Would you be kind enough to tell us why the statistical data is not now possible to find in any document?
of it. The German authorities then preferred to stop the operation,
Q Do you remember the date of the census?
However, did the date continue through measures of annexation?
will of the Luxembourg population?
police, to give, an oath of allegiance to the Chancellor of the Reich?
A Yes. This constraint was demanded with respect to the even recalcitrants, or any one who disobeyed were deported.
Usually I believe the Germans call it "umsetzung"--of a certain number of inhabitants, and families living in your country?
victims of this transplanting?
of your functions as President of the Chancellery of Deputies?
Q Can you state, Mr. Reuter, how the people who were trans what period they had to be ready, generally speaking?
pre-warning, nor officially so. Say about ten o'clock in the morning the agents, or gestapo, rang at the door, and they notified those who were selected to be ready for departure within one or two hours; forcing them to take with them the minimum of luggage; then they were transferred to the station and embarked on a train to the destination, or the camp to which they were at first to be sent. personally?
A I knew them personally. I knew personally there were a large number of people who were transplanted, among them members of my own family, a great number of the colleagues of the Chamber of Deputies, and many members of the Bar, and a lot of other people, etc. concentration? This is a different question. knew about. The number of such deportations in the Grand Duchy may be approximately four thousand.
Q Mr. Reuter, has there not been established, by its virtue, an ordinance by which the German authorities prescribed compulsory military service, such therefore -- I will not ask you any question on this particular point. However, I would like to ask you whether you are able to state approximately the number of Luxembourg citizens who were enrolled in the German Army, or of young people #10 were incorporated by force in the German Army? the class of 1920 say the number is about eleven thousand to twelve thousand at least. A certain number of them, I consider about one-third, succeeded in avoiding conscription, and were considered as rebels. They succeeded to escape, and they went away. a result of their forced enrollment, and who died ultimately? five hundred dead, and research has continued, and we have established at least about three thousand casualties and dead.
Luxembourgers, were they severe?
A Several instructions were extremely severe. First of all, the young people who were refractory were pursued and hunted by the police, and by the Gestapo. Then they were brought before various types of Tribunals, either in Luxembourg, or in France, or in Belgium, or in Germany. Their families were deported also; the fortune of their family was confiscated. The penalties practiced and enforced by the Tribunals against these young people were likewise extreme in their recurrence, and that there were penalties of death, generally speaking, imprisonment, forced labor, deportation to concentration camps. Some of those usually obtained mercy later on, and there were some who were shot after having obtained a pardon.
Q I would like to ask one last question. Do you think it is possible with the fatality of the measure, which constituted a deportation of Luxembourgers, that could have been ignored as to any of the people who belonged to the Reich Government, or to the German High Command? have been ignored by the members of the Reich and by the Supreme Military Authority. My point is based on the following facts: First of all, young people who were mobilized by force frequently protested at the time of their arrival in the German Army in Germany by invoking the fact that they were all of Luxembourg nationality, and by force each there were made the victim, So that the military authorities must have been informed of the situation in the Grand Duchy. In the second place, several Ministers of the Reich, among them Thierack and Mr. Ley, paid visits to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and could discover the situation of the country under reaction of the population, and those officials under the political personality of the Reich came also in visits, the Reichministers, such as Bormann and Sauckel, and families. denationalization of certain categories of Luxembourg citizens. These ordinances bore the signature of the Minister of the Reich. All these measures, and the execution of all of these ordinances were published in the Amtsblatt, a military fuer das innenministerium, "A innenamtlich an alle oberen Reichs stellen," and were still under the signature of the Minister of Interior Frick,
M. FAURE: I thank you. That is all the questioning I have to put
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any member of the defendants' counsel who wishes to ask the witness any questions.
(No response) Then the witness can retire.
One moment. Then the witness can retire.
M. FAURE: Mr. President, am I to understand that the witness will not to his home?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
M. FAURE: I had stopped my presentation at the end of the second part.
port and colonization within Alsace-Lorraine. The German authorities applied transport of populations.
It so happens that, as I have already stated territories.
The situation which I am about to indicate with respect to with regard to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
The application of such expelled.
A second advantage was the elimination of groups who were considered especially difficult to assimilate.
I should like to quote "Today we must make up our mind.
At a period of supreme struggle for the nation, the struggle in which you, too, must participate, I can only say to anyone who states that I am a Frenchman. I can state only one thing: Get the hell out! In Germany there is room only for Germans." expulsion or by small groups concerning specifically the Jews and members of the teaching profession. Moreover, it is shown by a document which I have already cited this morning under No. 701, and which was the first general protest made by the French delegation, under date of 3 September 1940, and it was shown from the text already read that the Germans authorized the Alsatians and Lorrainers to return to their homes only if they acknowledged themselves to be of German origin. Now, the Tribunal will understand that restrictions placed upon the return of refugees were equivalent to the same result as expulsions themselves. The mass expulsions began in September 1940. I now submit in this connection document 750. It is once more a note from the French delegation for the armistice which has been taken from a high court of justice files. I am now reading this document on paragraph 2.
"Since then it has been brought to the knowledge of the French Government that German authorities are proceeding to carry out mass expulsions of families who have been settled in the three departments of the East. Every day French citizens who are forced to abandon on the spot all of their belongings are driven to the part of France which is unoccupied in groups of 800 to 1,000 persons."
We are only on the 19th of September as yet. On the 3rd of November the Germans undertook a systematic operation for the expulsion of the populations of Moselle. This operation was accomplished with extreme perfidy. The Germans, as a matter of fact, first visited the Lorrainers in certain localities where they gave them the choice of either going to eastern Germany or of going into France. They gave them only a few hours to make up their minds. Moreover, they sought to promote the belief that such a choice was imposed upon the Lorrainers as a result of an agreement reached with the French authorities. From the material point of view, the transport of these people was effected under they difficult conditions. The Lorrainers were allowed to take away only a very small bit of their personal belongings and a sum of 2,000 francs, 1,000 francs in the case of each child.
had been seized away from their homes had thus been directed to Lyons. The arrival in unoccupied France of these people who had been so gravely tried was nevertheless for them the occasion of manifesting nobly their patriotic sentiments. On the whole, the facts which I have submitted I place before the Tribunal, document No.751, which is a note of protest on the part of the French delegation over the signature of General Doyen, dated 18 November 1940. I shall read excerpts of this document 751, beginning with paragraph 3 of page 1.
"France is faced with an act of force which is in formal contradiction both with armistice convention as well as with the assurances recently given for a desire of collaboration between the two countries, or quite the contrary. In Article 16, which the German commission had frequently invoked with regard to, specifically, the departments of the East, the armistice convention stipulates the reinstallation of refugees in the regions in which they were domiciled. The creation of new refugees constitutes, therefore, a violation of the armistice convention. France is faced with an unjust act which is striking peaceful populations against whom the Reich has nothing to reproach and who hadn't been settled for centuries, on these territories have made of them a particularly prosperous region. The unexpected decision of the German authorities is likewise an inhuman act. In the very middle of winter, without warning, families had to leave their homes, taking away only a strict minimum of personal property and a sum of money absolutely insufficient to enable them to live even for only a few weeks. Thousands of Frenchmen who were thus suddenly hurled into misery without their country, already so heavily tried and surprised by the suddenness and amplitude of the measures adopted without its knowing of it, should be in a position of insuring for them from one day to the next a normal life. This exodus and the conditions under which it took place brought about the most painful and sorrowful impressions throughout the French nation. The French people were particularly disturbed by the statements that were given to the Lorrainers and, according to which the French Government was reputed to be the source of their misfortune.
"That was what, in fact, the text which was posted sought to make belief amongst the population that was called upon to choose between leaving towards the east of Germany or leaving" -- the word "departement" has been used in the text; it should have been 'departe' --"to the east of Germany or departure to unoccupied France. The poster is appended hereto, but we are not in possession of the text of this poster. It is also what might be the impression that might be given by the affirmation that these populations had requested themselves for the authorization to leave, following the appeal having been disseminated by the radio of Bordeaux. Even if we admit that such appeals had been made, it should be noted that the Bordeaux radio station was under German control. The good faith of the Lorrainers has been deceived as has been shown by their reaction upon their arrival in the free zone."
In spite of these protests, expulsions continued. They reached a total figure of about 70,000 people. They were doubled by the deportation of Alsatians and Lorrainers to Eastern Germany and to Poland. These deportations had the object of creating terror and they particularly struck the families of the men who had rightfully decided to refuse the German demand concerning forced labor and military service.
Since I don't wish to be reading too much to the Tribunal, I submit texts dealing with an identical subject. I submit this document solely to show that this protest was made, and I believe that I can do that without reading its full contest. belonging to the American Prosecution. This document has the number R-114. It is a memorandum containing the minutes of a meeting which took place between several officials of the SS concerning the general direction to be given in regard to the treatment of the Alsatians who were deported. It will be observed that this document has already been submitted by my American colleagues under No. R-114, U.S.A., French No. 753. I merely wish to read from that document one paragraph, which may be interpreted as a supplement to this problem of deportation. I must say that these sentences have not been formally read in Court. The passage that I cite is on page 2 of the document. At the end of that page 2 we have a paragraph which begins with the letter "B" :
"The following persons shall be listed for future deportation" -- this is a citation -- "The Gauleiter does not wish to keep in his district people who speak a patois, only the people who adhere to Germanism in their customs, their language and their general attitude, according to the cases provided for in paragraph (a) and (b) above. It should be noted that we shall first examine the problem of the race and that we shall do so in such a manner that people having a racial value will be deported to Germany Pr per and the people of inferior racial value should be deported to France." newspaper article, in the last issues of "News of Strasbourg," August 31, 1942 -- we are here dealing with a citation and not a document:
"On the 28th of August the families designated hereafter named, of the Arrondissements of Mulhouse and Guebwiller were deported to the Reich in order that they may again find a solid German attitude in a surrounding of united National Socialism. In several cases the persons involved were those who did not conceal their hostility in that they provoked opposition, speaking French publicly in a provocative fashion, did not submit to the ordinances concerning the education of youth, or in other circumstances have shown a lack of loyalty." transportation had for their consequence the spoliation of property. This is not merely a fact; for the Germans it is a law. Indeed, there is an ordinance, of 29 January, 1943, which appeared in the official bulletin of 1943, page 40, bearing the title, "Concerning the Safeguarding of Property in Lorraine as a Result of Transplantation Measures." I have placed this ordinance before you as Document 754. I would like to read Article One and the first paragraph of Article Two. I believe that the text is sufficiently clear:
"Article One. The safeguarding of property of people who were transplanted from Lorraine into the Greater German Empire or in a territory placed under the sovereign power of Germany has been entrusted to the Transfer Services for Lorraine attached to the Chief of the Administration.
"Article Two. These Services are authorized to place under effective safeguarding, the property of the Lorrainers who have been transplanted in order to administer such property, and in so far as the orders may have been given therefore, to exploit them."
This ordinance, therefore, still manifests some formal scruples. The effort is to "safeguard," but we now know what the word "safeguard" means in Nazi terminology. We have already seen what safeguarding of objects of art has meant, and of Jewish property. Even here, we have been specifically warned that to "safeguard" gives the right to dispose of or exploit. Other texts are even more specific or clear.
Here is Document No. 755. This is the ordinance of 6 November, 1940, pertaining to the declaration of property of the enemies of the people and of the Empire, in Lorraine. And I shall also submit to you Document No. 756 on the same subject, which is the regulation of 13 July 1940, applying to the enemy property of the people and of the Empire, in Alsace. These two texts, one of which pertains to Alsace and the other to Lorraine, make possible the seizure and confiscation of properties which are designated as "enemy property." Now, to realize the extent of the property so designated, I will read Document 756:
"There will be considered as property belonging to the people and to the Empire, any objects and rights of any nature whatsoever, without regard to the conditions of title, which are utilized for or intended for use in activities hostile toward the people of Germany or the Empire. Such stipulation shall apply to the whole public property:
"(a) of all political parties, as well as the property of secondary organizations or complementary organizations depending on these parties;
"(b) lodges and similar associations;
"(c) the Jews;
"(d) Frenchmen who have acquired property in Alsace since 11 November 1918.
"(e) the Chief of the Department of the Administration of Police will decide, in addition to the property mentioned above, what is public property which is likewise to be considered enemy property -- inimical to the people and to the Empire. He will likewise decide on doubtful cases." measures of sequestration of enemy property which are taken in all countries within the scope of the laws of war. First of all, these are confiscation measures. And in addition, they are applied to the property of numerous individuals who are in no wise subjects of the enemy countries. We also see at this point the absolutely arbitrary power which is left in the hands of the administration. These texts conclude with a regulation which is extremely fullsome.
Alsace and in Lorraine, I shall not speak of them here in more detail, inasmuch as the Prosecution has already dealt with the general subject of spoliation. I shall merely limit myself to the mention of two institutions which are special to Alsace and to Lorraine. That is, agricultural colonization, and on the other hand, industrial colonization. been invented by the Prosecution. It is the very expression which the Germans used. And I submit in this connection, Document No. 757, which is the ordinance of 7 December 1940, "pertaining to the new regime of settlement or colonization in Lorraine." I shall read the beginning of this Document No. 757:
"Real estate which has been vacated in Lorraine as a result of deportations will serve principally for the reconstitution of a German peasantry and for the requirements for billeting or lodging of internal colonizers. In this connection, and specifically in order to achieve the required programs, I order officials, by virtue of the powers which have been conferred upon me by the Fuehrer:
"Article One. Real estate property of individuals deported from Lorraine shall be seized and confiscated for the benefit of the Chief of the Civilian Administration." Article Two:
"Agricultural properties or forest properties which are seized in consequence of the ordinance concerning enemy properties in Lorraine are confiscated. Insofar as they are needed, they are included in the methodical organization of the region."
Article Three:
"in addition to the cases provided for in Articles One and Two, and according to the needs, other property may be included in the programs for methodical reorganization, provided appropriate compensation is made."
In paragraph 2 of Article Three:
"The Chief of the Civilian Administration and Services designated by him will decide the importance and the character of the compensation. Any recourse to the courts on the part of the person involved is forbidden."
striking, which have been pursued by the German authorities. The first ordinance, the one I cited earlier, spoke only of safeguarding the property of people who had been deported or transported. A second ordinance now speaks of confiscations. That still refers to the notion of enemies of the people and of the Empire. confiscation prescriptions which are quite formal in their character, and which are no longer qualified as "safeguarding" with regard to the property which has become vacated as the result of deportations. importance in Lorraine. On the other hand, it is in Alsace that we find a greater number of cases of measures involving a veritable industrial colonization. These measures consisted in stripping the French industrial enterprises for the benefit of German France. On this subject there is in existence the protest of the French delegation to the Armistice Commission. I submit as documents, three of those protests, Documents Nos. 758, 759 and 760, which are notes under date of -- respectively -- 27 April 1941, 9 May 1941 and 8 April 1943. I believe that it is preferable for me not to read these documents to the Tribunal and that I merely ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of them, as proof of the existence of these protests, because I fear that such a reading would be a mere repetition to the Tribunal, be whom there has already been explained sufficiently the matter of economic spoliation. point of demanding that there should be saved in un-annexed France and transported to Alsace, any profit which belonged to French companies that were thus stripped of their property and infact colonized. I am speaking of profit items of these companies which were located in the other part of France, under the control of the regular shareholders of such companies.
procedure, contained in a very short document, which I submit to you under No. 761. This document appears in the Archives of the French Services for the Armistice Commission, to which it had been sent by the director of the company referred to in the document. It is a paper which is written partly in German and partly -- in the very same document -- in French translation, and is signed by the German Commissioner for French Enterprises, which is called the Alsatian and Lorrainian Society for Electricity. In Alsace this enterprise had been placed in a legal manner under the administration of this Commissioner.
And this Commissioner -- as the document will show -- had come to Paris to try to seize the remainder of the assets of this company. He drafted this document which he signed and which he also caused to be signed by the general director of the French company, This document is of interest as revealing the insolence of German procedure and also their conception of law. I quote now:
"Today the undersigned has given me the order that in the future it is strictly forbidden to me to proceed with legal actions concerning the property of former Alsation and Lerrainian Electrical Society. If I should do anything againstsuch an order, I know that it will be punished.
"Paris, 10 Larch 1941.
"Signed: Hucka "F.P. Kommissar "Signed:
Gamier." serve as an experiment for the application of similar methods on a broader scale. There will be submitted before the Tribunal in this connection. a document concerning an effort at colonization in the French Department of Ardennes. On this procedure of annexation by the Germans of Alsace and of Lorraine, many other circumstances could be cited, and I could submit many more documents -- even if I were to deal only with the circumstances in the documents which are useful from the point of view of our own Prosecution. to confirm to the necessities of this trial where so many events have to be brought out. Therefore I have limited myself to the submission of documents, or to examples which are particularly characteristic. I believe that this documentation will enable the Tribunal to appreciate on one hand the criminality of the German undertakings which I have brought to its attention conscription, which became a common-law crime involving the penalty of death. the serious sufferings that were imposed for five years upon the populace of these French provinces which had been so sorely tried in the course of history. I have submitted a few details which racy have seemed ridiculouse, or facetious, but I did so because I thought it was desirable that one could visulize the opression exercised by the German Administration in all circumstances of life, even of private life.
The general opression, which is represented by an enterprise to destroy and annihilate, was exercised in a most complete manner ever the Departments and of the countries which were annexed. I believe that the Tribunal prefer that I should leave until tomorrow my comments with respect to the presentation dealings with the Grand Duchy of Luxenbourg. I would like, moreover, to ask the Tribunal whether they agree with regard to a problem of testimony.
I should like to put a witness on the stand, and it is only a little while ago that I gave the Tribunal a letter concerning this request. May I ask to be excused for not having done so earlier? Because there had been some uncertainty on this point. If the Tribunal finds it convenient, I should like to have this witness here at tomorrow's session, Saturday. I state that this witness would be Mr. Koos Vorrink, who is of Dutch nationality. I also wish to say that the Defense may likewise be informed of this, that the question I would like to submit to the witness will deal with certain plans concerning the Germanization in the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to call him tomorrow?
M. FAURE: If that is convenient to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Tomorrow will be
M. FAURE: If it pleases the Tribunal, his testimony could be taken after the recess tomorrow morning.
DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): Mr. President, I do not wish to prolong the proceedings, but I believe it will be in the interest of justice if I ask that the Dutch witness be heard not tomorrow but Monday, on the assumption that Seyss-Inquart who is now ill may be expected back on that date.
THE PRESIDENT: Monsieur Faure, would it be equally convenient to you to call him on Monday?
M. FAURE: Mr. President, the witness would like to go away from Nurnberg fairly promptly. Perhaps I might suggest that he be heard tomorrow and that afterhaving been heard Counsel for Seyss-Inquart would indicate whether he wishes to cross-examine him, and in that case the witness would remain until Monday's session. If, on the other hand, after having heard the questions involved Counsel and considers that there is no need for any cross-examination then there would be no importance in Seyss-Inquart's absence. But I will naturally accept the decision of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That seems a very reasonable suggestion.
DR. STEINBAUER: I am agreeable to the suggestion of the French Prosecutor.
THE PRESIDENT : we will adjourn now.
(Whereupon at 1700 hours the hearing of the Tribunal adjourned, to reconvene at 1000 hours on 2 February 1946).
COURT OFFICER: May it please the court, I desire to announce that the defendants Kaltenbrunner, Seyss-Inquart, and Streicher will be absent from this morning's session due to illness.
M. FAURE: Gentlemen: I shall ask the Tribunal to be kind enought to now take the dossier which is entitled "Luxembourg." situation concerning Luxembourg in part of the testimony of the President Reuter, which was heard during yesterday's session. I will, therefore, be able to shorten my presentation concerning this brief, only retaining the indispensible parts which I shall submit to the Tribunal with the documents. includes the total abolition of the sovereignty of this occupied country. It is a case which corresponds to the hypothesis which we call the classical law, that is to say, the cessation of hostilities by the disappearance of public law of one of the belligerents. criminal premeditation on the part of the Reich against the State towards which it had been agreed by diplomatic treaties, notably the Treaty of London, 11 of May, 1867, the Treaty of arbitration and conciliation on the 2nd of September, 1929, and the Tribunal knows by the testimony of Mr. Reuter that these engagements were confirmed, first by diplomatic steps which took place in 1939 by M. von Radowitz, the Plenipotentiary Minister for Germany, and then by a reassuring statement a few days before the invasion, under circumstances which have already been explained to the Tribunal. ments; given that Luxembourg was a state, the Germans had to, in order to carry out this de facto annexation, issue special regulations concerning the suppression of public institutions.
Two ordinances of October 1940 show, on the one hand, the dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies and the State Council, and on the other hand, the prohibition of Luxembourg's political parties. These two ordinances I offer as documents under Number 801 and 802. I request the Tribunal take judicial notice of these documents, which are public documents. stitutional operative formula, according to which justice is rendered in the name of the sovereign. A formula rendering justice in the name of the people was substituted at that time for this operative formula. way and became: "In the name of the German people." which I adopted for Alsace and Lorraine and naturally I shall stress only circumstances which are special to Luxembourg. extirpate the national sentiment of Luxembourg and to make impossible all manifestations of the traditional culture of this country. Thus, the decrees of August 28, 1940 and of the 23 of October 1940, prescribed associations of a cultural or educational nature. names and Christian names. This is clear from a decree of the 31 of January, 1941, concerning Luxembourg, document 803. I point out that the wearing of a beret also was forbidden in Luxembourg by decree of the 14 of February 1941. set up, according to their custom, their own administration and they appointed a Gauleiter in the person of Gustav Simon, previously Gauleiter of KoblentzTrier. administered as Reich territory from the Chief of the Administrative Service but it was the German Administrative Service from the point of view of the National Socialist Party. It was officially joined to the Reich. in Luxembourg, which we already have studied for Alsace and Lorraine. The proof of this must be considered sufficiently furnished by submitting the official report of the Government of the Grand Duchy.