M. DUBOST: I shall submit to the Tribunal the supplementary proof concerning the generals who died while deported when I deal with the question of the camps.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
M. DUBOST: General Frère died in Struthof Camp and we shall explain the circumstances under which he was assassinated. In addition, there exists in your document book a document numbered F-417, Exhibit Number RF-297, which was captured among the archives of the German Armistice Commission, which establishes that the German authorities refused to free French generals who were prisoners of war and whose state of health and advanced age made it imperative that they should be released. I quote:
“As far as this question is concerned the Führer has always adopted an attitude of refusal, not only from the point of view of their release but also with regard to their hospitalization in neutral countries.
“Release or hospitalization today is more out of question than ever, since the Führer has only recently ordered the transfer to Germany of all French generals living in France.”
It is signed by Warlimont, and in handwriting it is noted: “No reply to be given to the French.”
Please retain as evidence only this last sentence: “—since the Führer has only recently ordered the transfer to Germany of all French generals living in France.” As I explained, however, these arrests infinitely exceeded the relatively limited number of generals or families of well-known persons envisaged by the document which I have just read to the Tribunal: “Very many Frenchmen will be arrested . . . .” We have no statistics; but we have an idea of the number, which is considerable according to the figures given for Frenchmen who died in French prisons alone, prisons which had been placed under German command and were supervised by German personnel during the occupation.
We know that 40,000 Frenchmen died in the French prisons, alone, in France, according to the official figures given by the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees. In the prison registry “Schutzhaft” (protective custody) is written. My American colleagues explained to the Tribunal what this protective custody meant when they read Document Number 1723-PS, submitted under Number USA-206. It is useless to return to this document. It is sufficient to remind the Tribunal that imprisonment and protective custody were considered by the German authorities as the strongest measure of forceful education for any foreigners who would deliberately neglect their duty towards the German community or compromise the security of the German State; they had to act in accordance with the general interests and adapt themselves to the discipline of the State.
This protective custody was, as the Tribunal will remember, a purely arbitrary detention. Those who were interned in protective custody enjoyed no rights and could not vindicate themselves. There were no tribunals at their disposal before which they could plead their cause. We know now through official documents which were submitted to us, particularly by Luxembourg, that protective custody was carried out on a very large scale.