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.
Accustom yourselves to the German tongue. The Alsatian language harms our ears. When we say 'Au Revoir', the French think they are listening to an Arabic word, which sounds barbarous. Sometimes they say 'Adje'. This word is phonetic, which makes our beautiful German dialect unmusical. These words are not worthy of Alsace. It harms the female sensitivity to say 'Frau' instead of 'Madam'.
"We are sure that Alsatians are going to lose the habit of linguistic complexities so that the authorities will not have to act against those who sabotage the German language." music. This is the purpose of a decree of March 1, 1941, signed by the Administrative Chief of the People and of Propaganda, Dressier. This is Document 704, published in the German Official Journal, page 170, of the year 1941. I shall simply cite the title of this decree, "Concerning Undesirable and Disagreeable Music." The first three lines are:
"Musical works contrary to the will of the National Socialist culture will be place on a list concerning undesirable and harmful music, under the section of Propaganda to the People."
After music, now, we have the question of headwear. In this regulation its ridiculous quality struggles constantly with its odious nature. I would almost like to ask the Tribunal to pardon me, for truly nothing in this is invented by us.
Here is Document 705. It is a decree of December 13, 1941, published in the Official Bulletin of 1941, page 744. This Document 705 concerns the wearing of French berets, berets Basques in Alsace. I only read the first paragraph "The wearing of French berets (Basque berets) is forbidden in Alsace.
Under this prohibition all berets must be considered which, by their form or by their aspect, resemble French berets.
"I may add that this prohibition may result in fine or prison."
which the inhabitants kept in their homes. I cite as an example Strasbourg, in the archives of Strasbourg.
It is dated February 19, 1941.
I read three paragraphs of this document.
"The Gauleiter desires that through the organization of Blocks adequate way for household needs.
Until the 1st of May next no "This operation must be carried out in the following way.
"It must also be pointed out that after the 1st of May next we in private property."
"Where, from the 1st of June, 1941, Alsatians still have in their camp."
the obligatory or compulsory service bureau. This is the purpose of the Gauleitung of Strasbourg.
I read the first line of this "Given the general situation of the labor market, the Chief of European countries must, in the future, be used in Alsace.
There employed in Alsace."
THE PRESIDENT: The translation which came through to me came to me as "must."
It came through that the foreign workers of all countries of Europe must, in the future, be used.
The word is "pouvait."
That doesn't mean "must," does it? It is "pouvait."
Doesn't that mean "could"?
M. FAURE: The interesting aspect is that those who are French belonged to France.
I shall cite one example in relation to this point.
This is our document 709.
reproduced in a memorandum of the General Delegation of the French Government, which is found in the archives of the government. I read this document 709, which is short:
"The German Ambassador has the honor to point out the following to the General Delegation of the French Government in occupied territory.
"The German Ambassador has been informed that in a series of reports on a theme concerning the country, a French radio station in the non-occupied territory, on the 16th or 17th of April, 1941, about 21 hours, broadcast in the village of Brumath.
"As Brumath, near Strasbourg, is in a territory of German language, the German Ambassador requests that they inform him if in truth such a broadcast took place." been kept, and have kept an anecdotic character. We must now cite two especially serious cases, for they included assault, flagrant violations of sovereignty, aid even crimes. cathedral of Strasbourg. I shall submit, concerning this subject, Document 710, which is a letter of August 14, 1943, a letter of protest of General Berard, President of the French delegation attached to the German Armistice Commission, I read the beginning of the letter: "My General;
"From the beginning of the war, the treasury of the Strasbourg Cathedral and the property of certain parishioners of this diocese had been entrusted by Monseigneur Ruch, Bishop of Strasbourg, to the Beaux-Arts Department. The Beaux-Arts Department had put them in a safe place in the chateau of Hautefort and of Bourceilles in Dordogne, where they still were on the date of May 20, 1945."
There is a serious error. It should be May 20, 1943.
"Among the treasures of this property are found in particular the pontificlia reserved for the exclusive use of the bishop, several of which were his personal property; the relics of saints; vases or objects for the celebration of ceremonies.
"After having sought on several occasions, but in vain, to obtain the consent of Monseigneur Ruch, the ministerial counsellor Kraft solicited upon the 20th of May, not only from the prefect of Dordogne, but also the director of ceremonies, the authorization to remove these trusts. Faced with the refusal of these high officials, he declared that the repatriation to Alsace of the property of the Catholic Church would be entrusted to the Sicherheitspolizei.
"As a result, on the dawn of May 21, the castles of Hautefort and Borceilles were opened and occupied by the troops, despite the protestations of the conservateur. The holy objects were placed in trucks and were taken to an unknown destination. This seizure, moreover, was carried out in the case of the vases and ceremonial objects ritually blessed, and the relics of saints honored by the veneration of the faithful. The seizure of these holy objects by laymen not legally mandated, and the conditions under which the operation was carried out, awakened the emotion and unanimous reprobation of the faithful.
"Signed: Berard." one fact which we shall find frequently subsequently, which is, in our opinion, very important in this trial. It is the constant collaboration of different or diverse German administrations. Thus, the Tribunal must, through this document, observe that the Minister Kraft, belonging to several services concerning national education, appeals to the police and to the SS to obtain objects which he cannot obtain through his own efforts. Strasbourg. From the beginning of the war, the University of Strasbourg, which was one of the most beautiful universities in France, had withdrawn to Clermont-Ferrand to continue its teaching there. After the occupation of Alsace, and since this occupation constituted annexation, it was not brought back to Strasbourg and remained in its city of refuge.
"The Nacis conceived a great discontent which was expressed in numerous threatening memoranda. We would like to submit Document 711 relative to this. In this document we shall find the ministerial counsellor Herbert Kraft, about whom I spoke in the preceding document. The document which I submit bears the number 713 and is an original signed by Kraft. It was found in the archives made by the German embassy.
expresses his disappointment at the result of steps which he had undertaken with the rector of the University of Strasbourg, M. Danjon. I believe that it is adequate if I read a very short passage of this memorandum in order to show the insolence and the threatening methods which the Germans used, even in the part of France which was not yet occupied. The passage which I am going to read will be the last paragraph on page 2 of Document 711. Mr. Kraft relates the end of his conversation with the rector. I cite:
"I cut the conversation short, arose, and asked him if, by chance, the decision of Admiral Darlan did not represent for him an order from his government. As I went out I added, I hope that they will arrest you. He ran after me, made me repeat my remark, and as I went off he said to me ironically that it would be for him a great honor." was very serious. Document 712. This document is an extract from the archives of the High Court and has been certified by the clerk of that jurisdiction. Here is the text of this Document 712. I shall not read the beginning of the document:
"The German Embassy feels that it is extremely desirable to work its way towards a solution of the affair of the University of Strasbourg at Clermont-Ferrand. We would be happy to learn that no further publication would appear under the title 'University of Strasbourg' so that new disagreements may not result from publications of that kind.
"The German Embassy is aware of the fact that the Ministry of National Education can no longer fill professorial chairs which have become vacant. We request that in the future no examination certificate be awarded with the mention of University of Strasbourg." out to the Tribunal a fact which is notorious. That is, Thursday, the 25th of November, 1943, the German police took possession of the buildings of the University of Strasbourg in Clermont-Ferrand, arrested the professors and students, screened them, raid deported a great number of persons. During this operation, they even shot at two professors. One was killed and the other was seriously wounded.
that is indispensable since there are proofs for this accusation that these murders were committed under orders which definitely show governmental responsibility.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, did you say that you had or had not got proof of the facts that you have just stated about the seizure of the property of the university?
M. FAURE: I said this, Mr. President: We consider that these facts are facts of public knowledge, but because of the interpretation which was given by the Tribunal, I have considered that it would be better to prove it by documents. As this document was not bound into this bock at that time, this document will be submitted as a text. I am going to read a passage of this document, but I should like to explain that it isn't found in its proper place as I added it to the brief after the statement of the Tribunal the other day according to the interpretation of facts of public knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.
Tomorrow being Saturday, the Tribunal will sit from 10:00 o'clock in the morning until 1:00 o'clock. We will then adjourn.
DR. KAUFFMANN: (Counsel for the defendant Kaltenbrunner): It was said that this afternoon there will be a witness. I would like to ask that this testimony be postponed to another day. I believe that we have reached a socalled silent agreement that we will be notified in advance as to whether there will be witnesses and what the subject will be.
I don't know whether there will be cross examination, and the possibility exists, of course, and expert questions can only be put when we know, first of all, who the witness is to be, and secondly, what the subject will be that the witness will be cross examined on, and perhaps we will just have a clue.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think it is necessary to postpone the evidence of this witness. As a matter of courtesy on the part of the Prosecution, it would be well, perhaps, that the subject matter - not necessarily the name, but the subject matter upon which the witness is to give evidence - should be communicated to the defense so that they may prepare themselves upon that subject matter for any cross examination. deal with the circumstances in respect to the German occupation of Luxembourg. That is right, is it not?
M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you will give the defendants' counsel the subject matter upon which they can prepare themselves for cross examination. I am told that this subject matter has already been communicated to the defendants and is on their bulletin board at the present moment.
(Whereupon at 1250 hours the hearing of the Tribunal adjourned to reconvene at 1400 hours).
Official transcript of the International Military Tribunal in the matter of:
The United States of Hermann Wilhelm Goering, et al.
, Defendants,
MARSHAL OF THE COURT: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the defendants Kaltenbrunner, Seyss-Inquart and Streicher will be absent from this afternoon's session on account of illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The question which was raised this morning about certain documents has been investigated, and the Tribunal understands that the documents were placed in the Defense Counsel's Information Center yesterday, but it may be that the misunderstanding arose owing to those documents not having been in any way indexed, and it would, I think, be very helpful to the Defense Counsel if Prosecuting Counsel could, with the documents, deposit also some sort of index which would enable the Defense Counsel to find the documents.
M. FAURE: It is understood that we shall present a table of contents of the documents to the German Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: I think if you could, yes.
M. FAURE: Your Honors, I was speaking this morning of the incident which occurred at the Strasbourg faculty in Clermon-Ferrand, Strasbourg, 25 November 1943. I pointed out to the Tribunal that I produced to this effect a document. This document has not been classified in the document book, and I shall ask the Tribunal to accept it as an annex number or as the last document of this book, if that is agreeable.
This is a report of M. Hoeppfner, Dean of the Faculty of Letters, a report established on the date of 8 January 1946, and transmitted from Lorraine to the French Public Ministry. I should like to read simply to the Tribunal, in order not to take up too much of its time, the two passages which constitute the texts which were submitted to it as an appendix.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the original document here?
M. FAURE: Yes. "This is the 25th of November, 1943, a Thursday. The 10:00 o'clock course is drawing to an end. As I come out of the room, a student posted at a window in the hall makes a signal to me to approach and shows me in the inner court a Wehrmacht soldier with helmet, boots, a submachine gun in his arm, Counting guard.
'Let us try--' Too late. At the same moment, wild cries arise from all directions--the corridors, the stairways, fill with sound of heavy boots, the clanking of weapons, fierce cries, a frantic shuffling. A soldier rushes down the hall between everybody in the hall.' Naturally everyone understood."
Second passage:
"One of our people, Paul Collomp, was coldly murdered with a shot in the middle of the chest, and an eye-witness confirms the fact that this, alas, is only too true. Asked to leave the Secretariat where he was alone he was, no doubt, obeying too slowly for the policeman, for the latter gave him a violent blow in the back, and instinctively our colleague turned-around, and the other then fired a shot full in the breast. Death was almost immediate, but the body was left there for some time.
"Another sound reached us. We didn't know from where. A colleague in Protestant Theology, M. Eppel, was apparently also shot down in his own house, where he had been sent for. He received, as was later learned, several bullet shots in the abdomen, but miraculously recovered and even resisted the horrors of Buchenwald Camp." accusation does not have the proof that such crimes were due to a German governmental order, but I believe that it is nevertheless interesting to advise the Tribunal of this last episode of the German undertakings against the University of Strasbourg, for the episode constitutes the succession, the consequence, and in a sense, the crowning of the preceding incidents. We have seen, indeed, that German procedure began first by regular procedures and that after these regular procedures, it reached the stage of recourse to the police and brutality and violations that accompanied this systematic development. number 712. of Germanic norms. The leaders of the Reich began by organizing a specifically German administration. I already indicated a while ago the appointment of Gauleiters as chiefs of the civil administration. I continue on this point by producing as document 713 the Ordinance of 28 August 1940.