titles and references, the principal measures which have been introduced in penal matters:

Document Number RF-723, notice of 14 February 1941 relative to the penal dispositions declared applicable in Lorraine by virtue of Section I of the second ordinance concerning certain transitory measures in the domain of justice.

Document Number RF-724, ordinance of 29 October 1941 relative to the introduction into Alsace of the German legislation of penal procedure and of other penal laws.


1 Feb. 46

Document Number RF-725, ordinance of 30 January 1942 relative to the introduction into Alsace of the German penal code and other penal laws.

I do not wish to read this text which is long, but I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to two features which show that the Germans introduced into Alsace the most extraordinary provisions of their penal law, conceived from the point of view of the National Socialist regime. The Tribunal will thus see, in this Document Number RF-725, Page 1 under Number 6 of the enumeration, that the law of 20 December 1934, repressing perfidious attacks directed against the State and the Party and protecting Party uniforms, was introduced into Alsace, as well as the ordinance of 25 November 1939, under Number 11 of the enumeration, completing the penal provisions relating to the protection of the military power of the German people.

As concerns public freedom, the Germans eliminated from the beginning the right of association; and they dissolved all existing associations. They intended to leave free room for the Nazi system, which was to be the only and obligatory association.

I shall quote in the same way a number of documents, with the titles of these public texts:

Document Number RF-726, regulation of 16M. FAURE: The sanctions that had been provided to force the enlistment of the Luxembourgers, were they very severe?

Document Number RF-726, regulation of 16 August 1940, dissolving the youth organizations in Alsace.

Document Number RF-727, regulation of 22 August 1940, setting up a supervising commission for associations in Lorraine.

Document Number RF-728, regulation of 3 September 1940, providing for the dissolution of teachers' unions. I point out, in regard to this Document RF-728, that the last article provides an exception in favor of the organization called "Union of National Socialist Teachers."

Document Number RF-729, regulation of 3 September 1940, providing for the dissolution of gymnastic societies and of sports associations in Alsace. I should like to read Article 4 of this Document RF-729:

"My Commissioner of Physical Culture will take, in regard to other gymnastic societies and sports associations in Alsace, all necessary provisions in view of their re-integration into the Reich's National Socialist Union for Physical Culture."

Following up these measures of Germanization, we now encounter two texts which are very characteristic and which I produce as Documents Numbers RF-730 and RF-731. Of Document Number RF-730 I read simply the title, which is significant: "Ordinance of 7 February 1942 Relative to the Creation of an Office of the Upper Rhine for Genealogical Research." I shall likewise read the


1 Feb. 46

title of Document Number RF-731, "Regulation of 17 February 1942 Concerning the Creation of the Department of the Reich Commission for the Strengthening of Germanism."

I indicated a moment ago to the Tribunal that the Party had been established in Alsace and in Lorraine in a way that was parallel with the administration in Germany., I shall produce in this connection Document Number RF-732, which is a confidential note of the National Socialist Workers Party of the province of Baden dated Strasbourg, 5 March 1942. This document belongs likewise to the series found in the files of the Gauleitung of Strasbourg. It bears as a heading, "Gaudirektion-Auxiliary Bureau of Strasbourg."' If it please the Tribunal, I shall read the beginning of this document:

"Evaluation of recruiting possibilities of the Party, its subdivisions and related groups in Alsace.

"In the framework of the drive of 19 June organized for the recruiting of party members, the Kreisleiter in collaboration with the Ortsgruppenleiter have to investigate Alsatians above the age of 18, even if their membership is not yet to be obtained within this drive which may be"-the word "which" was omitted in the text-"considered for prospective membership of the Party, its sections, and affiliated organizations and which men between the age of 17 and 48 could be actively employed in the Party or in its subdivisions. In order to gain a numerical survey, these investigations should also comprise all persons already enrolled in the Party, in the Opferring"-this is the collecting organization of the Party-"in the sections, and affiliated organizations.

"The Kreisleiter may call upon the collaboration of the Kreisorganisationsleiter"-these are the organizing directors of the section- "and of the Kreispersonalamtsleiter"-the personnel information offices of the sections-"In spite of this work the 19 June drive for recruiting members should not suffer but must be carried on by all possible means and gain the goal set by the Gauleiter at the given date..

"The results of the screening of the population are to be compiled in five lists, namely: List 1a; List 1b; List 2a; List 2b; Control list."

I shall skip over the following paragraphs, which are rather long and purely administrative, and I shall continue on Page 2 of the document, Paragraph 9:

"Since it is the aim of the National Socialist movement to embrace all Germans in a National Socialist organization in order to mould and direct them in compliance with the intentions of the Movement, 90 percent of the population will have


1 Feb. 46

to figure on Lists la and b and 2a and b, while on the Control List only those shall be named who, on account of racial inferiority or asocial or anti-German attitude are considered unworthy of belonging to an organization, are not deemed worthy of membership in Party organizations."

I shall now enter upon the two most serious questions which are directly interconnected, questions which, on the one hand, concern nationality and, on the other hand, military recruiting.

The German policy in the matter of nationality reveals a certain hesitation, which is related to the German policy, in regard to military recruiting. Indeed, the German leaders seem to have been swayed by two contradictory trends. One of these trends was that of bestowing the German nationality on a large number of people, in order to impose the corresponding obligation for military service. The other trend was that of conferring nationality only with discrimination. According to this viewpoint it was considered, first of all, that the possession of nationality was an honor and should to some extent constitute a reward when conferred on those who had not previously possessed it, On the other hand, nationality confers on its possessor a certain special quality. In spite of the abolition of all democracy, it gives that person a certain influence in the German community. It should, therefore, be granted only to persons who give guarantees in certain regards, notably that of loyalty; and we know that, from the German point of view, loyalty is not only a matter of mental attitude and choice but that it also applies to certain well-known physical elements, such as those of blood, race, and origin.

These are the two opposed trends in the German policy of conferring nationality. This is how they develop:

At first-and up to the month of August 1942-the Reich, not yet requiring soldiers as urgently as it did later, deferred the introduction of compulsory recruiting. Along with this they also deferred any action to impose German nationality on the population generally. During this earlier period the Nazis did not resort to compulsory recruiting but relied simply on voluntary recruiting which, however, they tried to render more effective by offering all kinds of inducements and exercising pressure in various ways.

I shall not go into details regarding these German procedures for voluntary recruitment. I should like simply to give, by way of example, the subject matter of Document Number RF-733. It is an appeal posted in Alsace on 15 January 1942 and constitutes one of the appendices of the governmental report, which was submitted previously under Document Number UK-72. In this document, I shall read simply the first sentence of the second paragraph:


1 Feb. 46

"Alsatians: Since the beginning of the campaign in the East, hundreds of Alsatians have freely decided to march as volunteers, side by side with the men of the other German regions, against the enemy of civilization and European culture."

For anyone who knows German propaganda and its technique of exaggeration, the term "hundreds" which is used in this document immediately betrays the failure of the Nazi recruiters. "Hundreds" may obviously be translated by "tens," and it must be admitted that this was a very poor supply for the Wehrmacht.

During the period that I am speaking of the Nazis practiced, in regard to nationality, a policy similar to their policy in recruiting military forces, that is, a policy of selective nationalization. They appealed for volunteers for German nationality. It is desirable to quote in this regard an ordinance of 20 January 1942, a general ordinance of the Reich, not a special one for the annexed territories.

This ordinance in its first article increases the possibilities of naturalization, which until then had been extremely limited, in accordance with the Reich statute book., In Article 3 it gives the following provision: (This ordinance is not produced in the document book, for it is an ordinance of the German Reich and, therefore, a public document.)

"The Reich Minister of the Interior may, by means of a general regulation, grant German nationality to categories of foreigners established on a territory placed under the sovereign power of Germany or having their origin in such territory.

In connection with this earlier period it is necessary to stress that natives of Alsace-Lorraine who did not become German citizens did not retain their French nationality. They are all considered as German subjects. They are qualified in the documents of the period as "members of the German community Volksdeutsch)," and are consequently liable for German labor service. I submit Document Number RF-734 in this connection, "Regulation of 27 August 1942, on Compulsory Military Service and on Labor Service in Alsace." I shall return to this document presently with regard to military service, but I would like to quote now the passages relative to service in the Hitler Youth, one of which bears an earlier date, the ordinance of 2 January 1942 for Alsace and ordinance of 4 August 1942 for Lorraine.

The German policy regarding nationality and military recruiting reaches its turning point in the month of August 1942. At this moment, on account of military difficulties and the need for extensive recruiting, the Germans instituted compulsory military service in Lorraine by an ordinance of 19 August 1942 and in Alsace by an ordinance of 25 August 1942. These two ordinances,


1 Feb. 46

relative to the introduction of compulsory military service, constitute Document Number RF-735, ordinance for Lorraine, and Document Number RF-736, ordinance for Alsace.

At the same time, the Germans promulgated an ordinance-of 23 August 1942 on German nationality in Alsace, Lorraine, and Luxembourg. This text is the subject of a circular issued by the Reich Minister of the Interior, which constitutes Document Number RF-737. These provisions are the following:

"Full rights of nationality are acquired by natives of Alsace and Lorraine and Luxembourgers of German origin:

"When they have been or will be called upon to serve in the armed forces of the Reich or in SS armed formations; "when they are recognized as having acted as good Germans."

As concerns the expression "of German origin," which is used in these texts, this concerns Alsatians and Lorrainers who have become French either through the Treaty of Versailles or subsequently on condition of having previously been German nationals or having transferred their domicile from Alsace or Lorraine to the territory of the Reich after I September 1939; and, finally, children, grandchildren, and spouses of the preceding categories of persons are likewise considered as of German origin.

Lastly, it was anticipated that the Alsatians, Lorrainers, and Luxembourgers who did not acquire German nationality absolutely could obtain it provisionally.

I should like to mention, to complete this question of nationality, that an ordinance of 2 February 1943 gave details as to the German nationality laws applicable in Alsace, and that an ordinance of 2 November 1943 likewise conferred German nationality upon persons who had been in concentration camps during the war.

The German texts indicate that, on the one hand, German nationality was imposed upon a great number of persons; and, on the other hand, that Alsatians and Lorrainers who were French were forced to comply with the exorbitant and truly criminal requirements of military service in the German Army against their own country. These military obligations were constantly extended by the calling- up of successive classes, as far as, the 1908 class.

These German exigencies provoked a solemn protest on the part of the French National Committee, which in London represented the Free French Government authority. I should like to read to the Tribunal the text of this protest, which is dated 16 September 1942, and which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-739. I shall read only the three paragraphs of the official protest, which constitute


1 Feb. 46

the beginning of this document of the Information Agency in London.

"After having proclaimed, in the course of the war, the annexation of Alsace and of Lorraine, banished and robbed a great number of the inhabitants, and enforced the most rigorous measures of Germanization, the Reich now constrains Alsatians and Lorrainers- declared German by the Reich-to serve in the German armies against their own compatriots and against the allies of France.

"The National Committee, defender of the integrity and of the unity of France and trustee of the principle of the rights of peoples, protests, in the face of the civilized world, against these new crimes committed in contempt of international conventions against the will of populations ardently attached to France. It proclaims inviolable the right of Alsatians and of Lorrainers to remain members of the French family." This protest could not have been unknown to the Germans, for it was read and commented on over the radio by the French National Commissioner of Justice, Professor Rene Cassin, on a number of occasions.

In regard to this solemn protest on the part of France, I shall allow myself to quote the justifications, if one may use this term, which were furnished in a speech by Gauleiter Wagner delivered in Colmar on 20 June 1943. This quotation is drawn from the Muhlhauser Tageblatt of 21 June 1943. In view of its importance I shall not deal with it simply as a quotation, but I produce it as a document and submit it as Document Number RF-740. The clerk has been given this paper. I read the explanations of Gauleiter Wagner, as they are reproduced in this newspaper under the title "Alsace will not Stand Aloof":

"The decisive event for Alsace in 1942 was therefore the introduction of compulsory military service. It cannot be my intention to justify legally a measure which strikes so deeply at the life of Alsace. There is no reason for this either. Every decision which the Greater Reich is taking here is motivated and cannot be attacked as to its juridical and its de facto form.

Naturally, the Alsatians and Lorrainers refused to accept the criminal orders of the German authorities, and they undertook to avoid these by every means. The Nazis then decided to compel them by means of merciless measures. The frontiers were strictly guarded, and the guards had orders to fire on the numerous recalcitrants who attempted to escape across the border. I should like to quote in this connection a sentence from a newspaper article, which appeared in the Dernieres Nouvelles de Strasbourg


1 Feb. 46

of 28 August 1942. This is Document Number RF-741. This article deals with the death of one of these men who refused to serve in the German Army, and it concludes with the following sentence: "We insist most particularly on the fact that it is suicidal to attempt to cross the frontier illegally."

Naturally, judicial penalties were applied with great severity and in a large number of cases. I do not consider that I should bring to the Tribunal all the instances of these cases, which would take too long; but I should like simply to insist on the principle that governed this form of repression.

I shall quote first of all a document which is entirely characteristic of the conception which the German administration had of justice and of the independence of judicial power. This is Document Number RF-742. It is a part of a series of documents discovered in the files of the Gauleitung. It is a teletype message dated Strasbourg, 8 June 1944, addressed by Gauleiter Wagner to the Chief of the Court of Appeals in Karlsruhe. I shall read Paragraph 2 of this document, which is on Page 1 of the same, document:

"Especially in Alsace it is required that the sentences for refusal of military service should be intimidating. But upon those trying to evade military service, for fear of personal danger, this intimidating effect can be produced only by the death penalty, the more so, as an Alsatian bent upon escaping military service by emigration counts generally on an early victory of the enemy and, therefore, in case of conviction with punishment other than death, with a near cancellation of the penalty. The death penalty is, therefore, to be applied in all cases in which after 6 June 1944 an evasion of military service is attempted by illegal emigration, irrespectively of any other legal practice used in Germany proper."

But I wish to indicate that the consideration of personal risk, even that of being killed at the frontier or condemned to death, was not sufficient to make the people of Alsace and Lorraine acknowledge the obligation for military service. Thus the Nazis decided to have recourse to the only threat which could be effective, the threat of reprisals against families. After 4 September 1942, there appeared in the Dernieres Nouvelles de Strasbourg a notice entitled "Severe Sanctions Against Those Who Fail to Appear Before the Revision Council." An extract from this notice constitutes Document Number RF-743. I shall read from it:

"In the case mentioned above it has been shown that parents have not given proof of authority in this regard. They have thus proved that they do not yet understand the requirements of the present time, which can tolerate in Alsace only reliable


1 Feb. 46

persons. The parents of the above-named young men will therefore shortly be deported to the Altreich in order to re-acquire, in a National Socialist atmosphere, an-attitude in conformity with the German spirit."

Thus the deportation of families was decreed, not to punish a definite insubordination, but to punish failure to appear before the recruiting board.

In order to avoid repeated readings, I shall now present to the Tribunal, under the heading of Document Number RF-744, the ordinance of 1 October 1943, to check failure to perform military service (Official Bulletin of the Reich for 1943, Page 152). I shall read the first two articles:

"Article 1: The chief of the civil administration in Alsace may deny residence in Alsace to deserters and to persons who fail to fulfill their military obligations or those of the compulsory labor service, as well as to members of their families. This prohibition entails, for persons of German origin whom it may affect, transplantation to Reich territory by the Plenipotentiary for the Reich, Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German Nationality. Measures to be taken in regard to property, seizure, indemnity, et cetera, are prescribed in the ordinance of 2 February 1943, concerning property measures to be applied in the case of persons of German origin transferred from Alsace to Reich territory.

"Paragraph 2: Independently of the preceding measures, criminal proceedings may be instituted under the penal code for violation of the provisions of the penal laws."

THE PRESIDENT: Exactly what did "souche allemande" mean? How far did it go?

M. FAURE: The term "souche allemande" applies, as indicated in connection with the preceding text, to the following categories of persons: In the first place, persons who were in Alsace and Lorraine before the, Treaty of Versailles and who became French by the treaty; persons whose nationality before 1919 was German are considered as of German origin, as well as their children, their grandchildren, and their spouses. This affects the great majority of the population of the three departments.

I continue reading Paragraph 2 of the first article of Document Number RF-744.

"Independently of the foregoing measures, penal prosecutions may be brought for violation of the provisions of the penal laws."

According to Article 52, Paragraph 2, of the Reich Penal Code, members of the family who bring proof of their genuine efforts to


1 Feb. 46

prevent or dissuade the fugitive from committing his act or avoiding the necessity of flight shall not be punishable.

These abominable measures, the obligation of denunciation, punishment inflicted upon families, permitted the German authorities to carry out the enlistment of Alsatians and Lorrainers, which for many of them had fatal consequences and which was for all of them a particularly tragic ordeal.

I must finally indicate, to conclude this part, that the Germans proceeded to the mobilization of women for war work. I produce a Document Number RF-745, the ordinance of 26 January 1942, completing the war organization of labor service for the young women of Lorraine.

Then we find an ordinance of 2 February 1943, Document Number RF-746, concerning the declaration of men and women for the accomplishment of tasks pertaining to national defense. (Official Bulletin of the Reich, 1943, Page 26.) This ordinance concerns Alsace.

The following Document, Number RF-747, deals with Lorraine. This is an ordinance of 8 February 1943 concerning the enrollment of men and women for tasks relating to the organization of labor. The Tribunal will note that the ordinance concerning Alsace used the expression "tasks of interest to national defense," whereas' the ordinance relative to Lorraine specifies simply "tasks concerning the organization of labor"; but in principle these are the same. Article 1 of this second ordinance, Document Number RF-747, refers to the ordinance of the General Delegate for the Organization of Labor, relative to the declaration of men and women for tasks of interest to national defense, et cetera. This is a question -of making not only men, but also women, work for the German' war effort. I shall read for the Tribunal an extract from a newspaper article which comments on this legislation and likewise on the measures which Gauleiter Wagner proposed to undertake in this connection. This constitutes Document Number RF-748, taken from the newspaper Dernieres Nouvelles de Strasbourg, dated 23 February 1943.

"In his speech at Karlsruhe Gauleiter Robert Wagner stressed that measures of total mobilization would be applied to Alsace and that the authorities would abstain from any bureaucratic working method. The Alsatian labor offices have already invited the first category of young women liable for mobilization to fill out the enlistment form.

"In principle, all women who until the present have worked only at home, who have had to care only for their husbands, and who have no other relatives, shall work a full day.


1 Feb. 46

Many married men who until now had never offered to help their wives with the household work will be obliged to put their shoulder to the wheel. They will work in the household and do errands. With a little goodwill, everything will work out. Women who have received a professional education shall be put, if possible, to tasks that relate to their professions, on condition that they have an important bearing on the war effort. This prescription applies only to all feminine professions which imply care given to other persons."

Here again a rather comical or clumsily worded presentation should not prevent one from perceiving the odious character of these measures, which obliged French women to work for the German war effort.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for ten minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

M. FAURE: Mr. Dodd would like to speak to the Tribunal concerning a question he wishes to put to the Tribunal.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I ask to be heard briefly to inform the Tribunal that the affiant Andreas Pfaffenberger, whom the Tribunal directed the Prosecution for the United States to locate, if possible, was located yesterday and he is here in Nuremberg today. He is available for the cross-examination which, if I remember correctly, was requested by Counsel for the Defendant Kaltenbrunner.

THE PRESIDENT: Was his affidavit read?

MR. DODD: Yes, Your Honor, it was.

THE PRESIDENT: It was read, and on the condition that he should be brought here for cross-examination?

MR. DODD: Yes, Sir. He asked for him to be brought, if I recall it.

THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel for Kaltenbrunner wish to cross-examine him now-I mean, not this moment-does he still wish to cross-examine him?

DR. KAUFFMANN: I believe that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner does not need the testimony of this witness. However, I would have to take this question up with him once more, for up till today it was not certain that Pfaffenberger would be in court, and if lie is to be cross-examined and to testify, I believe Kaltenbrunner would have to be present at the hearing.


1 Feb. 46

THE PRESIDENT: It seems somewhat unfortunate that the witness should be brought here for cross-examination and that then you should be saying that you don't want to cross-examine him after reading the affidavit. It seems to me that the reasonable thing to do would be to make up your mind whether you do, or do not, want to cross-examine him; and I should have thought that would have been done and he would have been brought here, if you want to cross-examine, and not brought here if you did not want to cross- examine. Anyway, as he has been brought here now, it seems to me that if you want to cross-examine him you must do so. Mr. Dodd, can he be kept here for some time?

MR. DODD: He can, Your Honor, except that he was in a concentration camp for 6 years; and we have to keep him here under certain security, and it is somewhat of a hardship on him to be kept too long. We would like not to keep him any longer than necessary. We located him with some difficulty with the help of the United States Forces.

DR. KAUFFMANN: In perhaps 2 or 3 days we might wish to cross-examine; perhaps two or three days.

THE PRESIDENT: I imagine that if after the affidavit had been read that you demanded to cross-examine him and that he has therefore been produced-well, in those circumstances it seems to me unreasonable that you should ask that he should now be kept for 2 or 3 days when he is produced. Mr. Dodd, would it be possible to keep him here until Monday?

MR. DODD: Yes, he can be kept here until Monday.

THE PRESIDENT: We will keep him here until Monday, and you can cross-examine as you wish, Dr. Kauffmann. You understand what I mean; when an affidavit has been put in and one of the Defense Counsel said that he wants to cross-examine, he ought to inform the Prosecution if, after reading and considering the affidavit, he finds that he does* not want to cross-examine him; they ought to inform the Prosecution so as to avoid all the cost and trouble of bringing a witness from some distance off. Do you follow?

DR. KAUFFMANN: I will proceed with the cross-examination on Monday.


M. FAURE: Mr. President, I would ask the Tribunal whether they would agree to hear the witness Emil Reuter at this point?


[The witness, Emil Reuter, took the stand.]

What is your name?


1 Feb. 46

EMIL REUTER (Witness): Reuter, Emil.

THE PRESIDENT: Emil Reuter, do you swear to speak without hate or fear, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

[The witness repeated the oath in French.]

THE PRESIDENT: Raise the right hand and say, "I swear."

REUTER: I swear.

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

M. FAURE: M. Reuter, you are a lawyer of the Luxembourg Bar?


M. FAURE: You are President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg?


M. FAURE: You had been exercising these functions at the time of the invasion of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by the German troops?


M. FAURE: Can you give us any indication on the fact that the Government of the Reich had, a few days before the invasion of Luxembourg, given to the Government of the Grand Duchy assurances of their peaceful intentions?

REUTER: In August 1939 the German Minister for Luxembourg gave to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the country a statement according to which the German Reich, in the event of a European war, would respect the independence and neutrality of the country, provided that Luxembourg wou ld not violate its own neutrality. A few days before the invasion, in May 1940, the Germans constructed pontoon bridges over half of the Moselle River which separates the two countries. An explanation from the German Minister in Luxembourg represented such construction of pontoon bridges as landing stages in the interest of navigation. In the general public opinion of the country, these installations were really of a military character.

M. FAURE: Can you tell us about the situation of public authorities in Luxembourg following the departure of Her Royal Highness, the Grand Duchess, and of her government?

REUTER: The continuity of administration in the country was assured by a government commission which possessed the necessary powers bestowed upon it by the competent constitutional authorities There was, therefore, no lack of authority in the administration.

M. FAURE: Is it not true, however, that the Germans claimed, upon their arrival in that country, that the government had failed


1 Feb. 46

to carry out its functions; and, following the departure of the government, that there was no regular authority in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg?

REUTER: Yes, such declaration was made by the Ministers of the Reich in Luxembourg before a Parliamentary Commission.

M. FAURE: Do I understand correctly that these statements on the part of the German authorities did not in fact correspond to the truth inasmuch as you have told us that there did exist a higher organism for the administration of the country?

REUTER: This statement did not correspond to the reality. It was obviously aimed at usurping authority.

M. FAURE: M. Reuter, the Germans never proclaimed by law the annexation of Luxembourg. Do you consider that the measures adopted by the Germans in that 'country were equivalent to annexation?

REUTER: The measures that were taken by the Germans in the Grand Duchy were obviously equivalent to a de facto annexation of that country. Shortly after the invasion the leaders of the Reich in Luxembourg stated in public and official speeches that the annexation by law would occur at a time which would be freely selected by the Fuehrer. The proof of this de facto annexation is shown in a clear manner by the whole series of ordinances which the Germans published in the Grand Duchy.

M. FAURE: The Germans organized an operation which was called a census in Luxembourg. In the form that was given the inhabitants of Luxembourg to effect the census, there was one question concerning the native or usual language and another question as to the racial background of the individual. Are you prepared to assert that in view of these two questions this census was considered as having the character of a plebiscite, a political character?

REUTER: From the menacing instructions published by the German authorities in connection with this census, the political purpose was obvious; therefore public opinion never envisaged this census except as a sort of attempt to achieve a plebiscite camouflaged as a census, a political operation destined to give a certain justification to the annexation which was to follow.

M. FAURE: The report of the Luxembourg Government does not give any indication of the statistical results of this census, specifically with regard to the political question of which I spoke a moment ago. Would you be kind enough to tell us why these statistical data are not to be found in any document?

REUTER: The complete statistical data have never been collected because after a partial examination of the first results the German


1 Feb. 46

authorities noted that only an infinitesimal fraction of the population had answered the two tricky questions in the German sense. The German authorities then preferred to stop the operation, and the forms distributed in the country for obtaining the answers were never collected.

M. FAURE: Do you remember the date of the census?

REUTER: This census must have taken place in 1942.

M. FAURE: After the census the Germans realized that there was no majority, and not even any considerable part of the population which was desirous of being incorporated into the German Reich. However, did they continue to apply their measures of annexation?

REUTER: Measures tending to Germanization and later to the annexation of the country were continued, and later on they were even reinforced by further new measures.

M. FAURE: Am I to understand, therefore, that during the application of these measures the Germans could not be ignorant of the fact that the Luxembourg population was opposed to them?

REUTER: There can be no doubt at all on this question.

M. FAURE: Can you tell us whether it is correct that the German authorities obliged members of the constabulary force and the police to take an oath of allegiance to the Chancellor of the Reich?

REUTER: Yes. This was forced upon the constabulary corps and the police with very serious threats and punishments. Recalcitrants were usually deported, if I remember rightly, to Sachsenhausen; and on the approach of the Russian Army all or a part of the recalcitrants who were in the camp were shot. There were about 150 of them.

M. FAURE: Can you tell us anything concerning the transfer I believe the Germans call it "Umsiedlung"-of a certain number of inhabitants and families living in your country?

REUTER: The transplanting was ordered by the German authority of Luxembourg for elements which appeared to be unfit for assimilation or unworthy of, or undesirable for, residence on the frontiers of the Reich.

M. FAURE: Can you indicate the approximate number of people who were victims of this transplanting?

REUTER: There must have been about 7,000 people who were transplanted in this manner, because we found in Luxembourg a list mentioning between 2,800 and 2,900 homes or families.

M. FAURE: These indications are based on knowledge you received as President of the Chamber of Deputies?


1 Feb. 46

REUTER: Not exactly, the list was found in Luxembourg; it is still deposited there and the Office of War Criminals took cognizance of it, like all the judicial authorities in Luxembourg.

M. FAURE: Can you state, M. Reuter, how the people who were transplanted were informed of this measure concerning them, and how much time they had to be ready?

REUTER: In general, the families to be transplanted were not given notice in advance, officially, at least. About 6 o'clock in the morning the Gestapo rang at the door, and they notified those who were selected to be ready for departure within I or 2 hours with a minimum of luggage. Then they were taken to the station and put on a train for the camp to which they were at first to be sent.

M. FAURE: Can you tell us whether these measures were applied to people whom you know personally?

REUTER: I know personally a very large number of people who were transplanted, among them members of my own family a great' number of colleagues of the Chamber of Deputies, many members of the Bar, many magistrates, and so forth.

M. FAURE: In addition to these transplantations, were there also deportations to concentration camps? This is another question.

REUTER: Yes, there were deportations to concentration camps which everyone knew about. The number of such deportations in the Grand Duchy may be approximately four thousand.

M. FAURE: M. Reuter, it has been established, through their ordinances, that the German authorities prescribed compulsory military service. I will not ask you, therefore, any question on this particular point. However, I would like to ask you whether you are able to state, approximately, the number of Luxembourg citizens who were enrolled in the German Army.

REUTER: The young people who were incorporated into the German Army by force belonged to 5 classes, beginning with the class of 1920. The number is about eleven thousand to twelve thousand, at least. A certain number of them, I think about one-third, succeeded in avoiding conscription and became refractory. Others later deserted the German Army and fled to other countries.

M. FAURE: Can you indicate the approximate number of Luxembourgers who died as a result of their forced enlistment?

REUTER: At the end of September 1944 we had 2,500 dead. Searches have continued and at present I think we have established the names of at least 3,000.

M. FAURE: The sanctions that had been provided to force the enlistment of the Luxembourgers, were they very severe?


1 Feb. 46

REUTER: These sanctions were extremely severe. First of all, the young people who were refractory were pursued and hunted by the police and by the Gestapo. Then they were brought before various types of Tribunals, in Luxembourg, France, Belgium, or Germany. Their families were deported; the family fortune was generally confiscated. The penalties pronounced by the Tribunals against these young people were very severe. The death penalty was general, or else imprisonment, forced labor, or deportation to concentration camps. Some of them were released later on, but there were some who were shot as hostages after having been released.

M. FAURE: I would like to ask one last question. Do you think it is possible that the measures which constituted a de facto annexation of Luxembourg could have been unknown to the persons who belonged to the Reich Government, or to the German High Command?

REUTER: I believe that it is hardly possible that such a situation could have been unknown to the members of the Reich and the supreme military authority. My opinion is based on the following facts: First of all, our young people, when mobilized by force; frequently protested at the time of their arrival in Germany by invoking the fact that they were all of Luxembourg nationality, and that they were the victims of force, so that the military authorities must have been informed of the situation in the Grand Duchy.

In the second place, several Ministers of the Reich-among them, Thierack, Rust, and Ley-visited the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and could see for themselves the situation of the country and the reaction of the population; other high political personalities of the Reich, such as Bormann and Sauckel, also paid visits.

Finally there were German decrees and ordinances concerning the denationalization of certain categories of Luxembourg citizens. These ordinances bore the signature of the Minister of the Reich. The executive measures implementing these ordinances were published in the Official Gazette of the Reich Ministry of the Interior under the signature

of the Minister of Interior Frick with the indication that these instructions were to be communicated to all the superior Reich authorities.

M. FAURE: I thank you. Those are all the questions I have to put to you.

[The American, British and Russian prosecutors had no questions.]

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any member of the defendants' counsel who wishes to ask the witness any questions? [No response.] Then M. Faure the witness can retire.


1 Feb. 46

M. FAURE: Mr. President, am I to understand that the witness will not have to remain any longer at the disposal of the Tribunal and he may return to his home?


[The witness left the stand.]

M. FAURE: I had stopped my presentation at the end of the second part. That is to say, I have examined so far, in the first place, the elimination of the French regime and secondly, the imposition of German rules.

I now come to the third part, which gives measures for transplantation in Alsace-Lorraine. The German authorities applied in these annexed departments characteristic methods for the transport of populations. It so happens that, as the witness from Luxembourg was heard sooner than I had anticipated, the Tribunal is already informed of the aspect which these measures of transplantation assumed in the annexed territories.

The situation which I am about to describe with respect to Alsace and Lorraine is, indeed, analogous to the situation which existed with regard to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. The principal purpose of the application of such methods by the Germans was to enable them to colonize by bringing German subjects into the country, who then seized the lands and property of the inhabitants who had been expelled.

A second advantage was the elimination of groups considered especially difficult to assimilate. I should like to quote in this connection-this -will be Document Number RF-749-what Gauleiter Wagner stated in a speech given at Saverne, according to the Dernieres Nouvelles de Strasbourg, of 15 December 1941.

"Today we must make up our mind. In the moment of our nation's supreme struggle-a struggle in which you, too, must participate-I can only say to anyone who says 'I am a Frenchman!' 'Get the hell out of here! In Germany there is room only for Germans."'

From the beginning the Germans proceeded, firstly, to the expulsion of individuals or small groups, especially Jews and members of the teaching profession. Moreover, as is shown by a document which I have already cited this morning under Number RF-701 and which was the first general protest made by the French Delegation, under date of 3 September 1940, the Germans authorized the people of Alsace-Lorraine to return to their homes only if they acknowledged themselves to be of German origin. Now the Tribunal will understand that these restrictions upon the return of refugees were in themselves equivalent to expulsion. Mass expulsions, began in September 1940. 1 now submit in this connection Document


1 Feb. 46

Number RF-750; it is again a note from the French Armistice Delegation taken from the files of the High Court of Justice. I shall now read this document, Paragraph 2:

"Since then it has been brought to the knowledge of the French Government that the German authorities are proceeding to mass expulsions of families in the three eastern departments. Every day French citizens, forced to abandon all their belongings on the spot, are driven into the unoccupied part of France in groups of 800 to 1,000 persons."

It was only the 19th of September. On the 3rd of November the Germans undertook the systematic expulsion of the populations of the Moselle region. This operation was accomplished with extreme perfidy. The Germans, as a matter of fact, gave the Lorrainers of certain localities the choice of either going to eastern Germany or going to France. They gave them only a few hours to make up their minds. Moreover, they sought to promote the belief that such a choice was imposed upon the Lorrainers as a result of an agreement reached with the French authorities.

From the physical point of view, the transport of these people was effected under very difficult conditions. The Lorrainers were allowed to take away only a very small part of their personal belongings and a sum of 2,000 francs, plus 1,000 francs for the children. On 18 November, four trains filled with Lorrainers who had been torn away from their homes were headed for Lyons. The arrival in unoccupied France of these people who had been so sorely tried was for them, nevertheless, an opportunity for nobly manifesting their patriotic sentiments. With regard to the facts which I have presented I place before the Tribunal Document Number RF-751, which is a note of protest on the part of the French Delegation signed by General Doyen, dated 18 November 1940. I shall read excerpts of this Document Number RF-751, beginning with Paragraph 3 of Page 1:

"France is faced with an act of force which is in formal contradiction to the armistice convention as well as the assurance, recently given, of a desire for collaboration between the two countries. On the contrary, in Article 16, which the German commission had frequently invoked with specific regard to the departments of the East, the armistice convention stipulates the reinstallation of refugees in the regions in which they were domiciled. The creation of new refugees constitutes, therefore, a violation of the armistice convention. France is faced With an unjust act affecting peaceful populations against whom the Reich has nothing to reproach and who, settled for centuries on these territories, have made of them a particularly prosperous region.


1 Feb. 46

"The unexpected decision of the German authorities is likewise an inhuman act. In the very middle of winter, without warning, families have to leave their homes, taking with them only a strict minimum of personal property and a sum of money absolutely insufficient to enable them to live even for a few weeks. Thousands of Frenchmen were thus suddenly hurled into misery without their country-already too heavily tried and surprised by the suddenness and amplitude of the measures adopted without its knowledge-being in a position to assure them, from one day to the next, a normal livelihood. This exodus and the conditions under which it is taking place cause most painful and sorrowful impressions throughout the French nation. The French people are particularly disturbed by the explanations given to the Lorrainers, according to which the French Government was reputed to be the source of their misfortune.

"It is that impression, in fact, which the poster in certain villages, where the population had to choose between leaving for eastern Germany or for Unoccupied France, was intended to convey.

"The poster is appended hereto, but we are not in possession of the text of this poster. That also encouraged the belief that these populations had themselves requested permission to leave following the appeals broadcast by the Bordeaux radio. Even if, we admit that such appeals had been made by radio, it should be noted that the Bordeaux radio station is under German control. The good faith of the Lorrainers has been deceived as was shown by their reaction on arrival in the free zone."

In spite of these protests, the expulsions continued. They reached a total of about 70,000 people, augmented by the deportation of Alsatians and Lorrainers to Eastern Germany and to Poland. These deportations were meant to create terror, and they particularly affected the families of men who had rightfully decided to refuse the German demand for forced labor and military service. (I am at present regarding the whole question of a French protest dated 3 September 1942; it is Document Number RF-752).

Since I do not wish to read to the Tribunal texts dealing with an identical subject I submit this document solely to show that this protest was made, and I believe that I can refrain from reading its content.

I shall refer, desiring to give only a short citation, to a document belonging to the American Prosecution. This document bears the Number R-114. It is a memorandum of the minutes of a meeting


1 Feb. 46

which took place between several officials of the SS concerning general directions in regard to the treatment of deported Alsatians.

It will be observed that this document has already been submitted by my American colleagues under Document Number R-114, Exhibit Number USA-314, the French Number RF-753. I merely wish to read one paragraph of that document, which may be interpreted as a supplement to this problem of deportation. I must say that these sentences have not been formally read in Court. The passage that I cite is on Page 2 of the document. At the end of that there is a paragraph which begins with the letter "d":

"For further resettlement are destined:

"Members of the patois group. The Gauleiter would like to keep only those persons in the patois area who by their customs, language, and general attitude testify their adherence to Germany.

"Regarding the cases mentioned under a-d, it is to be noted that the racial problem is to be given foremost consideration, that is, in a way by which racially valuable persons shall be resettled in Germany proper, and the racially inferior in France."

Finally, I should like to read to the Tribunal a few sentences from' a newspaper article, which appeared in Dernieres Nouvelles de Strasbourg, August 31, 1942-we are here dealing with a citation and not a document:

"On the 28th of August the families designated hereafter, of the Arrondissements of Mulhouse and Guebwiller, were deported to the Reich in order that they might recover a trustworthy German outlook in National Socialist surroundings. In several cases the persons involved did not conceal their hostility in that they stirred up sentiments of opposition, spoke French in public in a provocative manner, did not obey the ordinances concerning the education of youth, or in other ways showed a lack of loyalty."

I would now like to indicate to the Tribunal that deportation or transportation entailed also the spoliation of property. This is not merely a fact; for the Germans it is a law. Indeed, there is an ordinance of 28 January 1943, which appeared in the Official Bulletin for 1943, Page 40, bearing the title, "Ordinance Concerning the Safeguarding of Property in Lorraine as a Result of Transplantation Measures." I have placed this ordinance before you as Document Number RF-754. I would like to read Article One and the first paragraph of Article Two. I believe that the title itself is a sufficient indication of the contents:


1 Feb. 46

"Article One. The safeguarding of property of people transplanted from Lorraine to the Greater German Reich or to territory placed under the sovereign power of Germany has been entrusted to the transfer services for Lorraine under the Chief of the Administration.

"Article Two. These services are authorized to put in effective safekeeping the property of the Lothringians who have been transplanted in order that such property may be administered, and-insofar as orders may have been given for this exploited."

This ordinance, therefore, still manifests some scruples of form. The intention is to "safeguard," but we now know what the word "safeguard" means in Nazi terminology. We have already seen what safeguarding meant in the case of works of art and Jewish property. Even here, we have been specifically warned that the term "safeguard" carries with it the right of disposal or exploitation. Other texts are even more specific or clear.

Here is Document Number RF-755. This is the ordinance of 6 November 1940 pertaining to the declaration of property in Lorraine belonging to the enemies of the people and of the Reich. And on the same subject I shall also submit to you Document Number RF- 756, which is the regulation of 13 July 1940 applying to property in Alsace belonging to the enemies of the people and of the Reich. These two texts, one of which applies to Alsace and the other to Lorraine, permit the seizure and confiscation of properties designated as "enemy property." Now, to realize the extent of the property covered by this term, I will read Document 756:

"Any objects and rights of any nature whatsoever, without regard to conditions of title, which are utilized for, or intended for use in, activities hostile to the people of Germany or the Reich will be considered 'as property belonging to the people and to the Reich.

"Such stipulation shall apply to the entire patrimony:

"(a) of all political parties, as well as of secondary or complementary organizations depending thereon;

"(b) of lodges and similar associations;

"(c) of Jews;

"(d) of Frenchmen who have acquired property in Alsace since 11 November 1918;

"(e) The Chief of the Administration Department and the Police will decide what patrimony in addition to the property mentioned above is likewise to be considered as property belonging to the enemies of the people and of the Reich. He will likewise decide on doubtful cases."


1 Feb. 46

We see, therefore, that in spite of the title, we are not dealing here with the measures of sequestration of enemy property taken in all. countries within the scope of the laws of war. First of all, these are measures of definite confiscation; and in addition, they are applied to the property of numerous individuals who are in no wise subjects of enemy countries. We also see at this point the absolutely arbitrary power placed in the hands of the administration. These texts are accompanied by many regulations; although the spoliations are particularly important in Alsace and in Lorraine, I shall not speak of them here in more detail, as the Prosecution has already dealt with the subject. I shall merely limit myself to the mentioning of two institutions special to Alsace and to Lorraine, that is, agricultural colonization, and industrial colonization.

In the first place, agricultural colonization is not a term that has been invented by the Prosecution; it is an expression which the Germans used. I submit in this connection, Document Number RF-757, which is the ordinance of 7 December 1940, "Pertaining to the New Regime of Settlement or Colonization in Lorraine." I shall read the beginning of this Document Number RF-757:

"Real estate which has been vacated in Lorraine as a result of deportations will. serve principally for the reconstitution of a German peasant class and for the requirements of internal colonization. In this connection and specifically in order to set us the required programs, I order, by virtue of the powers which have been conferred upon me by the Fuehrer the following:

"Article One. Real estate property of individuals deported from Lorraine shall be seized and confiscated for the benefit of the Chief of the Civil Administration."

I will. not cite the second paragraph of Article One, but I will cite Article Two:

"Agricultural properties or forest properties which are seized in consequence of the ordinance concerning enemy property of the people and the Reich in Lorraine are confiscated. Insofar as they are needed, they are included in the methodical organization of the region."

Article Three:

"In addition to the cases provided for in Articles One and Two and according to the needs, other real estate property may be included in the programs for methodical reorganization if appropriate compensation is provided for.

"The Chief of the Civilian Administration and the services designated by him will decide upon the amount and nature of the compensation. Any recourse to the law on the part of the person involved is forbidden."


1 Feb. 46

Thus the Tribunal can see in a striking manner the processes and the methods pursued by the German authorities.

The first ordinance, cited earlier, spoke only of safeguarding the property of people who had been deported or displaced. A second ordinance now speaks of confiscations. It still refers only to the notion of enemies of the people and of the Reich.

The third ordinance is more complete, since it comprises confiscation prescriptions which are quite formal in their character, and which are no longer qualified as "safeguarding" property which has become vacant as the result of deportations.

This agricultural colonization of which I have spoken assumed a special importance in Lorraine. On the other hand, it is in Alsace that we find the greatest number of measures involving a veritable industrial colonization. These measures consisted in stripping the French industrial enterprises for the benefit of German firms. On this subject there are protests of the French Delegation to the Armistice Commission.

I submit as documents three of these protests, Documents Numbers RF-758, 759 and 760, which are notes under date of- respectively 27 April 1941, 9 May 1941, and 8 April 1943. 1 believe that it is preferable for me not to read these documents to the Tribunal and that I merely ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of them, as proof of the existence of these protests, because I fear that such a reading would be a mere repetition to the Tribunal, to whom the matter of economic spoliation has already been explained in sufficient detail.

I shall say, finally, that the Germans carried their audacity to the point of demanding the seizure in Unoccupied France and the transportation to Alsace of assets belonging to French companies which were by this means stripped of their property and actually "colonized." I am speaking of assets belonging to companies in the other zone of France, under the control of the regular shareholders of such companies.

I think it is worth while considering just one example of such procedure, contained in a very short document, which I submit to you under Document Number RF-761. This document appears in the Archives of the French Agencies of the Armistice Commission, to which it had been sent by the director of the company mentioned in the document. It is a paper which is partly written in German and partly translated into French-in the same document-and it is signed by the German Commissioner for a French enterprise called the Societe Alsacienne et Lorraine d'Electricite. In Alsace this enterprise had been placed illegally under the administration of this commissioner, and the commissioner-as the document will show had come to Paris to seize the remainder of the company's assets.


1 Feb. 46

He drafted this document, which he signed and which he also made the president of the French company sign. This document is of interest as revealing the insolence of German procedure and also the Germans' odd conception of law. I quote now:

"Today the undersigned has instructed me that in future I am strictly forbidden to take legal action with regard to the property of the former Societe Alsacienne et Lorraine d'Electricite. If I should transgress this order in any way,

I know that I shall be punished.
"Paris, 10 March 1941.
"Signed: Kucka.
"F. B. Kommissar.
"Signed: Garnier."

Now this German economic colonization in the areas annexed was to serve as an experiment for the application of similar methods on a broader scale.

There will be submitted to the Tribunal, in this connection, a document concerning a colonization attempt in the French Department Ardennes. On this procedure of annexation by the Germans of Alsace and of Lorraine, many other items could be cited; and I could submit many more documents-even if I were to deal only with the circumstances and the documents which are useful from the point of view of our own Prosecution.

I want to limit myself in order to save the time of the Tribunal and to comply with the necessities of this Trial where so many items have to be discussed. Therefore I have limited myself to the submission of documents or to examples which are particularly characteristic. I believe that this documentation will enable the Tribunal to appraise the criminality of the German undertakings which I have brought to its attention-criminality which is particularly characteristic of military conscription, which is a criminal offence since it entails deaths. At the same time I believe the Tribunal can evaluate the grave sufferings that were imposed for five years on the populace of these French provinces, already so sorely tried, in the course of history.

I have submitted a few details which may have seemed ridiculous or facetious; but I did so because I thought it desirable that one should visualize the oppression exercised by the German Administration in all circumstances of life - even in private life-that general oppression characterized by the attempt to destroy and annihilate, and extended in a most complete manner over the departments and regions which were annexed.

I believe that the Tribunal will possibly prefer me to leave until tomorrow my comments with respect to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.


1 Feb. 46

I would like, moreover, to have the Tribunal's assent concerning a question of testimony. I should like to put a witness on the stand, but it is only a little while ago that I gave the Tribunal a letter concerning this request. May I ask to be ex cused for not having done so earlier because there has been some uncertainty on this point.

If the Tribunal finds it convenient, I should like to have this witness here at tomorrow, Saturday morning's session. I state that this witness would be Mr. Koos Vorrink, who is of Dutch nationality. I also wish to say, for the benefit of Defense, that the question I would like to submit to the witness will deal with certain items concerning Germanization in the Netherlands.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to call him tomorrow?

M. FAURE: If that is convenient to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, call him tomorrow.

M. FAURE: If it please the Tribunal, his testimony could be taken after the recess tomorrow morning.

DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): Mr. President, I do not wish to prolong the proceedings; but I believe it will be in the interest of justice if I ask that the Dutch witness be heard, not tomorrow but Monday, on the assumption that Seyss-Inquart who is now ill may be expected back on that date.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, would it be equally convenient to you to call him on Monday?

M. FAURE: Mr. President, I do not desire to vex the Defense; but the witness might like to leave Nuremberg fairly promptly. Perhaps I might suggest that he be heard tomorrow and that after he has been heard, if Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart expresses his desire to cross-examine him, the witness could remain until Monday's session.

If, on the other hand, after having heard the questions involved, the Counsel considers that there is no need for any cross- examination, then Seyss-Inquart's absence would not matter. But I will naturally accept the decision of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: That seems a very reasonable suggestion.

DR. STEINBAUER: I am agreeable to the suggestion of the French Prosecutor.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 2 February 1946 at 1000 hours.]


Nuremberg Trials Vol. 6 Menu

127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511.