Afternoon Session
MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner will be absent until further notice, on account of illness.
M. FAURE: Mr. President, I shall now take up the last chapter of my brief, which is devoted to the organization of criminal activities. I shall begin this last chapter by quoting a few words spoken by Monseigneur Piguet, Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand, in the course of a pontifical Mass on Whit Sunday, 20 May 1945. Monseigneur Piguet had just been liberated from the concentration camp to which he had been sent by the Nazis. He said:
“The criminal institutions of which we have been witness and victim bear within themselves all the scourges of barbarism and old-time servitude systematized and applied by a new method capable of increasing human misery by the whole range of modern scientific possibilities.”
The evidence that I intend to present to the Tribunal with regard to the occupied countries of the West bears upon this aspect of the systematizing of German criminal enterprises. We have said that Germanization did not consist in the particular fact of the imposition of German nationality or of German law, but in the general imposition of the standards established by the Nazi regime, and in a general way, of its philosophy. This aspect of Germanization implies criminal activity at once as a means and as an end—as a means, because the criminal means is very often highly effective, and we know that Nazism professes indifference in regard to the immorality of the means; as an end, on the other hand, since the final organization of Nazi society postulates the elimination of elements hostile to it or which it regards as undesirable. Under these conditions the criminal activities therefore do not appear as accidents or regrettable incidents of war and of occupation. They must not be ascribed to un-coordinated action on the part of subordinates due to overzealousness or lack of discipline.
As the elimination of adversaries is recommended in principle, it will be carried out in fact by the normal and regular functioning of the administrative apparatus. If Nazism has a philosophy of criminal action, it also has, properly speaking, a bureaucracy of criminal activity.
The will which inspires this action is transmitted from one to another of the chief and secondary centers of the state organism. Each of the misdeeds or series of misdeeds of which we have told you already or shall do so again, assumes the existence of a whole series of transmissions: orders passed by superiors to inferiors, requests for orders or reports passed by inferiors to superiors, and finally the relations maintained between corresponding echelons of different services. This administrative organization of criminal activity appears to us a very important datum for the determination of responsibility and the proving of the charges formulated in the Indictment against the higher leaders and against the group organization.
The responsibility of any one of these superior leaders in regard to a determined criminal activity does not, indeed, require that an exhibit or a document signed by the person himself be produced or that it should involve him by name. The existence or non-existence of such a document is a matter of chance.
The responsibility of the higher leader is directly established by the fact that a criminal activity has been carried out administratively by a service at whose head we find this leader.
This is all the more true in the case of a criminal activity pursued over a long period of time, affecting a considerable number of persons and whose development has given rise to a series of complications, of consultations, and of solutions. There is in every graded state service a continuous circuit of authority which is at the same time a continuous circuit of responsibility. Moreover, concerning charges made against organizations described as criminal organizations, their criminal nature springs from the very fact that their activity produces criminal results without there being any lack of knowledge or modification of the normal rules of competence and of functioning of their different organisms.
The collaboration which develops with a view to such an end between a series of agents belonging to the organization both vertically between the upper and lower grades and horizontally between the different specialist departments implies no less forcibly the existence of a collective criminal intent.
I shall speak first of the persecution of persons qualified as Jews by the German code. The Tribunal already knows from other evidence the Nazi doctrine on the subject of Jews. The historians of the future will perhaps be able to determine how much of this doctrine was the result of sincere fanaticism and how much was the result of premeditated intent to deceive and mislead public opinion.
It is certain that the Nazis found the theories which led them to undertake the extermination of the Jews extremely convenient.
In the first place, anti-Semitism was an ever accessible means of averting public criticism and anger. Moreover, it was a method of psychological seduction that was very cleverly calculated to appeal to simple minds. It made it possible to give a certain amount of satisfaction to the most needy and underprivileged person by convincing him that he was nevertheless of a superior quality and that he could despise and bully a whole category of his fellow men. Finally, the Nazis obtained for themselves by this means the possibility of whipping up the fanaticism of their members by awakening and encouraging in them the criminal instincts which are always latent to a certain extent in the souls of men.
Indeed, it is a German scientist, Feuerbach, who developed the theory that disposition to crime does not necessarily proceed from long preparation. The criminal instinct present may spring to life in an instant. The Nazis gave to the elite of their servants the possibility of giving free rein to any inclination they might possess for murder, looting, the most atrocious actions, and the most hideous spectacles. In this way they fully assured themselves of their obedience and of their zeal.
In order to avoid repetition, I shall not speak in detail of the great sufferings endured by the persons qualified as Jews in France and in the other countries of western Europe. I should like simply to indicate here that it also caused great suffering to all the other inhabitants of these countries to witness the abominable treatment inflicted upon the Jews. Every Frenchman felt a deep affliction at seeing the persecution of other Frenchmen, many of whom had earned the gratitude of the fatherland. There is no one in Paris who did not feel deeply ashamed to learn that the dying Bergson had to be carried to the police commission to satisfy the census requirements.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, you will forgive my interrupting you, but the Tribunal feels that what you are now presenting to us, however interesting—and it is interesting—is really an argument and is not presenting evidence to us. And as we have already heard an opening on behalf of the United States, an opening on behalf of Great Britain, and an opening on behalf of France, we think that you really ought to address yourself, if possible, to the evidence which you are presenting, rather than to an argument.
I feel sure that, with your readiness to meet the wishes of the Tribunal in expressing your presentation, you will perhaps be able to do that.
M. FAURE: I understand perfectly the feeling of the Tribunal. I simply intended to say a few words referring to the feeling shown by Frenchmen in regard to these persecutions. But these words have now been spoken, and I have just arrived at the object of the demonstration which I am to present to the Tribunal with the documents. To show the Tribunal that the spirit of my presentation is in accordance with the requirements of the Tribunal, I should like to indicate that I am not presenting in this brief any document which constitutes an individual story or even a collective story, and no document which comes from victims themselves, or even from impartial persons.
I have tried to select only a certain number of German documents in order to furnish evidence of the execution of a criminal enterprise consisting in the extermination of Jews in France and the western countries.
I should like to observe first of all that the Nazi persecution of the Jews included two sets of actions. This is important from the point of view of the direct responsibility of the defendants. The first category of actions is that resulting from the actual texts of laws and regulations and the second category is that resulting from the way in which these were applied.
As regards the texts of laws and regulations, it is evident that these texts, which were issued by the German authorities—either military authorities or commissioners of the Reich—constituted particularly flagrant violations of the sovereignty of the occupied countries.
I do not think that it is necessary for me to present these laws and regulations in detail, for their main features are common knowledge. In order to avoid reading, I have had two tables drawn up and these are before the Tribunal in the document book, although they are not documents properly speaking. These documents are to be found in an appendix. I should like to explain what the two tables in this appendix show. The first table, in the left-hand column, is arranged in chronological order; the other columns indicate the names of the different countries. The Tribunal will find arranged in chronological order the measures taken against the Jews in different countries.
The second table classifies them according to subject—the concept “Jews,” economic measures, bullying and petty irritations, the yellow star—and you will find in this table appropriate texts, arranged according to subject.
I likewise present in the form of documents under Document Number RF-1200 a certain number of decrees which were issued in France concerning the Jews, and as these decrees are public acts I shall simply ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of them.
I must now make this observation: These texts, taken as a whole, considerably lowered the status of the Jews. Yet there are no texts in existence of German decrees ordering the mass deportation or murder of Jews. On the other hand, you must remember that this legislation was developed by progressive stages up to 1942, after which a pause ensued. It was during this pause that, as we shall see, genuine administrative measures for the deportation and consequently for the extermination of the Jews were introduced.
This leads us to consider the fact that we are not dealing with two separate actions—the legislative action, to be ascribed to the military authorities, and the executive action, to be ascribed to the police. This point of view, which regards the military authority only as the author of the decrees and, therefore, as bearing a lesser degree of criminal responsibility, would be false. In reality we are looking at the development of a continued action which employs by turns different means. The first means, that is to say, the legislative means, are the necessary preparatory measures for putting into force the other, or directly criminal means.
In order to put into practice their plan of extermination, the Nazis had first of all to single out the Jewish elements in the population and to separate them from the rest of the population of the country. They had to be able to find the Jews easily and to find them with decreased powers of self-defense and lacking in the material, physical, and intellectual resources which would have enabled them easily to avoid persecution.
They had to be able to destroy the whole of this doomed element of the national community at a single blow, and for this reason they had first to put an end to the constant interweaving of interests and activities existing between all the categories of the population. The Germans wished to prepare public opinion as far as possible; and they could succeed in this by accustoming the public to no longer seeing the Jews, as the latter were practically forbidden to leave their houses.
I shall now present to the Tribunal a few documents bearing on this general extermination deliberately undertaken by the Nazis. I shall first present a series of documents, Documents RF-1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, and 1206. I present these documents with reference to a particular question, the emigration of the Jews who tried to leave the occupied territories.
Inasmuch as the Germans made their desire to get rid of the Jews apparent in every way, it would seem logical for them to look favorably on the solution offered by emigration. On the contrary, as we shall see, they forbade emigration and did so by a permanent measure of general application. This is a proof of their will to exterminate the Jews and a proof of the ferocity of the measures employed. Here, to begin with, is Document Number RF-1201. These documents are submitted to the Tribunal in a series of photostatic copies for each member.
Document Number RF-1201 is a letter of 22 July 1941 emanating from the Bordeaux service and requesting certain instructions from Paris. I wish to read the beginning of this message:
“It has just been established that about one hundred and fifty Jews are still in the territory of the District Command of St. Jean de Luz. At the time of our conversation with the District Commander, Major Henkel, the latter asked that these Jews should leave his district as quickly as possible. At the same time, he pointed out that in his opinion it would be far better to allow these Jews to emigrate rather than to transfer them to other departments or even to concentration camps.”
Here is the reply to this telegram. It is Document Number RF-1202, dated 26 July 1941. The second sentence:
“We do not approve Major Henkel’s point of view as the Reich Security Main Office has stipulated again in a decree the principle that the emigration of Jews residing in the occupied territories of the West, and if possible also of those living in Unoccupied France, is to be prevented.”
Here is an exhibit which I submit as Document Number RF-1203 and which comes from the Military Command in France under date of 4 February 1942. We are no longer dealing with the SS but with the Military Command.
“The Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police at the R.M.d.I. has given orders that the emigration of Jews from Germany or the occupied territories has to be prevented, on principle.”
The rest of the letter indicates that exceptions may be made. This document establishes the collaboration between the Army and the police, the Army assuring the execution of the orders given by the Supreme Chief of Police.
I now submit Document Number RF-1205. This document relates to the same subject, but I nevertheless submit it because it shows the intervention of a third German authority, the diplomatic authority. This is a note of the German Consulate General of Casablanca. I read the first sentence:
“The number of European emigrants hitherto leaving Casablanca for the American continent only at long intervals has greatly increased during the last month. On 15 March . . .”
The rest of the letter indicates that these are Jewish emigrants.
Document Number RF-1204, which is joined to this one, constitutes a new report to the same effect from the Consulate General Casablanca, under the date of 8 June 1942. I read the last paragraph of this document:
“The emigrants leaving Casablanca are, for the most part, Jewish families from Germany and Central Europe and also some French Jews. There is no reason to suspect that young people fit for military service have left Casablanca with the avowed intention of entering military service on the side of the enemy. It is left to your discretion to inform the military authorities about this.”
I have quoted this document to show that there was no question of a military emigration which they would have had an interest in preventing, and also to show that this document would normally have concerned firstly the German Embassy, to which it was addressed, and secondly the military services which it suggests should be informed.
Now, what is the sequel to these two communications? The sequel is shown by Document Number RF-1206, of which the two documents just read constitute appendixes. This Document RF-1206 emanates from Berlin, from the Reich Security Main Office, and is addressed to the Chief of Police for France and Belgium.
“Attached are two copies of confidential reports from the German Consulate General in Casablanca to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for your information.
“You are asked to give your special attention to the state of affairs described and to prevent, as far as possible, an emigration of this kind.”
I therefore draw three conclusions. Firstly, as I have indicated, the Nazis opposed the emigration of the Jews, although they claim that they are undesirable. Secondly, this decision was made at a higher level and with a general application. Thirdly, all the services, the police, the Army, and the Department of Foreign Affairs intervened to ensure the execution of these barbarous orders.
I now present to the Tribunal Document Number RF-1207. This document is a voluminous German report. It is in fact 70 pages in length. It was found in the German archives in Paris. This document is interleaved with a series of graphs, drawings, and models of census cards. It is mimeographed, and the copy which we present does not bear the author’s signature, but simply the indication “SS Obersturmführer.” This is Obersturmführer Dannecker, who played an important role in regulating Jewish questions in France and who was chief of this bureau.
THE PRESIDENT: That fact which you have just stated to us, has that been verified by the French authorities, namely, that it was a captured document in Paris?
M. FAURE: According to the report submitted to the Tribunal, we took possession of these documents at the archives of the Sûreté Nationale. They were among the documents found in the German offices at the time of the liberation. Besides, I point out to the Tribunal that the other documents produced do bear the signatures of the German officials. This report is the only document without a signature. The fact that it was written by Dannecker will be proved by other documents, which constitute a résumé of it.
I shall not read to the Tribunal the 70 pages of this report, but I should like to read certain paragraphs which I think may interest the Tribunal. Here is the first page. To begin with, it is entitled, “The Jewish Question in France and Its Treatment. Paris, 1 July 1941.” First page:
“Final solution of the Jewish question—this is the heading and the goal for the work of those services of the Sipo and SD which are handling the Jewish problem in France. It has always been clear that practical results cannot be achieved without a study of the political situation in general as well as of the situation of the Jews.
“The following pages, next to giving a general draft of our planning, are to explain the results achieved up to now as well as the immediate aims.
“Everything touching the principle must be considered from the following point of view: Since the chief of the Sipo and SD has been charged by the Führer with preparing the solution of the Jewish question in Europe, his offices in France are to carry out the preliminary work in order to be able to serve abroad as the absolutely reliable agents of the European Commissioner for Jewish Affairs, at the appointed time.”
I shall now point out to the Tribunal the chief headings of the paragraphs in order to pursue the development of the idea and of the operations of this German office.
THE PRESIDENT: I was considering, M. Faure, why this document has not got any identifying mark upon it. I mean, of course, we do not doubt for an instant what you say to us is true, but at the same time it is not the correct way to do it—for us to have to rely on counsel’s statement as to the nature of the evidence. And there is nothing on the document itself to show that it was captured in Paris or to show what it is except what it states.
M. FAURE: Mr. President, the joining of this document to the file of the French Prosecution was done by a report made in Paris, which I shall present before the Tribunal, because as this report concerns a certain number of documents, it was not especially joined to the file of this particular document. On the other hand, when I received these documents from the police, I did not wish to write anything on the document or to place it under a seal, for I wished to avoid altering the normal appearance of the document in any way.
I must state that if the Tribunal prefers not to receive this document inasmuch as I do recognize that it does not bear a signature, I shall not submit the document for I have a second report by Dannecker which is signed by him. I submitted both in order to make clear the continuity of the operation.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, in the case of the documents presented by the United States, the captured documents by the United States, as Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe reminded us the other day, there is an affidavit, I think, of Major Coogan, which states that all those documents of a certain series, PS, L, R, and various other series, were all captured in Germany by the United States forces. If there were such an affidavit with reference to documents captured in Paris which might be identified by some letter such as PS or some letter similar to that, the matter would seem to us to be in order. But when a document is presented to us which has no identifying mark upon it at all, we are then in the position which we are in now of simply hearing the statement of counsel, which, of course, is not evidence that the document was found in Paris or found somewhere else; and therefore it occurs to me that one way that it might be dealt with would be an affidavit by somebody who knows the facts that this document and any other documents of a similar sort were captured in the archives of the German forces in Paris or elsewhere.
M. FAURE: I could very easily produce before the Tribunal the affidavit which it requests. I say that if we do not have it in this form it is because our habitual procedure is not exactly the same as that which may be followed in the United States. In fact, as the Charter of the Tribunal indicates that the Prosecution was charged with the collection of evidence, we ourselves have authorized magistrates in our service to look for documents in the archives of the police and if the Tribunal wishes I shall ask the police in addition for attestation of the seizure of these documents in the German archives. I shall then ask the Tribunal to allow me to produce this affidavit in a few days’ time, so that I can ask the police for it.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, the Tribunal think that we might admit the document, subject to your undertaking that you would do that in the course of a day or two.
M. FAURE: I cannot guarantee that I will have this document in a day or two.
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn’t stressing the number of days. If you will undertake to do it that is sufficient.
M. FAURE: Certainly, Mr. President. I shall go on then with the analysis of the Dannecker report. The first chapter is called, “History of the Jews in France.” I shall not read it. It includes a series of ideas on a very elementary intellectual level. The following chapter is entitled, “Organization of the Jews in France.” It includes a first part under the heading, “Before 14 June 1940.” This part does not seem to me interesting. The second part of this chapter is entitled, “Operations of the Sipo and the SD (SS Einsatzkommando Paris) against these Organizations and against Leading Jewish Personages.” The report comes from the SS Hauptsturmführer Hagen. I think I might read the beginning:
“From a study of the records collected in Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, it was possible to conclude that the center of Judaism in Europe and with it the chief lines of communication to overseas must be sought in France. Realizing this, first of all, the offices of great Jewish organizations already known, such as World Jewish Congress”—then follows an enumeration—“have been searched and sealed.”
Beginning with Page 14, the report attempts to demonstrate the existence of a bond between Judaism and Catholicism. It presents the results of searches made in the homes of various persons: The Rothschild family, the former minister, Mandel, the press attaché at the British Embassy, and other persons, including the lawyers Moro-Giafferi and Torrès. The end of this chapter is as indicated, Page 16, last paragraph:
“To sum up, we can say on the basis of the records which have been collected, that France, where Judaism was linked with Catholicism and with certain important politicians, was its last bulwark on the continent of Europe.”
The following section has the title, “Life of the Jews after the Entry of the Germans.” The text describes the way in which the Germans created a central and unified organization of the Jews and imposed it on them. This is the beginning of the plan which I have just described to the Tribunal, which consisted in singling out the Jewish elements in the population, massing them together, and separating them entirely from the rest of the population. I should like to read the first paragraph, for the analysis of it is very important:
“After the Armistice and the return to normal life it appeared that almost all the Jewish associations had ceased to exist (in the absence of responsible officials and financial supporters who had fled into the unoccupied zone) while there was a growing need for aid. The progressive German anti-Jewish legislation caused a steady aggravation of the Jewish social problems. Generally considered, these circumstances should have provided a favorable ground in France for a Jewish all-round organization.”
In this text there is a very subtle idea. We note that the German legislation, that is to say, the legislation of the Military Command, brought about a great aggravation of social problems; and we conclude that this will facilitate the general organization of the Jews. This reasoning confirms, I think, what I said to the Tribunal a while ago, namely, that we were faced with a whole system of measures, the first of which were intended to facilitate the separation of the Jewish community which was to be exterminated.
Dannecker then explains how a co-ordination committee was created. I skip the details and come to Page 21, Paragraph 2:
“An agreement has been made with the office of the Commander of Greater Paris that, in the future, Jewish organizations may address themselves to the German services only by way of the Committee of Jewish Co-ordination. This resulted in an enforced amalgamation of all minor Jewish organizations.
“Moreover, an agreement has been made with the Paris Office for National Relief (Bureau du Secours National) that, after the expiration of a period of 4 weeks, no Jew can any longer be fed and housed by National Relief. The S.N. will appoint a special representative for controlling the co-ordination committee on this matter. The blocking of Jewish accounts will compel the Jews in the very near future to ask that the co-ordination committee be authorized to receive gifts intended for it from these blocked holdings. The granting of this request will demonstrate the actual existence of an enforced Jewish union.
“As can be seen this question too will be solved in the manner desired, even if it is a ‘cold manner.’ ”
The following chapter bears the title, “Political Activities of the Office for Jewish Affairs of the Sipo and of the SD.” I should like to read some passages from this:
“After the promulgation of the Jewish statute of 3 October 1940 by the French Government, a certain slowing-down occurred in the handling of the Jewish question in France; and for this reason the Office for Jewish Affairs worked out plans for a Central Jewish Bureau. The plan was discussed with the military administration on 31 January 1941. The latter showed no interest; and, as the question was a purely political one, it was referred to the SD in agreement with the German Embassy.”
This is followed by an analysis of various discussions with the French Commissioner Vallat, with Ambassador Abetz, and with De Brinon and indicates the various demands presented by the Germans to the French authorities. I pass now to Page 26, the last paragraph:
“The proposal of the Office for Jewish Affairs has been referred to SS Brigadeführer Dr. Best by SS Obersturmbannführer Dr. Knochen. This proposal suggests that a liaison office ought to be created which should comprise the representatives of the four offices cited above. The management was to be in the hands of the Director of the Office for Jewish Affairs of the SD in compliance with the rules stipulating the competency of the OKW, the OKH, and the Commander in France. As a result of this suggestion, a conference was held on 10 June 1941. Those who attended were: Ministerial Counsellor Dr. Stortz for the Commander in France”—then German titles follow which have not been translated into French and which are a little hard for me to read—“Dr. Blancke, (Economic Service), Counsellor to the Embassy Dr. Zeitschel (German Embassy), and SS Obersturmführer Dannecker. The representatives of the military administration stated clearly that the competence of the SD resulted from the decrees of the OKW and of the OKH as well as from the last confidential decree of 25 March 1941 of the Commander in France. Dr. Stortz declared that for various reasons it would be better to abstain from creating a special liaison bureau, under the direction of the SD. SS Obersturmführer Dannecker explained for his part that we are concerned with the final solution of the question only; and, therefore, the SD must have the possibility of carrying out the orders given by the RSHA.”
THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, can’t you summarize this? It is a very long document, and we have so many documents and so much evidence in connection with the Jews already.
M. FAURE: I shall simply read one sentence on the same page:
“The result of the conference was the decision to meet every week at the Office for Jewish Affairs. In the course of these meetings they would discuss in common all their aims, experiences, and objections.”
I think it is interesting to note these regular conferences held every week and in which representatives of the military services, the embassy, and the police took part.
The following pages of the report can be passed over. They contain remarks about Vallat, notes relating to the establishment of files concerning the Jews, and an analysis of the German ordinances. This is important as showing that these ordinances have their place in the general plan. Dannecker likewise speaks of the Anti-Jewish Institute, and observes that this institute was financed by the German Embassy.
The report goes on to give statistical notes and concludes with a statement of which I shall read only one paragraph:
“I hope I have succeeded in giving an idea of the present situation, and a summary of the manifold difficulties which had to be surmounted. I cannot help but acknowledge in this connection the really friendly and thorough support which has been given to our work by Ambassador Abetz and his representative, Minister Schleier, as well as by SS Sturmbannführer and Counsellor to the Embassy Dr. Zeitschel.”
To meet the desire of the Tribunal, I shall not submit all the documents included in my document file. I shall therefore pass now to Document Number RF-1210. I have not submitted Documents RF-1208 and 1209. This Document Number RF-1210 is a new report of Dannecker’s. It is dated 22 February 1942. I submit it to show the regular and progressive character of the activities of the German offices. This is a letter of the 22d of February 1942. I shall read simply the headings, and I shall quote two passages.
The first heading is “Task of the Sipo and of the SD in France”; the second is “Card Index of Jews”; the third, “French Commission for Jewish Questions”; the fourth, “The French Anti-Jewish Police.” The fifth is entitled “Activity.” I shall quote this paragraph:
“Up to now three operations have been carried out against the Jews of Paris on a large scale. On each occasion the local office has been responsible for selecting the Jews who were to be arrested, as well as for the preparation and technical organization of the operations. The Jewish card index described above has considerably facilitated the organization of all these operations.”
The next heading is “Anti-Jewish Institute”; next is “Compulsory Jewish Amalgamation”; and finally “Tuesday Conferences.” I shall read Paragraph 2:
“A conference has been held every Tuesday since the middle of 1941”—Page 5 of the document—“attended by representatives of the following offices: 1) Military Command, Administrative Staff, Administrative Section; 2) Administrative Staff, Police Group; 3) Administrative Staff, Economic Section; 4) German Embassy in Paris; 5) Operations Staff West of Reichsleiter Rosenberg.
“The result of these conferences was that (of course, for very rare exceptions caused by outsiders) the policy regarding Jews in the occupied territories can be followed on absolutely uniform lines.”
THE PRESIDENT: We will break off now.
[A recess was taken.]
M. FAURE: Gentlemen, in order not to prolong the discussion too much, I should like, if it please the Tribunal, to submit as documents all the documents in my book, but to read and analyze only some of the most important.
I shall then pass over Documents RF-1211, 1212, 1213, and 1214. I should like, however, to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the end of the mimeographed French text. As the letter “K” appeared on the document, the word “Keitel” was written in, quite wrongly. I should like to say that this does not occur in the document. I should like to read this Document Number RF-1215, which is very short:
“Secret—13 May 1942. To the Chief of Area A.
“In accordance with instructions from OKH, Quartermaster General, the words ‘dispatch to the East’ must not be used in announcements referring to the forced evacuation of the population, in order to avoid a defamation of the occupied regions in the East. The same applies to the expression ‘deportation,’ this word being too strongly reminiscent of the banishment to Siberia at the time of the Czars. In all publications and correspondence we must use the phrase ‘dispatch for forced labor.’ ”
Document Number RF-1216, which I offer in evidence now, is another memorandum from Dannecker, dated 10 March 1942. The purpose of this memorandum is defined as “Deportation from France of 5,000 Jews.” The quotation of the title suffices to indicate the subject of the document. Dannecker alludes to a meeting of the Office for Jewish Affairs, a meeting which took place at the RSHA in Berlin on 4 March 1942 at which it was decided that negotiations would be undertaken for the deportation of 5,000 Jews from France. The memorandum specifies Paragraph 4, second sentence:
“Jews of French nationality must be deprived of their nationality before being deported, or at the latest on the day of the deportation itself.”
In a subsequent passage of the document Dannecker explains that the expenses of this deportation would have to be paid by the French Jews, since in the case of impending mass deportations of Jews from Czechoslovakia provisions had been made for the Slovakian Government to pay a sum of 500 marks for each Jew deported and, in addition, to bear the cost of deportation.
I now offer in evidence Document Number RF-1217, which is a memorandum of 15 June 1942 headed “Other Transports of Jews Coming from France.” It is still dealing with the same operation, but I believe it is interesting to submit these documents without reading them, since they show the extremely complex and regular working of this administration whose purpose was to arrest and deport innocent people. The beginning of the memorandum alludes to a new conference held in Berlin on 11 June 1942 and attended by those responsible for the Jewish departments in Brussels and The Hague, as well as by Dannecker himself. In the fourth paragraph on Page 1 of this document I read the last sentence of the paragraph, “Ten percent of Jews unfit for labor may be included in these convoys.” This sentence shows that the purpose of this deportation was not merely to procure labor, even if it involved labor to be exterminated by work.
I should like also to read the fifth paragraph, which contains only one sentence:
“It was agreed that 15,000 Jews should be expelled from Holland, 10,000 from Belgium, and up to 100,000 from France, including the unoccupied zone.”
The last part of the memorandum relates to the technical execution. It alludes first to negotiations with the transport service to obtain the necessary trains. It then alludes to the necessity of inducing the de facto French Government to take steps to deprive of their nationality all Jews resident outside of French territory. This would mean that deported Jews would no longer be considered as French citizens. Lastly the French State was to pay the cost of transport and various expenses connected with the deportation.
I now present Document Number RF-1218, which is a memorandum dated 16 June 1942, entitled “The Transportation of Jews from France: Subject, Order from the SS Obersturmbannführer Eichmann to SS Hauptsturmführer Dannecker, 11 June 1942.” The first three paragraphs of this memorandum show that there was difficulty in transporting deportees, because of the large quantity of railway stock necessary for the preparation of the eastern campaign. I should like to read the last two paragraphs of this letter:
“We are now carrying out a large-scale reorganization of the German transport agencies in France. The main feature of this is that the numerous organizations existing hitherto will be taken over by the Reich Ministry of Transportation, which will be responsible for them. This reorganization, which was ordered without notice, takes a few days to complete. Before that date it is impossible to give approximate information as to whether the transportation of Jews can be carried out in the near future or at a later date, on the scale anticipated, or even partially.”
These remarks seemed to me interesting as defining the responsibility of the Reich Cabinet. Such a large undertaking as the deportation of so many Jews required the intervention of many different administrative services, and we see here that the success of this enterprise depended on the reorganization of transport on the responsibility of the Reich Ministry of Transportation. It is certain that a ministerial department of this kind, which is above all a technical department, intervened to help carry out that general enterprise of deportation.
I now submit Document Number RF-1219 which is a memorandum by Dr. Knochen dated 15 June 1942. This memorandum is entitled, “Technical Execution of New Convoys of Jews from France.” Not to take too much time I shall read only the first paragraph of this memorandum:
“To avoid any conflict with the operation in progress with regard to ‘French workmen for Germany,’ mention will be made only of Jewish resettlement. This version is confirmed by the fact that the convoys may include entire families and therefore the possibility is left open of sending at a later date for the children under 16, who were left behind.”
The remainder of the memorandum, like all these texts, which are so extremely painful from a moral point of view, continues to discuss the question of the deportation of the Jews in round figures as if all these human beings were mere goods and chattels.
I now submit Document Number RF-1220, which is a letter from the German Embassy in Paris, from Dr. Zeitschel, dated 27 June 1942. I should like to read this letter, which is thus expressed:
“Following my conversation with Hauptsturmführer Dannecker on 27 June, during which he stated that he needed, as soon as possible, 50,000 Jews from the free zone for deportation to the East and that something had to be done to support the operations of Darquier de Pellepoix, the Commissioner General on Jewish questions, I immediately informed Ambassador Abetz and Counsellor Rahn of this matter. Counsellor Rahn is to meet President Laval this afternoon and he promised to discuss with him at once the handing over of these 50,000 Jews, demanding at the same time plenary powers for Darquier de Pellepoix, in conformity with the laws already promulgated, and the immediate granting of the credits promised him.
“As unfortunately I shall be away from Paris for a week, I request, in view of the urgency of the question, that Hauptsturmführer Dannecker contact Counsellor Rahn directly, on Monday, 29 June, or Tuesday, 30 June, at the latest, to learn Laval’s reply.”
I thought it useful to read this letter, for it shows the responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Defendant Ribbentrop in this abominable matter of handing over 50,000 Jews as required. It is quite evident that such a step cannot be taken by a counsellor at an embassy unknown to his minister and without the latter’s full knowledge and consent.
I submit now Document Number RF-1221. It is a memorandum dated 26 June 1942 of which I shall give only the title, “Directives for the Deportation of Jews.”
Now I come to Document Number RF-1222, of which I shall also read only the title, “Conference with the Specialists for Jewish Questions of the Security Police, Command of the Section IV-J on 30 June 1942. Deportation to Auschwitz of Jews from the Occupied Territories.”
In this memorandum Dannecker again alludes to the conference which took place at the RSHA, according to which 50,000 Jews were to be transferred. There follows a list of trains, the stations in which they were to be assembled, and a request for reports.
I now submit Document Number RF-1223. It is a memorandum, dated 1 July 1942, summing up a conference between Dannecker and Eichmann, who, as we already know, was in Berlin but had to come to Paris on that occasion. “Subject: Departmental Conference with SS Hauptsturmführer Dannecker, Paris, Concerning the Impending Evacuation from France.” It still deals with the preparation of the great operation envisaged.
I now submit Document Number RF-1224, of which I read only the title and the date, “4 July 1942: Directives for a Major Round-up of Jews in Paris.”
I now offer in evidence Document Number RF-1225, which is a Dannecker memorandum dated 6 July 1942. Subject: “Deportation of Jews from France.” It concerns a conference held with representatives of French authorities. We see in the document the expression “Judenmaterial,” which was translated in a roundabout way by the words “Jewish livestock.”
I now submit Document Number RF-1226. I should like to read, if the Tribunal please, the first paragraph of this document which is very revealing both in regard to the collaboration with the transport services and the horrifying mentality of the Nazi authorities. The memorandum is the sequel to a telephone conversation between the signatory Röthke and the SS Obersturmführer Eichmann at Berlin:
“The SS Obersturmführer Eichmann in Berlin telephoned on 14 July 1942 about 1900 hours. He wished to know why the train provided for the transport of 15 July 1942 had been cancelled. I replied that originally the star bearers in the provinces were to be arrested too but that by virtue of a new agreement with the French Government only stateless Jews were to be arrested to begin with.
“The train due to leave on 15 July 1942 had to be cancelled because, according to information received by the SD Kommando at Bordeaux, there were only 150 stateless Jews in Bordeaux. There was no time to find enough other Jews to fill this train. SS Obersturmführer Eichmann replied that it was a question of prestige. They had to conduct lengthy negotiations about these trains with the Reichsminister of Transportation, which turned out successfully; and now Paris cancels a train. Such a thing had never happened to him before. The matter was highly shameful. He did not wish to report it to SS Gruppenführer Müller right now, for the blame would fall on his own shoulders. He was reflecting whether he would not do without France as an evacuation country altogether.”
I now submit Document Number RF-1227, which gives statistics indicating that up to the 2d of September 1942 27,069 Jews were evacuated and that by the end of October a total figure of 52,069 might be reached. They are anxious to accelerate the pace and to attack also the Jews in the unoccupied zone of France.
I now submit Document Number RF-1228. It is also an account of a conference where there were invited representatives of the French authorities. I should like to read only the last paragraph of this document:
“On the occasion of the meeting which took place on 28 August 1942 in Berlin, it was stated that most of the European countries are much nearer to a final solution of the Jewish problem than France. In fact, these countries began much earlier. We then must catch up with them in many matters between now and 31 October 1942.”
I now submit Document Number RF-1229 without reading it. It is a memorandum by Dr. Knochen on this same subject of deportation dated 31 December 1942.
I now submit Document Number RF-1230, which is a memorandum dated 6 March 1943, headed, “Ref: Present Situation of the Jewish Question in France.” In the first part of this document, the deportations are stated to have reached a total of 49,000 Jews as on 6 March 1943. This is followed by a statement of the nationalities, which are extremely varied, of a certain number of Jews who were deported in addition to the French Jews. Paragraph 3 of this memorandum is headed, “Attitude of the Italians with Regard to the Jewish Question.” I shall read only the first and the last lines of this long paragraph:
“The attitude adopted up to now in the French territory occupied by Italy must be changed by all means if the Jewish problem is to be solved. A few conspicuous cases. . . .”
I break off the quotation here. These conspicuous cases were cases in which the Italians opposed the arrest of Jews in the zone occupied by them.
I now read the last paragraph:
“A.A. has been informed by the RSHA (Eichmann) about proceedings of the Italians.”—A.A. appears to be the initials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and this is confirmed by the following sentence. I continue the quotation—“The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, meant to discuss, in negotiations with the Duce, the attitude adopted by the Italians with regard to the Jewish question. We do not yet know the results of these discussions.”
I shall not submit Documents RF-1231 and RF-1232. I pass then to the last documents which I want to present to the Tribunal. These documents relate more specifically to the deportation of children.
I submit Document Number RF-1233, which is a memorandum by Dannecker dated 21 July 1942. I shall read Paragraph 2:
“The question of deporting children has been examined with SS Obersturmbannführer Eichmann. He decided that as soon as deportations to the Government General could be resumed, convoys of children could be sent by rail. SS Obersturmführer Nowak promised to arrange about six convoys to the Government General at the end of August or the beginning of September, which may comprise all sorts of Jews (also disabled and old Jews).”
Now I offer in evidence Document Number RF-1234. It is a memorandum dated 13 August 1942. Before pointing out the interest of this document I remind the Tribunal that I have already submitted Document Number RF-1219 and in that document there was a formula which I recall, namely, “The possibility is left open of sending at a later date for children under 16 who were left behind.” The Nazis wished to give the impression that they deported entire families at the same time or at least that they did not deport whole trainloads of children. To give this impression, they invented a device which is wholly incredible unless you actually see it in black and white: the mingling of children and adults in definite proportions. I read Paragraph 4 of this Document Number RF-1234:
“The Jews arriving from the unoccupied zone will be mingled at Drancy with Jewish children now at Pithiviers and Beaune-la-Rolande, so that out of a total of 700 at least 500 Jewish adults 300 to 500 Jewish children will be allotted. According to instructions of the Reich Security Main Office, no trains containing Jewish children only are to leave.”
I read the next sentence too:
“Leguay has been told that 13 trainloads of Jews would also leave Drancy in September and that Jewish children from the unoccupied zone could be handed over.”
I now submit the last document of the series dealing with the Jewish question, Document Number RF-1235. I am going to read it, as it is very short.
“6 April 1944, Lyons, 2010 hours. Subject: Home for Jewish Children at Izieu, Ain.
“The home for Jewish children, ‘Child Colony,’ at Izieu (Ain) was raided this morning and a total of 41 children aged from 3 to 13 were apprehended. Moreover, the arrest of the entire Jewish personnel, numbering 10 in all and including 5 women was successfully carried out. Money or other property could not be seized. The convoy for Drancy will leave on 7 April 1944.”
This document also bears a memorandum written by hand and couched in the following terms:
“Matter discussed in the presence of Dr. V. B. and Hauptsturmführer Brunner. Dr. V. B. stated that in cases of this kind, special measures were provided for the billeting of the children by the Obersturmführer Röthke. The Hauptsturmführer Brunner stated that he knew of no such instructions or plans and that on principle he did not approve of such special measures. In this case he would also follow the lines of the usual regulations for deportation. For the moment I made no decision affecting the principle in this respect.”
For me what is even more striking and more horrible than the concrete fact of removing these children is the administrative color given to the proceedings, the report made through official channels, the meeting at which different officials placidly discussed the matter as if it were part of the normal business of the department. All the administrative mechanism of the State—I am speaking of the Nazi State—was set in motion on such an occasion and for such a purpose. It is a perfect illustration of the word used by Dannecker in his report: “The cold manner.”
I now present the Tribunal with a continuation under the same head, including a certain number of documents which have been collected in order to show in accordance with our general line of presentation the perpetual interference of the German administrative services.
As I am a little behind my timetable, I shall give the numbers of only those documents which I should like to offer in evidence and which I have no time to describe. These documents will be numbered Documents RF-1238 to 1249.
I would like to read to the Tribunal only the document which bears the Number RF-1243, which is interesting as showing the organic character and the juridical claims of the German organizations. I shall quote a few sentences from this document:
“In the report made by the Chief of the Administrative Staff on experience concerning the arrest from 7 to 14 December 1941 it was proposed to evade the execution of hostages in the future by having the death sentences passed through court-martial proceedings.”
I shall skip the following two lines and continue:
“The reprisal will be carried out by pronouncing and inflicting capital punishment on prisoners who would normally be sentenced only to imprisonment, or else be acquitted altogether. To influence the discretion of the judge concerning the meting out of punishment for committing murder or sabotage would answer the formalistic legal reasoning of the French.”
I should like now, in the last paragraph of my presentation, to submit documentary evidence in connection with criminal actions of which the Tribunal has not yet been informed and which involve the personal responsibility of certain of the defendants present here. I must remind you that the criminal actions of the Nazis took extremely varied forms which have already been put before the Tribunal at some length. A particularly new and unusual manifestation of this consisted in causing crimes to be committed by organized bands of murderers, who were ordinary criminals, under conditions which made it appear as if these crimes were committed by ordinary bandits or even by resistance organizations which they tried in this way to dishonor.
Such crimes were committed in all the occupied countries; but the precautions taken, with good reason, to camouflage them sometimes make it difficult to trace back the responsibility for these crimes to the ringleaders, the leaders of the Nazi State. We were able to find this evidence in the records of proceedings instituted in Denmark. All the elements are contained in Danish reports of which we were able to get possession only a short time ago.
I can indicate the position very briefly. It concerns a series of murders which were committed in Denmark and which were known as “compensatory” or “clearing” murders. This definition is explained. . . .
Counsel for the Defense tells me that there is an error in translation in the last document which I read—RF-1243. He says that “acquittal” is not the correct translation of “Begnadigung.” As I do not know German, it is quite possible that this error exists and that the word means “pardon.”
THE PRESIDENT: Which part of the document?
M. FAURE: This error really exists. I hope the Tribunal will excuse me, because there is a considerable amount of translation work. I shall read line 14 of Document Number RF-1243: “. . . who would normally be sentenced to imprisonment only or else be acquitted altogether.” According to Counsel for the Defense that should be, “. . . who would normally be sentenced to imprisonment only or else be pardoned.” The construction of the sentence does not seem to be as good when this word is used, which explains the error in translation if there was one. In any case, I think it is sufficient to note the instructions given: The imposition of “capital sentences” in cases where only a sentence of imprisonment would normally have been justified.
To come back to the subject I was discussing, I should like to make the situation clear by reading the definition given in the Danish report. It is found on Page 19 of the supplementary memorandum of the Danish Government. This document was submitted last Saturday under Number RF-901. As it is very bulky, I see that it is not included in the document book but that the passages which I cite can be found in my brief.
The page numbers start again at the end of this brief, and I am now on Page 3 in the last series of numbers. I quote Page 19 of the Danish report:
“From New Year 1944 onwards, a large number of persons, most of them well known, were murdered at intervals which grew steadily shorter. The doorbell would ring, for instance, and one or two men would ask to speak to them. The moment they appeared at the door. . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: I do not have it. Is it in this dossier of the administrative and juridical organization of the criminal actions? Under which document?
M. FAURE: It is not in the document book. It is in the dossier of the brief.
THE PRESIDENT: No. In the dossier? Which part of the dossier?
M. FAURE: It is the last part of the dossier. The numbering of the pages starts again after Page 76. If the Tribunal will turn to Page 76, the page numbers begin again after that with Page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have it.
M. FAURE: I read from Page 19 of the report, the extract reproduced on Page 3:
“From New Year 1944 onwards, a large number of persons, most of them well known, were murdered at intervals which grew steadily shorter. The doorbell would ring, for instance, and one or two men would ask to speak to them. The moment they appeared at the door they were shot by these unknown persons. Or, someone would pretend to be ill and go to a doctor during the latter’s consulting hour. When the doctor entered the room, the unknown shot him. At other times, unknown men would force their way into a house and kill the owner in front of his wife and his children, or else a man would be ambushed in the street by civilians and shot.”
I do not need to read the following paragraph. I go on reading at the last paragraph on Page 19:
“As the number of victims increased it was borne in upon the Danes, to their amazement, that there was a certain political motive behind all these murders; for they realized that in one way or another the Germans were the instigators.
“After the capitulation of the German forces in Denmark, investigations by the Danish police established the fact that all these murders, running into hundreds, were in reality committed on the direct orders of the supreme authorities and with the active collaboration of Germans who occupied the highest positions in Denmark.”
I end my quotation here and I shall summarize what follows: The Danish authorities were able to clear up these criminal affairs, 267 in number; and they are analyzed in the official Danish report and the documents attached to it. These acts consisted not only in actual crimes but also in other criminal activities, notably explosions. It was established that all these acts were committed by bands, consisting of Germans and some Danes, who constituted real groups of bandits but who acted, as I am going to prove to you, on orders from the highest quarters.
The Danish report contains in particular the detailed story of the investigation made into the first of these crimes, whose victim was Kaj Munk, the well-known Danish poet and pastor of a parish. The crime was confessed by the men who carried it out.
I summarize the document in order not to take too much time. The pastor was taken from his home, forced into a vehicle, and killed on the highway. His body was found next day with a sign pinned on it with the words, “Swine, you worked for Germany just the same.”
The Tribunal sees how many similar crimes were committed in the vilest possible way. Now one of the first things discovered was that the members of the gangs of bandits who committed these different crimes had all received a personal letter of congratulation from Himmler. The text of this letter, which was found on one of the murderers, constitutes Appendix 14 of the Danish report; and, on the other hand, we have here photostatic copies with Himmler’s signature.
But these extraordinary crimes involve in the most incredible way other persons responsible besides Himmler, himself. The Danish police were able to arrest Günther Pancke, who exercised the functions of Chief of Police in Denmark from 1 November 1943.
The inquiry was established by the tribunal of first instance in Copenhagen and is in the Danish report. It contains an account of the interrogation of Günther Pancke on 25 August 1945. It is necessary for me to read to the Tribunal an extract from this document, which involves several of the defendants. I quote:
“On 30 December 1943 Pancke and Best were present at a meeting at the Führer’s headquarters attended by Hitler, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, General Von Hannecken, Keitel, Jodl, Schmundt, and others. This agrees with Best’s diary for 30 December 1943. There is a copy of this. A representative of the German Foreign Office also attended; but Pancke does not remember his name nor whether the person in question made a speech. During the first part of the meeting, Hitler was in a very bad temper and everything led one to believe that the information that he had obtained concerning the situation in Denmark was rather exaggerated.”
I should like to skip the following page, which is not indispensable and go on to Page 14 of my brief. In the passage which I am omitting, the witness Pancke reports that he and Dr. Best advised that saboteurs be fought in a legal way. He also points out on Page 14 that Hitler—I quote—“ . . . was strongly opposed to the proposals of Pancke and Best, declaring there could be absolutely no question of judging saboteurs before a tribunal.” He then said that such methods would lead to those condemned being considered as heroes.
I resume the quotation on Page 15, Line 3:
“There was only one way of dealing with saboteurs, namely, to kill them, preferably, at the moment when the crime was committed; otherwise, on arrest. Both of them received strict orders from Hitler personally to start compensatory murders. Pancke replied that it was very difficult and dangerous to shoot people on arrest, as they could not be sure when the arrest was made if the person arrested was really a saboteur. Hitler demanded compensatory murders in the proportion of at least five to one. In other words: Five Danes were to die for every German killed.”
The rest of the document shows that General Von Hannecken made a report on the military situation. I shall read this paragraph, Page 16 of my brief:
“Moreover, General Keitel took part in the conversation; but he confined himself to a proposal to reduce food rations in Denmark to the same level as rations in Germany. This proposal was rejected by all the three representatives in Denmark. As a result, the meeting ended with Hitler’s express order to Pancke to start compensatory murders and counter-sabotage. After this meeting, Pancke had a conversation alone with Himmler, who told him that he, Pancke, had now been told by the Führer, himself, how to act and that he thought that he could rely on Pancke to execute the order which he had received. It seemed that up to now he had executed only those of Himmler. Pancke knows that Best had a conversation with Ribbentrop immediately after the meeting, but doesn’t remember the result.”
The document then shows that these compensatory murders were carried out, not in the proportion of five to one, but in the proportion of one for one. It shows that reports on these compensatory murders were sent to Berlin.
I read on Page 18 of my brief, second paragraph:
“Pancke explained that in his opinion these murders were decreed deliberately by the supreme jurisdiction in Germany, as being necessary for the protection of Germans stationed in Denmark and Danes working for Germany; and so Pancke had to obey the order. Bovensiepen stated the facts and made suggestions when subjects of importance were raised. Pancke does not know whether Bovensiepen selected his own subjects in every case or whether in certain cases the subjects were selected by his subalterns; but he, too, said that he was subjected to strong pressure from the military side, especially from General Von Hannecken, although General Von Hannecken was at first opposed to reprisals by terror. Later still more pressure was exercised by Colonel General Lindemann. When soldiers were killed or damage was caused to military objectives, Pancke was immediately asked what steps he had taken and what they were to report to general headquarters, that is, to Hitler himself, from a military point of view. Pancke had to give a satisfactory reply, and he also had to take action.”
I end my quotation here. General Pancke then explains how these terror groups were organized.
I must now say that the Danish police were also able to arrest Dr. Best, the German plenipotentiary, and make an inventory of his papers. Among them they found Dr. Best’s private diary. This diary has one leaf, dated 30 December 1943, which agrees with the information given in the preceding testimony about the meeting held on 30 December 1943 in the Führer’s tea house. This is at Page 21.
“Lunch with Adolf Hitler, Reichsführer Himmler, Dr. Kaltenbrunner, SS Obergruppenführer Mr. Pancke, Field Marshal Keitel, General Jodl, General Von Hannecken, Lieutenant General Schmundt, Brigade Lieutenant Scherff. Lunch and discussions on the Danish question lasted from 1400 to 1630 hours.”
Dr. Best was naturally interrogated on the subject. From official Danish documents, extracts from which are found on Page 23 of my brief, it appears that Dr. Best corroborated the note in his diary dated 30 December which I have cited. With regard to the fundamental questions concerned, here is what Dr. Best says at the bottom of Page 23:
“Dr. Best does not remember whether Hitler, who spoke at considerable length, said anything about compensatory murders being carried out in the proportion of five to one. Himmler and Kaltenbrunner agreed with Hitler. The rest of those present apparently expressed no opinion. The names given by Best agree with Pancke’s list.”—This is on Page 24—“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was not represented, so that Sonnleitner did not attend the conference. After the conference, Dr. Best had a conversation alone with Ribbentrop, to whom he explained what had taken place. Ribbentrop shared his opinion that some protest should be made against such methods but that after all, nothing could be done.”
It is proved, therefore, that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Keitel, and Jodl were present at a department meeting where it was decided that murder, pure and simple, should be organized in Denmark. The witnesses certainly do not say that the Defendants Keitel and Jodl showed any enthusiasm for this proposal, but it is established that they were present and that they were present in the exercise of their functions along with their subordinate, the military commander of Denmark. This is a question of responsibility for several hundred murders abominable in themselves but undoubtedly constituting only a small part of the crimes implied by the Prosecution and carried out on millions of victims. I think, however, that it is important to learn that the military and diplomatic leaders knew and accepted the systematic organization of acts of banditry and murders committed by professional killers who fled when they had committed their crimes.
The documents which I have just cited are the last of the series which I wanted to present to the Tribunal. I shall not follow them up by commentary. I think that there is so much monotony and at the same time so many shades of variety in the innumerable crimes committed by the Nazis that the human mind finds it difficult to grasp their whole extent. Each of these crimes has in itself all the intensity of horror and reflects the distorted values of the doctrine responsible for them. If it be true that life has any meaning whatsoever, if there is around and within us anything else than “sound and fury,” such a doctrine must be condemned with the men who originated it and directed its enterprises.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us what is proposed for tomorrow?
M. FAURE: Tomorrow, M. Gerthoffer will, if it suits the Tribunal, make a statement on pillage of works of art. A problem is involved here. For at the time when this would normally have been done, we decided to dispense with it, thinking that a reference to the American documents would be sufficient. On consulting our American colleagues, however, it appeared that they themselves relied on that part of the matter being presented by the French Prosecution. So, if the Tribunal does not object to our returning to the subject now, a statement will be presented to this effect.
On the other hand, one of the magistrates of the French Delegation proposes to present a brief which recapitulates systematically the charges against each of the defendants, according to the documents and briefs submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would hope that the exposé on the pillage of objects of art will be quite short because it must be cumulative, because you will remember that we had at some stage of the Trial presented to us 39 books, or 30, or some number of books of objects of art which had been taken away from various parts of Europe and France and all photographed by the Germans themselves; and, therefore, any evidence which would now be given would be cumulative to that spoliation.
M. FAURE: That is why I asked the Tribunal whether it would agree to this procedure; but at any rate, if the Tribunal considers that the statement can be made, it will be only a very short statement which will take about two hours.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): If I understood M. Faure correctly, he asked the Tribunal whether the confiscation and plundering of works of art in France would again be dealt with tomorrow. I should like to add that the American Prosecution has already declared before this Tribunal that the question of the plundering of works of art could not be dealt with again. Accordingly, I myself, representing Rosenberg, and my colleague, Dr. Stahmer, representing Göring, took steps to cancel the calling of witnesses whom we had planned to bring. If, however, the French Prosecution intends to submit new material, we must have these witnesses called again. For this reason, I should like to ask the Tribunal to decide whether it is necessary for the confiscation of works of art objects in France to be taken up once more.
THE PRESIDENT: I think defendant’s counsel must be wrong in thinking that the United States counsel said anything which meant that the French Prosecution could not produce evidence with reference to the spoliation of objects of art. I can’t think the United States had any authority to do that and I had understood myself that this part of the Prosecution had been omitted by one of the French Counsel on account of the request of the Tribunal to shorten their argument. Was that not so?
M. FAURE: That is quite true, Mr. President. Your interpretation is exact.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would wish that the presentation should be made, if the French Prosecutors wish it; and it should be made as shortly as possible.
M. FAURE: Thank you.