Morning Session
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, Your Honors, before the adjournment yesterday I had begun to explain to you very briefly the relation which, in our opinion, exists between two of the main themes in the Indictment, to wit, the accusation of conspiracy brought against certain groups designated in the Indictment and which I enumerated yesterday, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the various acts which enable us to form our conclusions as to the criminal character of the activity of the National Socialist conspirators.
I told you, to begin with, that what appeared to us to be at the bottom of this criminal activity was the profound mystery, the absolute mystery surrounding their meetings, both official and unofficial, a fact which is corroborated by statements made by certain of the defendants in their interrogatories from which it frequently emerged that some of the orders emanating from high places were to be suppressed and annulled, so as to leave no trace.
We consider, likewise, that proof of the fraudulent collaboration which existed among the conspirators is afforded by the criminal character of the decisions made at these secret councils, which aimed at the conquest of neighboring countries through wars of aggression.
Finally, proof of this fraudulent collaboration is afforded, in our opinion, by the way in which these criminal plans were carried out by the employment of all sorts of means condemned both by international morality and by the letter of the law; for example, in international and diplomatic spheres the most cynical plots, the use in foreign countries of what is known as the “Fifth Column,” financial camouflage, the exertion of improper pressure backed by demonstrations of violence, and finally—when these methods no longer proved effective—the waging of a war of aggression.
As for those individuals who regularly and of their own free will took part in meetings of groups and organizations, such as those denounced in the Indictment as internationally odious, their voluntary membership in these groups or the active and deliberate part which they took in their activities suffice to show that they had every intention of giving their active co-operation to these groups in a way which admits of no possible doubt. In view of the aims pursued and the means adopted, this intention could only be a guilty one.
In the opinion of the Prosecution, engaged in seeking the elements constituting the crime, it would appear that this suffices to prove what we call the consilium fraudis and to enable us to verify the causal link between this will to evil, on the one hand, and the criminal deed, on the other, and to make it possible to retain the criminal character of the understanding between the conspirators, which is also the criminal character of their individual acts.
Could the chief of the Four Year Plan, when he ordered the Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation to recruit 1 million foreign workers for the Reich, forget that this act was contrary to international conventions and leave out of consideration the tragic consequences which the execution of this murderous action would entail, and has in fact entailed, for these people and for their families?
Could the Minister for Armaments and War Production who set up, in agreement with or by order of the Chief of the Air Force, underground aircraft factories in the internment camps—could he, I say, fail to be aware that under such conditions to use prisoners who were already exhausted was equivalent to causing their premature death?
Could the diplomat who, on various pretexts, treated diplomatic instruments intended to assure the stability and the peace of the world as scraps of paper—could he lose sight of the fact that these acts would plunge the civilized world into catastrophe?
Whether their conscience was at that moment disturbed by the feeling, more or less obscure, that they were infringing human and divine laws is a question which need not be asked on the juridical plane on which you will be working. But even assuming that we should consider it our duty to put this question to ourselves on the psychological plane as a result of scruples, we should then have to remember two essential concepts. The first is that the German, as a French writer puts it, at times combines in himself the identity of contraries. Consequently, it is possible that in certain cases he may consciously do evil while remaining convinced that his act is irreproachable from the moral point of view. The second concept is that, according to the law of National Socialist ethics sometimes put into words by certain National Socialist leaders, that which promotes the interests of the Party is good; that which does not promote the interests is evil.
And yet, our personal impression on the occasion of the masterly speech given by M. François de Menthon was that some of his words, striking in their accent of deep humanity, had stirred some consciences. Even today, after so many accumulated proofs, we may wonder whether the defendants admit their responsibility as chiefs, as men, as representatives of the incriminated organizations. This will perhaps be revealed in the course of the proceedings.
Mr. President, Your Honors, with the permission of the Tribunal we shall now take up the question of the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg.
Gentlemen, the young French student who in 1910 had the joy of spending his vacation in Bavaria, then one of the happiest of the German provinces, could hardly suspect that thirty-five years later he would be called upon to apply international law against the masters of that country. When, after stopping at the Bratwurstglöcklein, he climbed up to the ramparts to look at the sunset from the heights of the Burg, while the lines of a ballad by Uhland rang in his memory, he did not think that evil masters and false prophets would twice in a quarter of a century unchain the lightning over Europe and the rest of the world, and that through them so many treasures of art and beauty would be destroyed, so many human lives sacrificed, so much suffering piled up. Indeed, when one studies the genesis of this unheard-of drama there can be no question of romanticism; what we have to deal with rather is a perverted romanticism, a morbid perversion of the sense of greatness, and the mind is baffled by the true significance of the ideas of National Socialism—ideas which I shall touch upon only in passing to show how they led the Defendant Rosenberg, since it is he of whom I am speaking, and his codefendants to commit the crimes which are held against them:
The concept of race, to begin with, which we see arising in a country which in other respects resembles any other but where the intermingling of ethnic types of every variety took place through the centuries on a gigantic scale; this anti-scientific confusion which mixes the physiological features of man with the concept of nations; this neo-paganism which aims at abolishing the moral code, the justice, and security which 20 centuries of Christianity have brought to the world; this myth of blood which attempts to justify racial discrimination and its consequences: slavery, massacre, looting, and the mutilation of living beings!
I shall not dwell, Mr. President, on what we consider a jumble of nonsense which claims to be philosophy and in which may be found to be the most heterogeneous fragments of all kinds taken from every source, from the megalomaniac concepts of Mussolini, Hindu legends, and the Japan of the samurai, the cradle of fascism, which swept over the world like a tidal wave. The previous presentations have already adequately dealt with these conceptions. I shall simply stress today that these pseudo-philosophic conceptions tended solely to set back humanity thousands of years by reviving the clan conception, which assumes the law of might as the supreme law—the Faustrecht already formulated by the Iron Chancellor, the right to cheat others, the right to take the property of others, the right to reduce man to slavery, the right to kill, the right to torture.
But homo sapiens refuses to return to the state of homo lupus. International law is not morality without obligation or sanction. The Charter of 8 August has recalled and specified the obligation; it is for you, Gentlemen, to apply the sanction.
One of the consequences of these theories of the superiority of the race or of the so-called “Germanic Race” was to lead certain of the conspirators, particularly the Defendant Rosenberg, of whom we are speaking, to become plunderers; and it is this aspect of the activities of the Defendant Rosenberg which I should like very briefly to stress, for it concerns France and the occupied countries of the West and had deeply harmful consequences for their artistic, intellectual, or merely utilitarian heritage.
I wish to speak of all the measures decreed or applied by Rosenberg with the aim of removing from France and the western countries cultural treasures, works of art, and property belonging to groups or individuals, and transferring to Germany all these riches.
Gentlemen, owing to the limited time which we have at our disposal, I shall limit myself today to recalling how certain organisms were made to collaborate in this pillaging through orders from higher quarters. I shall indicate, first of all, the part played by the Gestapo, which was ordained by a decree issued by the Defendant Keitel, dated 5 July 1940, which bears the Document Number 137-PS and which was submitted by the American Delegation, under Exhibit Number USA-379, on 18 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1400). I refer likewise to a second order dated 30 October 1940, which reinforced and detailed the orders given in regard to pillaging by what was known as the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This is Exhibit Number RF-1304 (Document Number 140-PS), which was quoted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution.
Thus, Keitel and Rosenberg went back to the conception of a booty exacted by the triumphant German people from the Jewish people with regard to whom it was not bound by the conditions of the Compiègne Armistice. This intervention by the chief of the army, as indicated by the orders to which I have just referred, suffices in my opinion to prove the important part played by the German Army in this looting; and the Tribunal will not fail to remember that when it makes its decisions as to the guilt of the Defendant Keitel and the Defendant Göring.
If I mention the Defendant Göring, it is because a third document proves that this defendant gave the operation his full support, inviting all the organizations of the Party, the State, and the Army to afford the fullest possible support and assistance to Reichsleiter Rosenberg and his collaborator Utikal, whom Rosenberg himself had appointed Chief of the Einsatzstab on 1 April 1941. This is the order of 1 May 1941, which we produced under our Exhibit Number RF-1406 (Document Number 1614-PS). If we examine the text of this decree carefully we cannot fail to be struck by the first paragraph. The Tribunal will surely allow me to reread it rapidly:
“The struggle against the Jews, the Freemasons, and other ideologically opposed forces allied to them, is a most urgent task of National Socialism during the war.”
Thus, it was enough for one to have a philosophy of life different from that described as the Nazi Weltanschauung, to be exposed to the danger of seeing one’s cultural property seized and transferred to Germany. But the Tribunal will surely remember from the documents already presented to it, that not only cultural property was involved, but that anything with any kind of value was taken away.
The Defendant Rosenberg tried, in the course of an interrogation carried out by the superior officers in charge of the preliminary investigations to claim, without much conviction, it seems to me, that the cultural property in question was intended solely to adorn the collections of the National Socialist Hohen Schulen. We shall see presently, in presenting the text of this interrogation, how we may judge this. But it is a fact which I wish to present now that, from the documents which we possess, at least, it does not seem that the Defendant Rosenberg appropriated works of art, precious stones, or other objects of value for himself. Consequently, in the light of the proceedings as conducted thus far, no accusation of this kind can be brought against him. We shall not say as much for the Defendant Hermann Göring, of whom we shall speak a little later and who, according to the documents that we possess, may be convicted of having appropriated to his own use part of the objects of art taken from the countries of the East and the West.
I shall not dwell on the discussion which might arise about these misappropriations. I shall go straight on to the interrogatory of the Defendant Rosenberg. This is the document that was introduced yesterday by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution, which bears the Exhibit Number RF-1331, and which we use today as Document Number ECH-25.
I think that the Tribunal will easily be able to refer to this interrogatory, but meanwhile I should like very briefly to summarize the essential points which I think should be brought up.
Colonel Hinkel, questioning the Defendant Rosenberg, asked him on what legal grounds such looting could be justified. The Defendant Rosenberg first answered that these seizures were justified by the hostility which certain groups had manifested toward the National Socialist ideology. But a little further on, on Page 4, the Defendant Rosenberg made the following verbatim statement:
“I considered them”—he is referring to the measures which he himself had taken—“a necessity caused by the war and by the reasons which caused the war.”
A few moments later, pressed by Colonel Hinkel, the Defendant Rosenberg invoked the necessity of putting into safekeeping property thus seized, a necessity which will certainly constitute one of the main points of his defense. But Colonel Hinkel replied to the Defendant Rosenberg:
“And so if your idea was to safeguard art objects, it sounds rather strange, doesn’t it, that you were going to safeguard only some art objects and not others?
“On the other hand, with regard to the maintenance of the objects, there were objects at least equal in value to those which had been removed, but to which no one paid any attention.”
Finally, the Defendant Rosenberg admitted that he had very often given no receipt to those concerned, which in itself precluded any idea of eventually returning the property to the legitimate owners.
The truth of the matter is that these were treasures of very considerable value, and the Defendant Rosenberg in the end admitted that he regarded these acquisitions as an accomplished fact. We consider that the fact of having thus removed works of art and objects of value is purely and simply what is known in civil law as misappropriation. These misappropriations were made on a vast scale with the grandiose means which the Third Reich had at its disposal, means which were further facilitated by the intervention of the Army and the Luftwaffe. But it is nonetheless true that the criminal character of these misappropriations remains; and we urge the Tribunal, when it delivers judgment, to declare that it was by fraudulent seizure that the Defendant Rosenberg and his codefendants robbed France and the western countries of all the objects of value and all the art treasures and cultural treasures.
As to what the objects themselves consisted of, Mr. President and Your Honors, I would respectfully refer the Tribunal to the report submitted by the Economic Section yesterday, which was made by Dr. Scholz, the associate of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This report was submitted by the Economic Section under Exhibit Number RF-1323 (Document Number 1015-PS), and in it the Tribunal will find enumerated everything that the Einsatzstab took out of France. In this connection I shall make an incidental remark in answer to the question that the President asked my colleague yesterday about the Rothschild collections. The President asked my colleague, “Have you proof that certain collections and objects of value were taken from the Rothschild collections?”
I should like, Mr. President, to point out that there are two proofs of this. The first is the immediate result of the Rosenberg interrogation of 23 September 1945. I have just spoken to the Tribunal of the all-important questions put to the Defendant Rosenberg as to the legitimacy and legal basis of these removals. I beg the Tribunal to refer to Page 5 of these minutes. I read from the text the question asked by the American officer in charge of the interrogation, my eminent friend, Colonel Hinkel:
“Question: ‘How do you justify the confiscation of art treasures belonging to the Rothschild family?’ ”—A very precise question. It concerned the art treasures taken from the Rothschild family by Rosenberg’s organization.
“Answer: ‘Still from the same general point of view.’ ”
That means that the Defendant Rosenberg claimed to justify the confiscations made to the detriment of the Rothschilds by the reasons which I had the honor of analyzing to the Tribunal a few moments ago.
A second consequence: The Defendant Rosenberg thus admitted with his own lips that the Rothschild family was among those despoiled. That confession, Mr. President, Your Honors, can be considered as one of the proofs, one of the main proofs. This is the first answer, then, to the question that the President asked yesterday.
The second proof which I wish to present to the Tribunal is the following: I beg the Tribunal to refer to the report by Dr. Scholz mentioned above and produced yesterday in the document book of the Economic Section. This is Exhibit Number RF-1323 (Document Number 1015-PS).
If the Tribunal will kindly refer to it, that is to say, the report by Dr. Scholz, the second paragraph of Page 1, it will find the following statement, “The special staff not only seized a very considerable part of the collection. . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: [Interposing.] As I said the other day, we cannot keep all the books before us; but it seems to me that, as you have shown that the Defendant Rosenberg agreed that this collection had been taken, that is quite sufficient.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I understand perfectly your point of view. I should like respectfully to point out to you that I was to speak immediately after my colleague, and if I had done so you would have had this document book before you. We had a delay of one day, and I apologize for not having thought of asking you to bring this document again this morning.
However, I respectfully ask the Tribunal to be good enough to note this reference which it will easily find. It is a very short passage, which I should like to read to the Tribunal. It will not take very much time.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
M. MOUNIER: This declaration is simply the following:
“The special staff”—that is to say, the Einsatzstab Rosenberg—“not only seized a very considerable portion of the collection which the Rothschilds had left behind in their Paris mansion. . . .”
I shall not read the rest.
Here then, Gentlemen, is an official report which cannot be disputed and which demonstrates, like the previous proof, that the Rothschild collection was among those pillaged.
I do not insist on these facts, which are known to you. It seems to me that the two points on which I have just cast a ray of light suffice to make it clear that illegal seizures—fraudulent seizures—were really operated by the Defendant Rosenberg to the detriment of France and to the detriment, likewise, of the western countries. As for their importance, I do not want to abuse the patience of the Tribunal by quoting statistics. I respectfully ask the Tribunal to refer to the Scholz report which I have twice mentioned in the course of my previous statements.
I should not, however, wish to leave the case of Rosenberg, for the time being, without quoting to the Tribunal a passage from an article by the French writer François Mauriac, of the French Academy. François Mauriac was present on 7 November 1945 at the inaugural session of the National Constituent Assembly at the Palais Bourbon. On this occasion François Mauriac invoked a memory which was recalled in Le Figaro of 6 November 1945 in the following terms:
“Almost five years ago to a day, from the height of this rostrum, the most illustrious in Europe, a man spoke to other men dressed in field grey. His name was Alfred Rosenberg. I can testify to the exact date. It was 25 November 1940.
“Rosenberg leaned his elbows on this rostrum, where the voices of Jaurès and of Albert De Mun were once heard and where, on 11 November 1918, Clemenceau nearly died of joy. Here are his words:
“ ‘In one gigantic revolutionary burst’—he said—‘the German nation has reaped such a harvest as never before in its history. The French will admit one day, if they are honest, that Germany has freed them from the parasites of which they could not rid themselves unaided.’
“And the Nazi philosopher”—continues Mauriac—“then proclaimed the victory of blood. He meant”—writes Mauriac—“the victory of race; but it happens that a man may utter prophetic words unwittingly and without realizing the full import of the words which God places upon his lips. As Rosenberg predicted at the Palais Bourbon on 25 November 1940, it was indeed blood that won the victory. It was the blood of the martyrs which in the end choked the executioners.”
M. President, with the approval of the Court, and with the same brevity as heretofore—and I hope the Tribunal will appreciate the care I am taking not to abuse its patience—I should like to say a few words on the individual charge against the Defendant Fritz Sauckel.
Your Honors, the Tribunal is already acquainted with the really remarkable work, the genuinely positive work, presented to it some time ago by my colleague and friend, M. Jacques Bernard Herzog. This is why, with your permission, I shall pass over the facts themselves, which are known to you, and limit myself to the part beginning on Page 3 of my brief; and we shall examine together, if it please the Tribunal, the grounds for the pleas advanced up to now by the Defendant Fritz Sauckel.
One question must be asked first of all: Was Fritz Sauckel acting under orders when he carried out this recruiting—so-called voluntary in part but compulsory in most cases—this recruiting of laborers destined to supply the needs of the German Reich?
According to Sauckel, when he was appointed Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor on 27 March 1942, his initial program did not include the conscription of foreign workers; and it is supposed to have been Hitler who intervened then. For it is striking, Your Honors, when you read the minutes of the interrogations and also, I am sure, when the defendants speak before the Tribunal, you will see that most of them take refuge behind two great shadows; the shadow of the former Führer and the shadow of his accursed second, Himmler. Here we can see Hitler intervening to tell Sauckel, according to the latter, that the use of foreign workers in the occupied territories is not contrary to the Hague Convention for two reasons; firstly, the countries involved surrendered unconditionally and consequently we can impose any kind of labor conditions on them, and secondly because Russia has not signed this convention. If, therefore, we use Russian workers on compulsory labor and make them work to death, we are not violating the Hague Convention.
This, Your Honors, is the reasoning of the Defendant Sauckel on this point, without the addition of a single word. Hitler is supposed to have ordered him to recruit workers, at first using persuasion and then all the means of compulsion which you already know; suppression of ration cards, for instance, which compelled men, who saw their wives and children starving, to volunteer for work which would be used against their own fellow citizens and against the soldiers of the Allied armies with whom all their sympathies lay.
The Tribunal will know how to deal with such an excuse for, in the first place, Sauckel, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by his office, enjoyed full authority in regard to everything to do with the labor necessary for the execution of the Four Year Plan. On the other hand, on taking up his appointment as Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation, Sauckel knew that he would be unable to carry out his mission without resorting sooner or later to means of coercion. In any case, Sauckel, as well as most of the defendants who are before you, enjoyed the most extensive powers, indeed autonomous powers. Consequently, he cannot shelter behind orders received.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you must forgive me if I interrupt you; but as I pointed out yesterday, I think, we have already had an opening statement which contained argument from the United States, from Great Britain, and from M. De Menthon on behalf of France, and we have, in the past, confined other counsel. . . .
Do you hear me? I was saying that after having heard the opening statement from the United States, from Great Britain, and from France, we have in the past, confined the counsel who have followed them to a presentation of evidence and have not permitted them to go into an argument.
I am not sure that that rule has been strictly carried out in all cases because it is, perhaps, somewhat difficult to confine the matter; but we have, on several occasions, pointed out to counsel who have followed the counsel who made the leading statement that they ought to confine themselves to a presentation of the evidence. I think the Tribunal would wish you, if possible, to adhere to that rule and, therefore, not to argue the case but to present the evidence, that is to say, to refer us to the evidence insofar as it has already been put in evidence; to refer us to it by its number, possibly stating what the substance of the evidence is; and, in reference to any document which has not yet been put in evidence, to read such parts of that document as you think necessary.
M. MOUNIER: Very well, Mr. President, to meet the wishes of the Tribunal, I shall limit myself, as concerns the Defendant Sauckel, to referring to figures which, it seems to me, do not admit of argument, since they are the figures given by the Defendant Sauckel himself under interrogation. This does not seem to me to infringe upon the rule which the President has just drawn to my attention.
The figures stated are the following: In 1942 there were already a million foreign workers in Germany. In one year Sauckel incorporated into the economy of the Reich some 1,600,000 war prisoners to meet the needs of war economy.
I beg to refer the Tribunal to Exhibit Number RF-1411 in my document book. This is an interrogation of the Defendant Speer under the date of 18 October 1945, which has already been submitted by the United States Prosecution on 12 December 1945, under Exhibit Number USA-220 (Document Number 3720-PS). In this interrogation the Defendant Speer states that 40 percent of all prisoners of war were employed in the production of arms and munitions and in related industries.
I likewise offer under Exhibit Number RF-1412 (Document Number 1292-PS) of 13 December 1945, a memorandum signed by Lammers, Secretary of the Reich Chancellery, giving an account of the discussion which occurred at a conference held on 4 January 1944. On that date, 4 January 1944, in the course of a conference, at which, in addition to the Defendant Sauckel, the Führer himself, Himmler, Speer, Keitel, Field Marshal Milch, and others were present, the number of new workers to be furnished by Sauckel was fixed at four million.
I must mention in this connection that in the course of this meeting, Sauckel expressed doubts as to the possibility of furnishing this number of workers unless he were given sufficient police forces. Himmler replied that he would try to help Sauckel to achieve this objective by means of increased pressure.
Consequently, when the Defendant Sauckel claims, as he probably will do, that he had absolutely nothing to do with the institution now spurned by everyone, known as the Gestapo, we may answer him by official German documents showing that for the recruitment of labor he really did employ the police with all the more or less condemned means already pointed out to you.
As for France alone, the demand for workers at the beginning of 1944 amounted to one million; and this figure was over and above the number of men and women workers already sent to Germany, who in June 1944 numbered one million to one and a half million.
The Defendant Sauckel, therefore, committed the offenses already known to the Court. We have an old adage, an old slogan we may say, according to which “The court is the law”; and it is proper to present only the facts. I shall, therefore, abstain from reading the passage on Page 9 of my presentation dealing with those articles of the law under which the activities of the accused, Sauckel, are punishable.
Mr. President, Your Honors, I should like now to summarize the activity of the Defendant Speer, for as regards France and the western countries the Defendant Speer incurs responsibilities of the same nature as those of the Defendant Sauckel. Like the defendant of whom I have just spoken, he permitted violations of the laws of war, violations of the laws of humanity, in working towards the drafting and carrying out of a vast program of forced deportation and enslavement of the occupied countries.
Speer, Mr. President, first took part in working out the program of forced labor and collaborated in its adoption. In the course of his interrogatory, he stated under oath: First, that he took part in the discussion at which the decision to use forced labor was made; second, that he collaborated in the execution of this plan; third, that the basis of this program was the removal to Germany by force of foreign workers on the authority of Sauckel, Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor under the Four Year Plan. The Tribunal will kindly refer to Document Number 3720-PS, submitted by the United States Delegation on 12 December 1945, which I quote under Exhibit Number RF-1411 of our documentation.
As regards France, in particular, Hitler and the Defendant Speer held a conference on 4 January 1943 in the course of which it was decided that more severe measures would be taken to expedite the recruiting of French civilian workers without discrimination between skilled and unskilled workers. This is made clear by a note to which I would ask the Tribunal to refer. That is a note signed by Fritz Sauckel, himself. It has already been presented by the American Prosecution under Document Number 556-PS (Exhibit Number RF-67).
The Defendant Speer knew that the levies for forced labor in the occupied territories were obtained by violence and terror. He approved the continuation of these methods from September 1942 onward. He knew, for instance, that workers were deported by force from the Ukraine to work in the Reich. He knew, likewise, that the great majority of workers in the occupied regions of the West were sent to Germany against their will. He even declared before the American magistrate who was questioning him that he considered these methods regular and legal.
The Defendant Speer, knowing that the foreign workers were recruited and deported for forced labor in Germany, made specific demands for foreign workers and provided for their employment in the various branches of activity placed under his direction.
The preceding paragraphs summarize all the declarations made by the defendant in the course of the interrogation already mentioned and to which I have just referred.
I beg to remind you that Speer, in addition, was a member of the Central Committee of the Four Year Plan. On account of this, and in common with Field Marshal Milch, only Hitler and Göring were superior to him as far as demands for labor were concerned. He likewise took part, in this capacity, in discussions which took place with Hitler to settle the numbers of foreign workers required. He knew that most of these forces were obtained by means of deportation, through coercion and enslavement of the occupied countries. Proof of this is furnished by various passages of the minutes of the Central Committee of the Plan and from Speer’s conferences with Hitler. I refer to Document Numbers R-123 and R-124 which have been submitted under Exhibit Number USA-179, on 12 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1414).
Speer did not hesitate to resort to methods of terrorism and brutality as a means of achieving a peak output from the forced workers. He found justification for the action of the SS and of the police and for the use of concentration camps to subdue recalcitrants.
I beg to recall to the Tribunal the document relating to the minutes of the 21st meeting of the Central Committee of the Four Year Plan, 30 October 1942, Page 1059, already quoted. This is the document which I quoted previously, Exhibit Number USA-179, Document Numbers R-123 and R-124 on 12 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1414).
The Defendant Speer likewise bears responsibility for the use of prisoners of war in military operations directed against their countries; for in his capacity as chief of the Todt Organization, he forced citizens of the Allied nations to work for this organization, particularly, in the building of fortifications and, among other things, the famous West Wall. He likewise forced Frenchmen, Belgians, Luxembourgers, Dutchmen, Norwegians, and Danes to manufacture arms to be utilized against the allies of the countries to which they themselves belonged.
Finally—and this is a very important question regarding the responsibility of the Defendant Speer—he participated directly in the use of internees from the concentration camps. He proposed the use of internees from the concentration camps in the armament factories. Now, in view of the wretched physical condition of the prisoners, no profit but only the extermination of the prisoners could be expected from this measure. The use of internees from the concentration camps in the factories had the effect of increasing the demand for this type of labor; and this demand was satisfied in part, at least, by sending to the concentration camps persons who, in ordinary times, would never have been sent there.
Speer went so far as to establish, near the factories, concentration camps which served solely to feed them with labor.
He knew the Mauthausen Camp. The Spanish witness, Boix, whom the Tribunal heard a few days ago, attested under oath that he had seen, with his own eyes, the Defendant Speer visit the camp at Mauthausen and congratulate the directors of this camp. He even declared that he had worked on the preparation of photographs of this scene. Consequently this visit to the camp must be considered, absolutely beyond doubt. He therefore saw for himself the barbarous conditions in which the prisoners lived. Nevertheless, he persisted in utilizing labor from the Camp of Mauthausen in the factories under his authority.
I have concluded the case against Speer.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[A recess was taken.]
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, Your Honors, considering the strictly limited time at my disposal, I shall be compelled, in dealing with the Defendant Göring, of whom I shall have the honor to speak to you, to skip Pages 1, 2, and 3 of this presentation. I ask the Court now to turn to Page 3 of my statement.
I should like to present to the Tribunal the question of the responsibility of the Defendant Göring for the measures taken against the commandos and against Allied airmen who fell into the hands of the Germans during their missions.
During the Trial we have on several occasions mentioned an order given by Hitler on 18 October 1942, which was first submitted by the American Delegation on 2 January 1946 under the Document Number 498-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1417). It is an order detailing the measures to be taken against commandos in operations in Europe and Africa. They were to be exterminated to the last man, even if they were in military uniform, and no matter what their mode of transport might be: boat, plane, or parachute. An order was given to take no prisoners. In the occupied territories isolated members of commandos who might fall into the hands of the German forces were to be handed over immediately to the Sicherheitsdienst, RSHA branch. This order did not apply to enemy soldiers who were captured or who surrendered in open battle and within the scope of combat operations.
Among those notified was the Oberkommando of the Luftwaffe. Consequently, the Defendant Göring knew of this order; and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, as well as in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of one of the three military services, he has joint responsibility with the leaders of the other services.
We know, also, that on the same date, 18 October 1942, Hitler had a memorandum distributed annotating the previous instructions and announcing that if one or two prisoners were spared for the time being, so that information might be obtained from them, they were to be put to death as soon as they had been interrogated.
I refer to Exhibit Number RF-1418 (Document Number 503-PS) of 9 January 1946. The American Prosecution which produced this document has also submitted to the Tribunal—and I shall not come back to this fact—a certain number of cases proving that this order was frequently carried out.
On the other hand, the Tribunal already knows that numerous Allied airmen, who found themselves in German territory after losing their planes, were maltreated and lynched by the Germans with the connivance of the authorities. As evidence we present only the order of 10 August 1943 by which Himmler forbade the police to take part in these lynchings and forbade them equally to oppose them. I refer to Document Number R-110, presented 19 December 1945 as Exhibit RF-1419.
Goebbels, in an article in the Völkischer Beobachter, intervened in the same way. Bormann, in a memorandum of 30 May 1944, confirmed these instructions and stipulated that they should be passed on to the administrative authorities, not in writing but by word of mouth only. I refer to Document Number 057-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1420), cited on 17 December 1945 by the American Delegation.
These instructions were carried out to the letter, to such an extent that the American forces have brought to trial, since the capitulation, a considerable number of German civilians who had murdered unarmed Allied airmen.
But the Defendant Göring was not satisfied simply to let these things happen. At a conference which took place on 15 and 16 May 1944 he stated that he would suggest to the Führer that not only parachutists but also American or English crews who attacked, indiscriminately, cities and civilian trains in motion should be put to death on the spot forthwith. This is Exhibit Number RF-1421 (Document Number L-166), cited by the French Prosecution, 31 January 1946, under Exhibit Number RF-377.
In fact, Göring saw Hitler between 20 and 22 May 1944. The Air Force General, Korten, sent the Defendant Keitel a memorandum pointing out that Hitler had decided that enemy airmen who were shot down should be put to death without trial if they had participated in acts described as terroristic. This is Document Number 731-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1407), which we submit to the Court in the form of a photostatic copy. I ask the Tribunal’s permission not to read this document. I think the Tribunal will prefer to read it for themselves. However, I am at their disposal if they wish me to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: No; it has already been put in, has it not?
M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President.
In consequence, an agreement was made with the OKW that Himmler, Göring, and Ribbentrop should be consulted on the measures to be taken in this matter. Ribbentrop proposed that any attack upon German cities should be considered as an act of terrorism. General Warlimont also, in the name of the OKW, proposed two means: Lynching and what he called Sonderbehandlung or special treatment, which consisted in delivering the parties concerned to the Sicherheitsdienst where they were subjected to diverse treatments, one of the most notorious being the well known Kugel action, of which the Tribunal has already heard and which was simply a way of doing away with those in question. Document Number 735-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1452) was submitted to this effect on 9 January 1946.
On 17 June 1944 Keitel wrote to Göring to ask him to approve the definition of acts of terrorism drawn up by Warlimont. On 19 June 1944 Göring replied through his aide-de-camp that the population should be forbidden to act as it had done against enemy airmen and that these enemy airmen should be brought to trial, since the Allied Governments had forbidden their airmen to commit acts of terrorism. I refer here to Document Number 732-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1405.
Consequently, I draw the Tribunal’s attention to this document, dated 26 June 1944, where Reich Marshal Göring declared that he would support the taking of judicial action against these airmen. Remember this date, 19 June 1944, because it is important.
But on 26 June 1944 the Defendant Göring’s aide-de-camp telephoned to the OKW headquarters staff, who had insisted upon a definite reply, and notified them that his chief, Reich Marshal Göring, was in agreement with their definition of acts of terrorism and the procedure proposed which, as I recall it, included two alternatives: The handing over of those in question for Sonderbehandlung or their immediate execution. I refer to Document Numbers 733-PS and 740-PS, cited on 30 January 1946 by the French Prosecution, under the Exhibit Numbers RF-374 and RF-375 (Exhibit Numbers RF-1423 and RF-1424).
In a memorandum dated 4 July 1944 Hitler made it known that since the British and the Americans had bombed small towns of no military importance as a reprisal for V-1, he was asking the German radio and press to announce that all enemy airmen shot down in an attack of that kind would be put to death as soon as they were caught. Such are the facts found in these absolutely irrefutable documents, and if I cited in detail the reply made on 19 June 1944 by the Defendant Göring, or to be more exact, by his aide-de-camp, it is because I am anxious to introduce into the proceedings the documents concerning this question in their entirety.
But I see that in spite of the existence of the order of 19 June 1944 I am obliged to infer the full responsibility of the Defendant Hermann Göring.
In fact, the Defendant Hermann Göring states that he never agreed to these measures, and that Captain Breuer, who telephoned to the General Staff of the OKW, acted—according to the Defendant Göring—without having previously consulted him. Göring added, in the statements which he made, that he could not be held responsible for all the absurd or insignificant actions carried out by his subordinates.
But, Gentlemen, without even reference to the famous Leadership Principle—for I see no reason to apply German law to the accused in any way—the Defendant Göring is in any case responsible in his capacity as leader. Responsibility begins with authority. Moreover, what did he do to stop the massacre of airmen by people whom he had ordered to do the opposite, according to orders which it was forbidden to formulate in writing?
Even if we consider the position which he takes up in the order dated 19 June 1944, to which I have referred as establishing accurately his views at that date on the massacre of airmen and parachutists, we are compelled to see that at that date, 19 June 1944, even in Germany, the most shortsighted knew that the German forces would soon succumb to the weight of the Allied Armies.
Allied aviators were put to death in Germany throughout the war. Moreover, if the Defendant Hermann Göring maintains that the letter of 19 June 1944 was written by his aide-de-camp, he is obliged to admit that the letter of 26 June 1944, also written by the aide-de-camp, can be imputed to him, although signed by one of his subordinates. We consider, then, that this document signed by an aide-de-camp involves Göring as much as if he had signed it himself.
Mr. President and Gentlemen, I shall not enlarge upon the responsibility of the Defendant Göring for compulsory labor, but I respectfully beg the Court to refer in due course to certain rays of illumination that I have tried to indicate in this brief in order to clarify the position of the defendant in this matter.
I shall make no further mention of the employment of prisoners of war and internees from concentration camps, which I detailed on Page 10 of my brief. I should like simply to say a word concerning economic pillaging and the pillaging of art treasures. These questions are dealt with at the bottom of Page 11 of my brief.
Concerning economic pillage, Gentlemen, I shall not stress the considerable part played by the Defendant Göring as leader of the Four Year Plan in all the measures which contributed to strip literally all the western countries of their substance. I shall simply point out one fact which, I believe, has not yet been brought to your knowledge but which is found in the next to the last subheading on Page 12. This fact is the following: After the Armistice in 1940, the Defendant Göring had brought about through Roechling, the official sequestrator, the cession to the Hermann Göring Werke of all the factories of Lorraine belonging to the family of Wendel.
This is connected with all the operations of economic pillaging about which the Economic Section of the French Prosecution have already informed the Court. With regard to this, the Court will not fail to realize that the Defendant Göring shares jointly with the Defendants Rosenberg, Ribbentrop, and Seyss-Inquart—for the Netherlands—the responsibility for this spoliation.
With regard to the pillaging of works of art, Gentlemen, we have documents which permit us to draw our conclusions with regard to this matter which is obviously an unpleasant one for a man who has occupied the position of the Defendant Göring, namely, that a part of the works of art and objects of value which were pillaged from the western countries were reserved for him without any kind of compensation. I shall not discuss the exact meaning of this act in municipal law; I leave it to the Tribunal to apply the proper legal terms for this matter, when it delivers its judgment. But what I should like to say today is that the appropriation of works of art by the Defendant Hermann Göring for his private purposes is proved in documents which cannot be contested and which have already been submitted to the Tribunal. I refer particularly to Exhibit Number USA-368 (Document Number 141-PS) submitted on 18 December 1945. This document was submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution under the Exhibit Number RF-1309.
I may rapidly recall that this document prescribes that works of art brought to the Louvre are to be classified in a certain way:
“Firstly, those works of art of which the Führer reserved the right to dispose of himself. Secondly, those works of art destined to complete the collection of the Reich Marshal”—et cetera.
I won’t read the rest of the document.
What followed these levies or these privative appropriations? Did the Defendant Göring pay anything for these? The opposite seems to be the case; for in the interrogation of the Defendant Rosenberg, which was given under the Exhibit Number RF-1332 and to which I referred in the course of the hearing, it is pointed out that the Defendant Göring made his selection from the works of art assembled by Rosenberg’s staff and made no corresponding payment to the Reich treasury.
Not to abuse the patience of the Tribunal, I respectfully beg it to go back to Page 10 of the transcript previously cited, where it will see the part played by the Defendant Göring in the appropriation of works of art, and the fact that no money was paid in compensation.
I simply emphasize, in passing, that at the top of Page 11 you will find this statement, in reply to a question asked by Colonel Hinkel. Colonel Hinkel said this to him.
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to Page 10 and Page 11 of which document?
M. MOUNIER: Page 11, Mr. President, of Document Number ECH-25, which was submitted yesterday under the Exhibit Number RF-1331, by my colleague M. Gerthoffer. It is not there, for reasons which I have already pointed out to the Tribunal.
Colonel Hinkel, at the bottom of Page 10, asked the following question:
“Well, doesn’t that letter state in the last paragraph that you don’t think that Göring should pay for these articles that he had selected because he was going to put these articles in an art gallery?”
The reply of the Defendant Rosenberg:
“Not exactly. I would like to add the following:”—which I consider important—“I was rather uneasy when at the outset I heard art treasures which the Einsatzstab had sent to Germany. . . .”
That is all, Gentlemen, I won’t say anything more. I merely want to point out to you the annoyance which the chief of the Einsatzstab himself felt on learning this fact.
Mr. President, Gentlemen, in regard to the participation of the Defendant Göring in Crimes against Humanity, particularly the concentration camps, I shall not insist; but I shall ask the Tribunal, when they have time, to refer to a few paragraphs in which I briefly recall the question. But there is a document which, as far as I know, has not been submitted to the Tribunal and which I should like to submit today. It concerns pseudo-medical experiments which I believe have not yet been discussed.
You have frequently been told of Dr. Rascher’s experiments in the exposure of certain persons to alternate heat and cold, but there is a question which I treat on Page 17 of my brief and which concerns the document which I submit today as Exhibit Number RF-1427. This is a document which originally had the Number L-170. It is a report made by Major Leo Alexander of the United States Army, on an institution known as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. Major Leo Alexander, at the time of the defeat of Germany by the Allied Forces, had to conduct certain investigations. He conducted one in connection with experiments made by Dr. Rascher and another in connection with these carried out in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. This report which I submit to the Tribunal is entitled, “Neuropathology in Wartime Germany.” This Kaiser Wilhelm Institut was an institute designed for cerebral research. This institution had formerly been in Berlin-Buch (Page 18 in my brief) and was split up into three establishments, the first in Munich—I pass over the one in Munich—the third in Göttingen. The second, the one which interests me, was established at Dillenburg, in Hessen-Nassau, where there was a department for special pathology directed by Dr. Hallervorden. What is interesting, Mr. President. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Could we see the original?
M. MOUNIER: The original? Here it is, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the series “L” referred to in Major Coogan’s affidavit?
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I should like to point out that this Number L-170 is the same as that referring to that same Major Leo Alexander’s document book concerning the experiments of Dr. Rascher. It is the same number. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: As this document has already been produced in evidence in the series “L”—it is L-170 I think—the Tribunal will treat it for the moment as being in evidence and will further consider its admissibility.
M. MOUNIER: Yes, sir. At all events, I should like to remind the President, who has certainly noticed it, that I reproduce in this brief, which has already been communicated to the Defense, the passage which I regard as relevant to my brief. The passage is quoted in full in my brief.
THE PRESIDENT: [Turning to Dr. Stahmer.] Yes, we will listen to you in a few minutes.
[Turning to M. Mounier.] Which passage do you wish to refer to?
M. MOUNIER: Pages 20 and 21 in my brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, do you wish to read them?
M. MOUNIER: I accept the decision of the Tribunal. If the Court considers this reading superfluous, I shall limit myself to pointing out that what I find striking in this document is the manner in which Dr. Hallervorden ordered the delivery of brains for examination when he says:
“ ‘I had heard that they were going to do that.’ ”—That is, to say, to kill some sick people in different establishments by means of carbon-monoxide.—Dr. Hallervorden explained to his American interrogator, Major Alexander.
“ ‘. . . I went up to them and told them “Look here now, boys, if you are going to kill all these people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized.
“ ‘They asked me, “How many can you examine?” and so I told them an unlimited number—the more the better. I gave them the fixatives, jars and boxes, and instructions for removing and fixing the brains. . . .’ ”
I call the attention of the Tribunal to the truly horrible nature of the measures taken in regard to the people who were to be killed merely to have their brains examined, for they were, so he said,
“ ‘. . . selected from the various wards of the institutions according to an excessively simple and quick method. Most institutions did not have enough physicians, and what physicians there were were either too busy or did not care, and they delegated the selection to the nurses and attendants. Whoever looked sick or was otherwise a problem patient from the nurses’ or attendants’ point of view, was put on a list and was transported to the killing center. The worst thing about this business was that it produced a certain brutalization of the nursing personnel. They got to simply picking out those whom they did not like, and the doctors had so many patients that they did not even know them, and put their names on the list.’ ”
I shall stop my citation there, Mr. President, but what I should like to do subsequently, unless the Tribunal is going to call upon Dr. Stahmer to speak. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we are now going to hear what Dr. Stahmer wants to say.
DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for the Defendant Göring): I am sorry that I must contradict what has just been said, for there is no proof that these things took place or that the Defendant Göring is responsible. The Defendant Göring states that he was quite unaware of these events and that he had nothing whatever to do with matters of that kind. As far as I know, the Prosecution itself. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I have to interrupt you, Dr. Stahmer. You will have a full opportunity of presenting arguments to us to show that the evidence which is adduced, which is brought forward now against the Defendant Göring, has really no reference to him. You will have a full opportunity to do that at the appropriate stage when you present the defense. The only question we are considering now, the technical question, is whether this document is a document which is admissible. We are considering it, of course, but it is not the appropriate time for you to present your argument that the document does not refer to Göring and that Göring had no knowledge of it. That will be your defense. It isn’t an objection to the admissibility of the document. It is an argument to show that Göring didn’t know anything about the document and didn’t know anything about the experiments.
Do you understand what I mean?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I only wanted, by introducing. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Mounier, continue.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I take leave to point out to you that my friend, Mr. Elwyn Jones, has just pointed out to me that this is admitted as proof in view of the conditions under which it was submitted. This is the document entitled, “Neuropathology and Neurophysiology, including Electroencephalography, in Wartime Germany.” Besides this reference is found in the English copy which I submitted in the modest document book which I submitted to the Tribunal just now. I should like to tell you, Mr. President, in citing this short passage. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe the Tribunal had better keep the original document for the present.
M. MOUNIER: My aim, Mr. President, in citing this short passage, is to demonstrate the truly atrocious way in which they treated people in order to procure the necessary material for these so-called experiments. According to the Prosecution this relates to Hermann Göring, for the Tribunal will take into account the fact that these experiments were made for the purpose of obtaining information of a scientific or pseudo-scientific nature concerning the effects upon the brains of airmen of all the accidents which might happen to them.
These experiments are connected with those of Dr. Rascher, concerning which some correspondence took place. The Defendant Hermann Göring cannot have been ignorant of this correspondence, for it directly concerned the Air Force, which he commanded. I cite, for instance, a letter dated 24 October 1942, which was addressed by Himmler to Dr. Rascher and which I submit to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Number RF-1409 (Document Number 1609-PS).
To save the time of the Tribunal I shall not read this letter. I shall simply refer to another document which has already been cited as Document Number 343-PS. It was submitted by the American Prosecution as Exhibit Number USA-463, 20 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1428), and it is a letter which proves that as early as 20 May 1942 Field Marshal Milch was charged by the Defendant Göring with the task of transmitting to the SS his special thanks for the aid which they had given the Luftwaffe with these pseudo-medical experiments. Consequently, we consider that in this respect the responsibility of the Defendant Hermann Göring is clearly established.
Mr. President and Gentlemen, I have concluded the points concerning the Defendant Hermann Göring to which I wanted to draw the attention of the Tribunal. There is a conclusion in my brief against the Defendant Hermann Göring. With the permission of the Tribunal I shall not read it. I shall say that this conclusion is an extract from an old book dating from 1669, which is certainly known to everyone in Germany at least. Its title is Simplizius Simplizissimus by Grimmelshausen. It is a work in which persons are seen invoking dreams. Unfortunately the realization seems to have been achieved by the National Socialist regime.
I now go on to the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, whose case concerns most particularly our friends in the Netherlands on behalf of whom France is acting as counsel.
Consequently, Mr. President and Gentlemen, as regards the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, the French Prosecution is going to outline as briefly as possible both in the name of the Netherlands Government and in its own name the separate charges against this defendant. The part played by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, his participation in the annexation of Austria, were carefully studied during the course of this Trial. But it is his operations in Holland which deserve to be thrown into special relief today.
On 13 May 1940 the Netherlands Government left Holland for a friendly Allied country. Its presence there was indicative of its firm determination not to yield up in any way its sovereign rights.
On 29 May 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, who had the rank of Reich Minister without Portfolio, was appointed Reich Commissioner for the occupied Netherlands. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart has therefore been considered responsible, by virtue of his functions, for all the acts committed by the so-called German Civil Government from that date up to the capitulation of the German Army. The speeches which he made afford evidence that he was invested not only with purely administrative functions but also with political authority.
It is, therefore, useless for him to try, as he did when he was interrogated by my friend Mr. Thomas Dodd, to maintain that in Holland he was nothing more than an official empowered to put his seal on orders, in the same way that in Austria earlier he was practically only a telegraph operator. This interrogation is dated 18 September 1945, Pages 20 to 22. I do not insist further, as I did not wish to produce these interrogations in order to avoid wasting the time of the Court with the numerous interrogations which would have had to be cited in cross-examination, and these documents will really remain for the edification of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, has the interrogation been put in?
M. MOUNIER: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as a matter of technical procedure. . . .
M. MOUNIER: I know in advance that you cannot accept this as proof already constituted in your eyes, considering the rule. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it can be given if the rule is complied with.
M. MOUNIER: My intention, Mr. President, is the following—to state. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, I think you are misunderstanding me. Under the article the prosecutors have got the right to interrogate any of the defendants, and this was an interrogation of one of the defendants.
If the Prosecution choose to do so, they can offer their interrogation in evidence. If they do not choose to do so, they need not do so. Under such circumstances the interrogation is not in evidence, and need not be furnished to the defendant until it is.
M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President, I have not alluded to these statements made by the defendant. I simply wish to point out that when the defendant of whom I am now speaking is cross-examined, we shall be able to confront him with the statements he made, or, at least, I hope so.
With the permission of the Court I shall first take up the subject of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s terrorist activities. These are shown by the following measures:
First, a whole system of collective fines. In March 1941 he established a system of collective fines which were imposed upon the Dutch cities where he thought that elements of the resistance movement existed. Thus the city of Amsterdam had to pay a fine of two and a half million.
The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also established a system of hostages. On 18 May 1942 he published a proclamation announcing the arrest of 450 persons in important official positions, who were only suspected of being in relation with the resistance movement.
In fact, the defendant has admitted before Mr. Dodd. . . . No, I stop, Mr. President, I did not submit these interrogations. I shall pass over this passage and only point it out in a general way, and I beg the Court not to consider this fact as an infringement of the Charter. I am simply pointing out to the Court that in this case, too, the Defendant Seyss-Inquart tried to hide behind the shadow of the Reich Chancellor, the shadow of the Führer, Hitler.
By the decree of 7 July 1942, the defendant ordered that the German tribunals, the judges of which he himself appointed, were to try not only the German citizens in Holland, but also citizens suspected of activities hostile to the Reich, to the Nazi Party, or to the German people.
At the same time the Defendant Seyss-Inquart introduced the death penalty for those who had not properly performed the security jobs assigned them by the Wehrmacht or the Security Police or who had failed to inform the German command posts of all criminal projects directed against the occupation forces which came to their knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you were citing then a proclamation dated 18 May 1942. You did not give us any number as yet.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I ought to say that I am referring in a general way to the official report of the Netherlands Government (Document Number RF-1429). The government submitted a report. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is it stated there?
M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Did that also apply to the document of 7 July 1942 that you just spoke of?
M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also appointed the SS Obergruppenführer Rauter, General Commissioner for Security. The latter is responsible for the murder of thousands of Dutchmen executed with the passive consent of Seyss-Inquart, inasmuch as Rauter’s appointment was always maintained and was never terminated.
On the other hand, the Netherlands Government charges the Defendant Seyss-Inquart with the creation of a whole series of exceptional courts. In May 1943 he established summary police jurisdiction, and in fact through an ordinance issued by Hitler, Dutch prisoners of war who had been freed shortly after the cessation of hostilities were once more interned. A tough resistance showed itself in the Dutch factories and the newly established summary jurisdiction sentenced several Dutch citizens who were executed. Moreover, Seyss-Inquart did not fail to boast of all these terrorist measures at a meeting of Dutch collaborators and claimed responsibility for them.
The Defendant Seyss-Inquart was Hitler’s supreme representative in Holland. He should be considered as responsible, along with the Defendant Sauckel, for the mass deportation of workers from Holland to the Reich between 1940 and 1945. Whether or not the German military authorities played any part themselves in the mobilization of labor, Sauckel’s officials in Holland were normally placed under the authority of the Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, and he must be considered as responsible for their actions. It was the Defendant Seyss-Inquart who signed the decree of the Reich Commissioner, Number 26 of 1942, which is found in the official Dutch report, in an official publication ordering the compulsory transport of Dutch labor to Germany. Those who would not work for Germany got nothing to eat; the occupation authorities even went so far as to make huge roundups in the streets of Rotterdam and The Hague in order to procure labor for the fortifications of the Wehrmacht.
In regard to economic pillage during the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s period of office as Commissioner, the Dutch economic system was plundered like that of the other occupied countries. In the winter of 1941-42 woollen goods were requisitioned by order of Seyss-Inquart for the German Army on the Eastern front. In 1943 textiles and every-day household articles were requisitioned for the benefit of the bombed-out German population. Under what the occupation authorities called the “Action Böhm,” people of the Netherlands were compelled to sell wines and various objects destined to form gifts for the German population for the celebration of Christmas 1943.
The same thing happened with regard to the organization of the black market, for, in order to carry out the Four Year Plan, Seyss-Inquart gave the Defendant Göring and the Defendant Speer competent assistance in the pillage of the Dutch economic system. We can say in this way that a huge black market was fostered and maintained. The Four Year Plan utilized “snatchers” for these alleged purchases but when Dutch prosecutors tried to intervene they were prevented from doing so by the German police.
In 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued an ordinance permitting the German authorities in Holland to confiscate the property of all persons who could be accused of hostile activities against the German Reich. The property of the royal family was, on the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s orders, confiscated by the General Commission for Security. The occupation troops could help themselves to everything that was of use to them.
This pillage was manifested in a particularly cruel manner by the abuses which went on in connection with the requisition of food products.
In fact, the official report of the Dutch Government and the document already submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution under Document Number RF-139 (Exhibit Number RF-139), and Document Number RF-140 (Exhibit Number RF-140) show that, from the very beginning of the occupation, food stocks were systematically removed with the consent of Seyss-Inquart—as was also the case with agricultural produce, which was transported to Germany. When a railway strike broke out in the north in September 1944, soon after the liberation of southern Holland, Seyss-Inquart, in order to break the strike, gave orders that no food stocks were to be moved from the northeast to the West. As a result of this, it was impossible to establish food stocks in the West.
Consequently, Seyss-Inquart must also be held responsible for the famine which ensued during the winter of 1944-45, causing the death of some 25,000 Dutchmen.
In regard to works of art, the pillage was carried on in the same way. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart must be considered responsible for organizing the removal of works of art from Holland, since he expressly called in his friend, Dr. Mühlmann, who was a specialist in this branch.
In this connection I refer to the document submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution under Document Numbers RF-1343 and RF-1344. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued a whole series of measures contrary to international law which did considerable harm to the Netherlands.
In 1941 the Dutch authorities had established a currency control system which allowed them to keep track of purchases made with German money, either of goods or public funds, with the aim of preventing abuses which would lead to the plundering of Holland’s wealth in the form of materials or of currency.
On 31 March 1941 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart abolished the “currency” frontier existing between the Reich and the occupied Dutch territory. By so doing, he paved the way for all the abuses committed in monetary matters by the occupying power, in addition to the impossible sums demanded by Germany to defray the expenses of occupation: 500 million Reichsmark on 24 March 1941.
The frontier control between Dutch occupied territory and Germany was also abolished by order of Göring, in order to expedite the pillage of the Netherlands’ economic system. When the war began to go badly for the Wehrmacht, especially after 1 September 1944, the destruction became systematic. The objectives aimed at by the Germans in the Netherlands were the following: First, to demolish or put out of action factories, shipyards, basins and docks, port installations, mines, bridges, railway equipment. Second, to flood the western parts of Holland. Third, to seize raw materials, semi-manufactured products, manufactured goods and machines, sometimes by requisitioning, sometimes in return for payment in money, but in many cases simply by force of arms. Fourth, to break open safe-deposits containing securities, diamonds, et cetera, and to take illegal possession of these. The result of these measures, responsibility for which devolves wholly or to a great extent on the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, was to throw Holland into a state of unspeakable and undeserved misery.
I have now concluded, Mr. President, the case of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, how long a time do you anticipate you will take this afternoon, because I understand that the case against the Defendant Hess will be presented afterwards; and it is important that he should finish that day, so that the Chief Prosecutor may have a full day for his opening statement.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, both yesterday and today I have yielded most willingly to the wishes of the Tribunal. I understand perfectly your anxiety to expedite the trial as much as possible, and in view of this, I shortened the remarks which I was going to make to you this morning. For this reason, too, I state in the name of the French Prosecution that I shall now forego the presentation of the cases of the other defendants, which were on the schedule. I merely ask the Tribunal to refer to the files which we have submitted, except in the case of Keitel and Jodl. If it please the Court, my friend and colleague, M. Quatre, will make a few remarks about these two defendants at the beginning of this afternoon’s session. He will try to make them as short as possible. In that way the British Delegation will have the two hours which it needs to present the case of Hess.
Consequently, may it please the Court, M. Quatre will take the floor for an hour at two o’clock and then give way to the British Delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: Another question that I would like to ask you, M. Mounier, as to the documents against the other defendants, other than Keitel and Jodl, have they been furnished to the defendants concerned in them?
M. MOUNIER: Yes, they have, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.