The German authorities did not respect this juridical conception that they had thought out any more than they had respected the rules of the law of the occupation; and the proof of this violation of law in the so-called operational zone has already been brought in a number of circumstances and will be brought again later in the final parts of this presentation.
Apart from this division, the inconveniences of which can well be imagined for a country which is not very extensive and whose life is highly centralized, I shall mention the second seizure of sovereignty, which consisted in the control by the Germans of the legislative acts of the French de facto government.
Naturally, the German military administration, in conformity with its doctrine, constantly exercised by its own decrees, a real legislative power in regard to the French. On the other hand—and it is this fact which I am dealing with now—in respect to the French power the sovereignty of which the Germans pretended still to recognize, they exercised a veritable legislative censorship. I shall produce several documents by way of example and proof of this fact.
The first, which I submit as Document Number RF-1055, is a letter from the Commander-in-Chief of the Military Forces in France to the French Delegate General; the letter is dated 29 December 1941. We see that the signature on this letter is that of Dr. Best, of whom I spoke this morning in connection with Denmark, where he went subsequently and where he was given both diplomatic and police functions. I think it is not necessary for me to read the text of this letter. I shall read simply the heading: “Subject: Bill Concerning the French Budget of 1942, and the New French Finance Law.”
The German authorities considered that they had the power to take part in the drawing up of the French de facto government’s budget, although this bore no relation to the necessities of their military occupation. Not only did the Germans check the contents of the laws prepared by the de facto government, but they made peremptory suggestions. I shall not quote any document on this point at the moment, as I shall be producing two: One in connection with propaganda and the other in connection with the regime imposed upon the Jews.
The third seizure of sovereignty which the Germans exercised consisted in their intervention in the appointment and assignment of officials. According to the method which I have already followed, I submit, on this question, documents by way of example. First I submit a document which will be Document Number RF-1056, a letter of 23 September 1941, from the Commander-in-Chief Von Stülpnagel to De Brinon. This letter puts forth various considerations, which it is not necessary to read, on the sabotage of harvests and the difficulties of food supplies. I read the last paragraph of Document RF-1056.
“I must, therefore, peremptorily demand a speedy and unified direction of the measures necessary for assuring the food supplies for the population. A possibility of achieving this aim I can see only by uniting both ministries in the hands of one single and energetic expert.”
It was, therefore, a case of interference on the very plane of the composition of a ministry, of an authority supposedly governmental. As regards the control of appointments, I produce Document Number RF-1057, which is a letter from the Military Command of 29 November 1941. I shall simply summarize this document by indicating that the German authorities objected to the appointment of the President of the Liaison Committee for the Manufacture of Beet Sugar. You see, therefore, how little this has to do with military necessities.
I next produce Document Number RF-1058, which is likewise a letter from the Military Command. It is brief and I shall read it by way of example:
“I beg you to take the necessary measures in order that the Subprefect of St. Quentin, M. Planacassagne, be relieved of his functions and replaced as soon as possible by a competent official. M. Planacassagne is not capable of carrying out his duties.”