All nations revered equally good faith in relationships amongst individuals. All of them had come to accept good faith as the law of their mutual relationship. The international morality was little by little emerging and international relationship, like relations between individuals, was more and more coming under obedience of the three precepts of the classical Roman jurists! "honneste vivere alterum non laedere, suum quique tribuere." from a long tradition of Christianity and liberalism added on this common heritage and achieved at the price of hard experience. Each nation enlightened by the properly-conceived interests of man was coming to understand that in public affairs as well as in private affairs loyalty, moderation, mutual aid were the golden rules which none could transgress indefinitely and with impunity. The defeat, the catastrophe which has fallen upon Germany confirm us in this thought and gives only more meaning and more clarity to the solemn warning addressed to the American people by President Roosevelt in his address of 27 May 1940:
"Although our Navy, our guns and our planes are the first line of defense, it is certain that back of all of that there is a spirit and the morality of a free people, which gives to their material defense power, support and efficiency . . . " it was indeed those who could rest their strength upon law, nourish it with justice, who won out, but because we have followed step by step the development of the criminal madness of the defendants and the consequences of that madness throughout these last years, we must conclude that the patrimony of man, of which we are the recipients, is frail indeed; that all regressions are possible and that we must with care watch over this heritage. There is not a nation who ill-educated, badly led by bad masters, would not in the long run revert to the barbarity of the early ages. and musicians we like, whose application to their task we admire, and who was not without giving example of probity in the most noble works of the spirit; these German people which came rather late to civilization, beginning only with the eighth century, had slowly raised themselves to the ranks of nations possessing an older culture.
The contributions to modern or contemporary thought seemed to prove that this conquest of this spirit was final -- Kant, Goethe, Jean-Sebastian Bach belonged to humanity just as much as Calvin, Dante or Shakespeare, and still we behold the fact that millions of innocent men have been exterminated on the very soil of these people, by the men of these people, in execution of a common plan conceived by their leaders, and these people had not a single gesture of revolt. That is what has become of them because they have scorned the virtue of political freedom, of civic equality, of human fraternity. This is what has become of them, because they had forgotten that all men are born free and equal before the law; that the essential action of the State has for its purpose to introduce more and more deeply the respect of spiritual liberty and of fraternal solidarity in social relationships and in international institutions. very souls. Evil masters have come who awakened their primitive passions and made possible the atrocities which I have described before you. In truth, the crime of these men is to have caused the German people to retrogress twelve centuries. Their crime is to have conceived and achieved as an instrument of government a policy of terrorism toward the whole of the subjugated nations and toward their own people; their crimes is to have pursued as an end in its policy of extermination of entire categories of harmless citizens. That alone would suffice to determine capital punishment. And still, the French prosecution represented by M. Faure, intends to present proof of another crime; the crime of attempting to "exterminate from the world certain concepts which are liberty, independence, security of nations, but which are also called faith in the word 'pledge' and respect of the human person . . ." The crime of having attempted to kill the very soul, the spirit of France and of the other occupied nations in the West. We consider that that crime is the gravest crime committed by these men, the gravest because it is written in the Scriptures, Matthew, XII, 31-32:" ......all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy unto the Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men. Whosoever speaketh against the Spirit it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. For the tree is known by its fruit. Race of vipers, how could ye speak good words when ye are evil ......."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
M. EDGAR FAURE: Mr. President, Honorable Judges: I have the honor of submitting before the Tribunal the concluding statement of the French Prosecution. This presentation relates more particularly to the letters J and I of Count No. 3 of the Accusation, Germanization, Oath of Allegiance, moreover, to letter B of Count No. 4, Persecutions for Political, racial and religious reasons. idea which will orient the plan of my presentation. The concept of Germanization has been stated in the presentation of Monsieur de Menthon. It consists essentially in imposing upon the inhabitants of occupied territories forms for their political and social lives such as the Nazis have developed them, according to their own doctrine and for their own profit. The combined activities which carry out the Germanization or which have Germanization for their purpose and which are illegal acts have been defined as a criminal enterprise against the condition of mind. territories which were annexed to the Reich. The Germans intended even before the end of the war to integrate these territories into their country. These territories, annexed as they were and therefore Germanized in an absolute manner, are the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Belgian cantons of Eupen and Malmedy and the three French departments of Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin and the Moselle. if one considers the regions occupied by the Germans. This in no wise limits the reprehensible character of these annexations. But moreover we should note at this point two essential aspects of our subject. The first of these aspects or propositions: The Germans had conceived and prepared more extensive annexations than those which they had in fact carried out officially. Because it was not to be done at the time, they did not proceed with these planned annexations during the period of time at their disposal. The second proposition, moreover, the annexation was not the unique or necessary procedure of Germanization.
The Germans discovered that they could employ different means and varied means to achieve their purpose of universal domination. The selection of the means according to circumstances which vary, in order to attain and to hide an identical result, was one of the characteristics of what has been called the Machiavellism of the Nazis. Their conception is technically much more pliable, more clever and more dangerous then the classical conception of war of territorial conquest. In this connection, the most brutal conqueror has in regard to them the advantage at least of being frank and open. extensive territory. There are numerous indications on this point that can be gathered. I would like to give you only two citations. The first of these is taken from the Documentation collected by our colleagues of the American Prosecution in regard to an American document which has not yet been submitted before the Tribunal. I should say in addition that in my own statement I shall only refer twice to the American documentations. All the other documents which I shall sub twill be new documents which will be produced by the French prosecution. The document of which I speak now is Document No. 1155-PS, of the American documents, and it appears in the dossie of the documents submitted to you under No. 601. It will be submitted to the Tribunal under that number for French documentation.
This document is dated Berlin, 20 June 1940. It bears the notation. Secretary General Staff Document. Its title is, "Note for the Dossier's File, Concerning the Conversation of 19 June 1940, at the Headquarters of General Field Marshal Goering." The notes which are included in this document reflect therefore the views of the leaders and not individual interpretations. I would like to read before the Tribunal only paragraph 6 of that document, which is to be found on page 3. It is the first document, bearing No. 601. I proceed with the reading of paragraph 6:
"General plans in regard to political development.
"Luxembourg is to be annexed to the Reich. Norway is to become German. Alsace-Lorraine is to be re-incorporated into the Reich. An autonomous Breton state is to be created.
Projects have been presented concerning Belgium, and the fate to be given to the Flemish in that country, as well as the creation of a State of Burgundy." refers to a French document which I place before you under No. 602. This document comprises the minutes of the interrogatories of Dr. Globke, a former assistant of the Secretary of State, Dr. Stuckart, in the Ministry of the Interior. It is dated 25 September 1945. This questioning was collected by a Commandant of the French Judiciary Service. In the minutes -- or to the minutes -- there has been added a memorandum which was delivered following the questioning by Dr. Globka. I read a passage from this interrogatory, at the beginning of the document, paragraph 1.
"Question: Have you any knowledge of any plans which envisage the annexation of other French territories at the time of the conclusion of peace Belfort-Nancy, the de Brisy Basin, the coalfields of the north, the so-called "Red Zone", territories attached to the general government of Belgium?
"Answer: Yes, these plans did exist. They were formulated by Dr. Stuckard, upon a personal instruction of the Fuehrer, and I have Seen them. They were communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the OKW and to the Armistice in Wiesbaden. All these documents have been destroyed, at least so claims Dr. Globke. The Secretary of State, Mr. Stuckard, brought a preliminary project to the headquarters of the Fuehrer before the launching of the Russian Campaign -- in 1940.
After examination the Fuehrer thought that this project was too moderate and he gave instruction that it should extend to other territories, specifically along the Channel. Dr. Stuckard then prepared a second draft and there was even a map drawn up in headquarters therewith, in which the approximate borders were indicated. I have seen it and I can show it to you roughly on a map of France -- large-scale map of France. I do not know whether this second plan was approved by Hitler."
I now read a passage from the memorandum. It is annexed to the minates just cited.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you tell us who Dr. Globke was?
M. FAURE: Mr. President, he is the assistant of Dr. Stuckard who was Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He was designated as drafting officer for matters concerning Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and had been there since 1940.
I now read a passage from the memorandum annexed thereto. This appears in your Document Book immediately after the passage I have just read. Still under No. 602. I am now reading paragraph 6 of the memorandum in question. It is the beginning of the document before your eyes.
"The project of moving the Franco-German border was elaborated upon in the Ministry of Interior by the Secretary of State von Stuckard, upon order given to him personally by Hitler. This plan envisaged that the territories in the North and the East of France which for any pretended historical background, political, racial, geographical reasons or any other reason whatsoever, could be considered as not belonging to Western Europe but to Central Europe, were to be given back to Germany. A first draft was submitted to Hitler at his headquarters and it was approved by him in its entirety. Hitler nevertheles indicated his desire -
THE PRESIDENT: The typing of these documents has got mixed, because our copy of this part of the documentation after translating into English reads, "After examination, the Fuehrer found this project too moderate and ordered it to extend to other territories, notably to the length of the Channel." I think there must be a miscopying there, if what you read is right.
M. FAURE: I ask the Tribunal to excuse me. There is indeed a paragra which has been omitted in the dossier which is entitled "Presentation", which is before your eyes. But if the Tribunal is willing -
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could give us a corrected copy afterwards. If you continue your reading now, perhaps you could let the Tribunal have the corrected copy afterwards.
M. FAURE: I shall not fail to do that, Mr. President.
DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): The Defense has not received these documents at all! Consequently, even today we are in a poor position to follow the presentation. Above all, we are not in a position to know whether the formal pre-suppositions on which the case is based are really founded in fact.
THE PRESIDENT: Monsieur Faure, is that correct, that none of these documents have been deposited in the Defense information Centre?
M. FAURE: They have been deposited, Mr. President. They were deposited with two photostat copies in the Document Centre of the Defendants' Counsel. Moreover, before I complete my statement, I am sure that the Defense Counsel will have all opportunity to study this very brief document and to submit any corrections which it may wish to supply, but I can give you formal assusrance that those documents were delivered.
THE PRESIDENT: What assurance can you give me that the orders which the Tribunal has given have been carried?
M. FAURE: The documents have been delivered to Defense Counsel in accordance with instruction and true photostat copies have been delivered in the Document Room of the Defense. These documents are in the German language, which should greatly facilitate the task of Defense Counsel. In fact, the interrogation was taken in the German language by the Officer of the French Judiciary Services.
THE PRESIDENT: You have heard what M. Faure has said.
DR. STAHMER: I should certainly not raise any objections of these documents really were in our Document Room and at our disposal. This morning I looked into the matter along with Dr. Steinbauer and made an effort to deter mine whether the documents were really there.
We could not find out. Dr. Steinbauer can verify that we could not find the documents. I cannot tell, of course, whether they may not have come in the meantime.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has stated on a variety of occasions that they attach a great importance to the documents being deposited in the Defendants' Information Centre and copies supplied in accordance with the regulations which they have laid down. Whether that has been done on this occasion, is disputed by Dr. Stahmer. The Tribunal proposes therefore to have the matter investigated as soon as possible and to see exactly whether the rules have been carried out or not. And in future they hope that they will be carried out with the greatest strictness. In the meantime, I think it will be most convenient for you to continue.
M. FAURE: The Defendant's Counsel tells me that the documents are in the Defense Counsel Room, but they have not yet been distributed. I therefore insist upon the fact that the orders were fully respected, but because of the burden of work it may be that they may not have individually received these documents. In any event, I was prepared to submit immediately to Defense Counsel most definitely concerned with this, photostat copies which would enable them to follow my reading of the documents, which, incidentally, are quite brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will have the facts investigated. And in the meantime, you can continue. The Marshal of the Court will immediately find out and report to the Tribunal what the facts are, about the deposition of the documents and the time at which they were deposited. In the meantime you can continue, and we shall be glad if you will assist the Defense Counsel by giving them any copies you may have available.
M. FAURE: I was saying, then, Document 602, which is annexed to the memorandum -- will the Tribunal be kind enough to follow the reading of this document and if you would kindly take the book entitled "Expose" or "Presentation", and turn to page 6 thereof, the passage is given there. The passage which I now read is the last paragraph of page 6 of the book entitled "Expose" or "Presentation."
THE PRESIDENT: Is it Expose on Luxembourg or Alsace-Lorraine?
M. FAURE: It is entitled "introduction."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the last page.
THE INTERPRETER: Page 6, Your Honor.
M. FAURE: Mr. President, you indicated to me a while ago that in the document book a sentence had been skipped. I was therefore asking you to take the text of may presentation where the said sentence is included in the text, in order to avoid any error in this connection.
It is entitled, "Introduction," Presentation, page 6, third and last paragraph:
"A first draft was made to Hitler at his headquarters and it was approved by him in its entirety. Hitler, however, expressed his desire to see allocated to Germany fractions of more extensive areas of territory, in particular along the coast of the Channel. The final draft which was to serve as the basis for future discussions with the departments of the Governments concerned, these discussions did not take place. The approximate outline of the frontier which was considered then started from the mough of the Somme, went along the northern limits of the Parisian Basin, and Champagne, up to the Argonne, then curved to the South, crossing Burgundy and incorporated Franche Comte, finally joining the Lake of Geneva. Various discussions were envisaged for a few provinces." measures having to do with the territories in question, measures which might be designated pro-annexation measures.
I come now to the second proposal which I referred to a while ago. With or without annexation, the Germans had in mind to take and maintain under their domination all the occupied countries. As a netter of fact, their will was to Germanize and to Nazify all of Western Europe and even the African Continent. This intention of theirs is clear from the very fact that the conspiracy which has been so completely developed before the Tribunal by my colleagues of the American Prosecution, as will be shown by the applications of it which were made, and the principal of which will be traced in this statement. I merely wanted to recall to the Tribunal this general point that the purpose of Germanic domination is defined according to the German interpretation itself in a public diplomatic document, which is the "Tripartite Pact of 27 September 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan. In this connection I would like to quote before the Tribunal a few sentences of a comment given in connection with this treaty by an official German author, von Freytagh-Loringhoven, a member of the Reichstag, who wrote a book on the foreign policy of Germany from 1933 to 1941. This book was published in a French translation in Paris at the editing house of Sorlot under the Occupation. I don't want to submit this as a document but merely as a quotation from a public work, which book is here in your hands.
I am reading from page 311:
"This treaty granted Germany and Italy a dominant position in the new European order and it bestowed upon Japan a similar role in the area of Eastern Asia."
"At first glance, one can realize that the Tripartite Pact had in mind a double purpose." will go to the sentence which deals with thesecond purpose:
"Moreover, it entrusted the parties with a mission for the future, that is to say, the establishment of a new order in Europe and in Eastern Asia. Without seeking to lessen the importance of the first question, there can be no doubt that this second purpose, dealing with the future, involved vaster projects and was in fact the principal point. For the first time in an international treaty, the Tripartite Pact used the terms, "Space" and "Orientation" by associating them one with the other." to be significant.
"Now, the Tripartite Pact places a clear delimitation of the wider spaces created by nature on our globe. The concept of space, it is true, is employed explicitly only for the Far East, but it is clear that it is equally applicable to Europe and that Africa is comprised within this conception. The latter -that is Africa *-*is certainly politically and economically a complement, or, if one wishes, an annex of Europe. Moreover it is obvious that the Tripartite Pact fixes the limits of the two broad spaces reserved to the partners, that the Pact recognizes tacitly the third space, that is Eurasia, properly speaking, and it leaves aside the fourth, that is, the American Continent, thus leaving the latter to its own destiny. In this way the whole surface of the globe is included and one thought which as yet has not engaged us up to now, except in theory was lifted to the significance of a political principal and concerning international law."
"I have felt that this text was of interest because on the one hand it clarifies the fact that the African Continent is itself included in the space reserved to the German claimants.
Moreover, it states that the Government of such an immense space by Germany will new become international law. This pretense of acting juridically is one of the characteristics of the undertaking of Germany to Germanize the world from 1940 to 1945. It is undoubtedly one of the reasons which inspired Nazi Germany to proceed except on special cases by the annexation of territories.
Annexation is not indispensable for the domination of a great area. It can be replaced by other spaces which correspond rather accurately to the usual term of reduction to vassalage
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think this will be a convenient time to break?
(A recess was taken from 1120 to 1135 hours.)
M. FAURE: Mr. President: Before taking up my brief, I should like to ask the Tribunal if they could agree to hear, during the afternoon session, a witness who is M. Reuter, President of the Chamber of Luxemburg.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, M. Faure, if that is convenient to you, the Tribunal is quite willing to hear the witness you name.
M. FAURE: I propose on those conditions to have him heard at the beginning of the second part of the afternoon session. where a part of the text was missing in the document book, this is due to the fact that the page was affixed to another page, that is to say the first page - I beg your pardon, because of a numerical difference. I must say the text was complete. However, it was not in its proper order. I shall naturally put it in the dossier in its proper order. correspond to the expression of vassalisation.
From a German author I will take a formula which is eloquent. It is Dr. Sperl, in an article in the "Krakauer Zeitung", who used this expression: "A differentiation in methods of German domination." In using, thus, indirect methods and differentiated methods of domination, the Germans acted in political matters as we have seen that they acted in economic matters. I had the opportunity to point out to the Tribunal, in my first brief, that the Germans immediately seized the keys of economic life. If you will permit me to use this expression, which is a Latin expression, I shall say that as far as sovereignty in the occupied countries is concerned, they insured to themselves the power of the keys, "potestas clavium" - the seized the keys of sovereignty in each country. In that fashion, without being obliged to officially abolish national sovereignty as in the case of annexation, they were able to control and direct the exercise of this sovereignty. as follows: national sovereignty was abolished. In a second chapter I shall study the mechanism of the seizure of sovereignty for the benefit of the occupying power in the regions which were not annexed.
Then it will be suitable to take up or to scrutinize the results of these usurpations of sovereignty and the violation of the rights of the population which resulted from them. I thought that I should group those points in considering the principal results. in the very extensive sense that the German concept gives to this term.
Chapter four, and the last chapter, will bear the heading, "The Administrative organization of criminal action." is concerned, I have striven to limit the number of texts which will be presented to the Tribunal and I shall attempt to make my quotations as short as possible. more than two thousand documents, counting only the original German documents and I have kept only about fifty of them. I should like also to point out to the Tribunal how the documents will be presented in the document books which you have before you. The documents are numbered at the top of the page to the right; they are numbered in crayon. They are in consecutive order, an order corresponding to the fashion in which I will quote them. Each dossier has a pagination which begins with the number one hundred. "Eupen and Malmedy". of occupied territories, Germany did something much more serious than the violation of the rules of law. It is the negation of the very idea of international law.
The "jurisconsulte", Bustamante Y. Sirven, in his treaties on internationa law expresses himself in the following terms regarding this subject.
"We have been enabled to observe that we have never alluded at any moment to the hypothesis where the occupation terminates because the occupying power takes possession of the occupied territory through his military strength and without any convention. The motive for this omission is very simple and very clear.
Since the conquest cannot be considered as the legitimate mode of acquisition, these results are uniquely or solely the result of force and cannot be determined or measured by the rules of law". imply annexation. Inversely, we might conceive that annexation did not necessarily mean Germanization. We shall prove to the Tribunal that annexation was only a means, and the most brutal one, of Germanization, that is to say her Nazification. carried out by a German law of May 18, 1940, and was carried out through an executive decree of May 3, 1940. These are public regulations, which were published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, pages 777 and 804. I should like to ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this. As a result of this decree the three Belgian districts were attached to the province of Rhenanie, the district of Aachen. A decree dated September 23, 1940 brought in the German local government and German municipal laws. these territories. Local courts were established in Malmedy, in Eupen and St. Vith and district courts at Aachen, which could issue statues for the local courts. The Court of Appeals of Cologne replaced the Belgian Court of Appeals for cases which would have been competent. 1940, signed by Hitler, Goering, Frick and Lammers, and went into effect beginning the 1st of September 1940. A decree of September 3, 1940, regulates the details of the transition of the Belgian law into German law, in the domain of private law, commercial law and law of procedure. inhabitants called German in this Belgian territory. The details of this measure were specified and stipulated by the decree of the 23 of September, 1941. All persons who had acquired Belgian nationality, because of the coding of these territories, could, according to the terms of the decree, resume their German nationality. Exception was made, however, for Jews and gypsies. All the other inhabitants, on condition that they were racially German, might acquire German nationality, which might be revoked after ten years.
from the annexation of these Belgian territories for the developments of the situation are analogous to those which we shall take up as to the other countries. I simply would like to point out one detail, which is special to this subject. A law of February 4, 1941, signed by Hitler, Goering, Frick and Lammers, granted the citizens of Eupen, Malmedy and Moresnet, a representative in the Reichstag, that is to say, the benefits of the German parlimentary regime, of which we know its democratic character.
I shall ask the Tribunal to now take up the dossier entitled "Alsace and Lorraine." There is a dossier for the brief and a dossier of documents. Eupen, Malmedy and Moresnet, the Germans did not officially proclaim a law of annexation for the three French departments, which constitute Alsace and Lorraine. I should like to remind the Tribunal here of extracts from a document which has already been submitted to it, which is Number 3 of the French documentation. This is a deposition made before the French High Court of Justice by the French Ambassador Leon Noel, who was then a member of the Armistice Delegation. I did not put this document in your book again because I only will cite one sentence from it. The document has already been submitted to the Tribunal, as I have just said. Ambassador Noel, in this document, pointed out the conversations which he had at the time of the signing of the Armistice Convention with the German representative, notably with the accused Keitel and Jodl. The sentence which I would like to remind the Tribunal of is as follows:
"And likewise in thinking of Alsace and Lorraine I required them to say that the administrative and judicial authorities of the occupied territories would keep their positions, their functions and would be able to correspond freely with the government."
The affirmations are dated the 22nd of June, 1940. I am now going to submit to the Tribunal a document of September 3, 1940, which is a note of protest of the French Delegation, addressed to the German Armistice Commission. I submit this to the Tribunal in order that the Tribunal iii order that the Tribunal may see that during the period which elapsed between these two dates, a period which covers barely two months, the Nazi had already applied a series of measures which created in an incontestable manner, a state of annexation. documentation. It is the first document of the Document Book which the Tribunal has before it. All the documents in this chapter will bear numbers beginning with the number 7. the copy submitted to the Tribunal has been certified by the clerk of this jurisdiction. I should like to quote from this document, beginning with the fourth paragraph on page 1 of the document 701:
1. "Prefects, sub-prefects and mayors, as well as a number of local officials whose tendencies were considered suspicious, were to be evicted from their respective offices.
2. Monseigneur Heintz, Bishop appointed under the Concordat at Metz, was driven from his diocese. Several members of the clergy, secular as well as ordinary members, or as well as legal members, were also expelled under the pretext that they were of French tongue and mentality.
3. Monseigneur Ruch, the Bishop appointed under the Concordat at Strasbourg, was forbidden to enter his diocese and consequently, to resume his ministry.
4. Mr. Joseph Burckel was appointed, on the 7th of August, Gauleiter of Alsace. The first of these provinces" -
I ask the Tribunal's pardon; "and Mr. Robert Wagner was Gauleiter of Alsace.
"The first of these provinces was allied to the Gau of Sarre-Palatinat; the second to the Gau of Bade.
"5. Alsace and Lorraine were incorporated in the civil administration of Germany. The frontier and custom police were then placed on the Western limits of these territories.
"6. The railroads were incorporated in the German network.
"7. The administration of post offices, telegraph and telephones was taken in hand by the German postal authorities, who gradually substituted for the Alsatian personnel their own personnel.
"8. The French language was eliminated, not only in administrative life, but it was eliminated from public use.
"9. Names of localities were Germanized.
"10. The racial legislation of Germany was introduced into the country and, as a result of this measure, the Israelites were expelled, as well as nationals which the German authorities considered to be intruders.
"11. All Alsatians and Lorrainers who agreed to consider themselves as being of German stock were permitted to return to their homes.
"12. The property of associations of a political character, and of Jews, was confiscated, as well as property acquired prior to the 11th of November, 1918, by French persons."
"Nothing illustrates better the spirit which animates these measures, in themselves arbitrary, as the words pronounced publicly July 16, at Strasbourg, by Mr. Robert Wagner. Stressing the elimination which was taking place of all the elements of foreign stock or nationality, this high official affirmed that the purpose of Germany was to settle once and for all the Alsatian question. Such a policy, which could not be the function of subordinate occupational authorities, was equivalent to disguised annexation, and is formally contrary to agreements subscribed to by Germany at Rethondes." delegation. We have attached to our dossier a list of these protests; there are 62 of them. This list is found in the book under the number 702. three series of measures which were carried out. of what we might call the French complex, that is to say, on everything which can tie an inhabitant of an annexed country to his condition and to his national tradition.
domain or the life of the population. resulted from the measures which we shall study relative to the imposition of German norms. I should like to point out particularly, in this present part, that the Germans tried to fight against all elements of French organizations which could survive after the suppression of their national and juridical conditions. At first they proscribed in an extraordinarily brutal way, the use of the French language. Several regulations were formulated relative to this. I shall cite only the third regulation, bearing the date of August 16, 1940, entitled, "Concerning the Reintroduction of the Maternal Language." This document is published in the Journal of German Ordinances or Decrees of 1940, at page 2. This is document number 703. The Tribunal will find it in the Document Book after the document 702, which is the list of French protests. I should like to read a great part of this document, which is interesting, and I shall begin at the beginning.
"Following the measures undertaken with a view of reintroducing the maternal language of the Alsatian people, I decree as follows:
"1. Official Language.
"All public services or departments in Alsace, including administration of communes, of corporations within the meaning of civil law, public establishments, churches, and foundations, as well as tribunals, will exclusively use the German language orally and in writing. The Alsatian population will use exclusively its German maternal language in speaking to one another orally and in addressing the aforementioned services in writing."
On the second page:
"2. Christian Names and Family Names.
"Christian names will be exclusively used in their German form orally and in writing, even when they have been inscribed in the French language on the birth register. As soon as this present decree comes into force, only German Christian names may be inscribed upon the birth register. Alsatians who bear French Christian names, which should have a German form, are asked to ask for a change of their Christian names in order to show their attachment to Germanism. The same is true for French family names."
"The enterprises and establishments having their seat in Alsace, and whose trade name is French in all or in part, must replace this trade name by a corresponding German designation the 15th of September, 1940, at the latest."
"It is forbidden to draw up, in French language, contracts and accounts under seal of whatever nature they may be. Anything printed on business paper must be drawn up in the German language. Books and accounting of all business firms, establishments and companies must be kept in German language.
"Fifth, Inscriptions in Cemeteries.
"In the future, inscriptions on crosses and on tomb stones can only be written in the German language. This provision applies to a first inscription as well as to an old inscription which may be renewed."
These measures were accompanied by a press campaign. Because of the resistance of the population, this campaign was carried out during all the occupation. significant, which was published in the Dernieries Nouvelles of Strasbourg on the 1st of March, 1943. This is not introduced as a document; it is merely a quotation of a published article. When we read this article, we think at first that it seems to be a joke, but we see subsequently that it is quite serious because true reprisals, or repressive measures, are stipulated there against people who sabotaged the German language.
I cite:
"A German greets one saying 'Heil Hitler'. We do not wish any further French formulas of greeting, which we hear often now. The salutation 'Bonjour' is not made for these rough Alsatians.