THE PRESIDENT (interposing): Dr. Babel, will you forgive me for a moment. You concluded your cross examination some time ago, and the Tribunal doesn't desire
DR. BABEL (Interposing): I thought that by this statement I could clarify it for the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't need any clarification at all. We quite understand the point of your cross examination and we shall hear you when the time comes, very fully in all probability, in support of the arguments which you desire to present.
DR. BABEL: I did it only because of the results that I saw this morning. I thought it was necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: You must give the Tribunal credit for understanding your cross examination. We really cannot continue to have interruptions of this sort. We have some 20 defendants and some 20 counsel, and if they are all going to get up in the way that you do and make protests, we shall never get to the end of this trial.
(Whereupon at 1710 hours the hearing of the Tribunal adjourned to reconvene at 1000 hours on 5 February 1946).
Military Tribunal in the matter of: The
MARSHAL OF THE COURT: May it please the Court: I desire to announce that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner will be absent from this morning's session on account of illness.
M. FAURE (Counsel for France): One of the attorneys would like to address the Tribunal.
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff): In the name of the organization I represent, I make application that the testimony of the witness who was heard yesterday should be stricken from the record for this reason: that the witness made declarations, first, concerning the allegedly gratutitous destruction of the library in Louvain; secondly, concerning the treatment of the inhabitants of the country during the Rundstedt offensive.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't hear that last translation. I thought I heard "he made declarations concerning the destruction of the Louvain library", and then
THE INTERPRETER: Concerning the German treatment of the inhabitants of the country during the Rundstedt offensive.
DR. LATERNSER: He made statements regarding the treatment of the inhabitants, which led him to the conclusion that there were orders specifically requiring such treatment. reasons: First, during yesterday's testimony it was not a question of testimony of witnesses, A witness should base his testimony on his own knowledge, and his declaration should be based only on his own observations. These prerequisites were not there in the testimony yesterday. The witness repeated statements based on testimony of other people, testimony regarding matters which he himself did not witness. The knowledge of this witness can, consequently, be based only on documents, rather than on hearsay.
as soon as the documents on which it is based are put at his disposal; and, consequently, any such person, any person with whom the witness had spoken and who had given him his information, could have made such testimony. was not really eye-witness testimony, because the testimony that is given in a court should not be of such a sort that any other person could give it. Charter, is not committed to the ordinary rules of proof, the proof in the case of yesterday's witness must be rejected, because it does not have any probative value, as defined by the Court. This is to be seen in the fact that the sources of the witness' testimony cannot be judged according to their value. proof does not lead to the discovery of the truth.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear, Mr. Faure, what you have to say in answer to the motion which has just been made.
M. FAURE: Gentlemen, your Honors: I should like, first of all, to observe that, as the Counsel who has just spoken already indicated, the Charter of this Tribunal provides that it will not be held by formal rules of proof. But, aside from this consideration, I consider that there is no occasion to accept the objection of the counsel, this objection being founded on three considerations which he has enumerated, but which, as I understand what he has said, come down to a single objection, namely, that this witness was an indirect witness.
I would like to specify that I called Mr. Van Der Essen as a witness particularly in his quality as a member of the Belgian Inquiry Commission, which is official and governmental, on the study and the research of war crimes. It is in conformity with all legal procedure which I personally know that a person who has made inquiries on criminal matters may be called before a court of justice to state the conditions under which this inquiry was made and the results which it produced. It is therefore not necessary that the witness who comes to testify on an investigation should have been himself a direct witness of the criminal activities which this investigation is intended to bring to light.
Mr. Van Der Essen, therefore, in my opinion, testified as to facts and acts which he knows personally, namely, as concerns the matters of Stavelot. He stated that he himself had heard witnesses and that he verified that these testimonies were authentic. records which exist of the commission of which he is a regular member. the calling to the witness stand of a considerable number of individual witnesses. However, in order that all guarantees may be given as concerns the demonstration of facts which are called before the Tribunal, I have decided to bring here the briefs, the dossiers, the texts of testimony to which the witness referred. I shall then be able to communicate to the Defense the affidavits of the witnesses who were mentioned yesterday, and I think that this will give the defense ample guarantee. the acceptability of the testimony, it being understood that the Defense will discuss as it sees fit the value and the probative force of this testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Faure, you said something about the affidavits of witnesses which you would furnish to the Defendants Counsel. I understand that you intended also to put in the governmental report or the committee's report with reference to which the witness had testified, did you not?
M. FAURE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: As a matter of courtesy, to furnish the affidavits which were before that Committee to the Defendants Counsel; is that what you meant?
M. FAURE: Yes, if this meets with the approval of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The governmental report, I suppose, does not actually annex the affidavits, does it?
M. FAURE: Yes, Mr, President.
THE PRESIDENT: It does? The affidavits are part of the report, are they?
M. FAURE: The report which was submitted does not contain the elements which the witness brought out yesterday in certain respects, particularly because the investigation on Stavelot was very long and very conscientous and was not summarized in time.
I said, therefore, that I proposed to submit as evidence and thus to communicate to the Defense this complementary element.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I thought; that is to say, the report did not contain all the details which were in the affidavits or evidence?
M. FAURE: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Therefore, you thought it right, as a matter of courtesy, to allow the Defendants to see those details upon which the report proceeded. The Tribunal understands that.
The Tribunal will consider the motion which has been made. We will consider the motion which has been made at a later stage. You can now proceed with your argument.
M. FAURE: Your Honors, I should like, first of all, to point out to the Tribunal that since a certain amount of time has been given to witnesses and discussions, and as I wish not to exceed the time limit which was announced, A find myself obliged to shorten to a considerable degree the presentation of the brief which I am presenting on the subject of propaganda.
I shall therefore ask the Tribunal kindly to excuse me if there are some hesitations in this presentation, inasmuch as I shall not follow exactly my brief. cerns the right of assemblage or of association, which was eliminated or suppressed or was maintained and exploited to their own advantage. I should like now to say something about books and Publishings. of August 1940, published in the Official Journal of 5 September, to forbid certain class or shcool books in France. We have already seen that they had proceeded in the same fashion in Belgium. Another initiative of the Germans was that of forbidding a certain number of books which did not please them. I present in this connection document 1103, which is the "Otto" list. This list, which was published in September, 1940, is a list of 1175 volumes which were forbidden by the Germans. Naturally, I shall not read it to the Tribunal. It appears in the document book under No. 1103, as I have just said.
A second "Otto" list, longer than the first, was published subsequently on 8 July 1942, and I present it under No. 1104. The conclusion of this second document, which is the last page in my document book, indicates clearly to what principle the German authorities appealed. I read a few lines.
"In principle, all translations from English, except works of the English classics, are withdrawn from sale; and, further, all books by Jewish authors, as well as books in which Jews have collaborated, are to be withdrawn from sale, with the exception of works of a scientific nature, in connection with which special measures are anticipated. From now on, biographies, even written by French aryans, dealing with the Jews, as, for instance, biographies relative to the Jewish musicians Offenback, Mayerberg, etc., are to be withdrawn from circulation." beginning, since only about 1200 volumes were involved, but one can see how important the principle itself is.
On the other hand, by this pro-
cedure the German authorities achieved a practical result which they were seeking, which was essentially, aside fromother prohibitions, not causing completely the dispersal of serious and objective works, making possible the study of German doctrines, the policy of Germany, and the philosophy of Nazism. naturally instituted a censorship. They first of all proceeded in a rather disguised manner by having a kind of agreement with publishers in which they charged the publishers themselves with pointing out which were the books on their lists which appeared to them to be subject to censorship. I submit this convention on censorship under document No. 1105, and I wish, without reading it, to make a single observation in this regard which is very revealing of the constant German method. original, there appears, aside from the convention itself, a notice drafted in terms which do not correspond to French feeling. This notice was not drafted by the publishers upon whom the convention itself was imposed, but this notice, drafted by the Germans, was published in the same brochure, which bears the indication "National Syndicate of Publishers", so that one might have thought that the French publishers accepted the phrases that were written in this preamble. It is sufficient, for that matter, for an attentive person to observe that this brochure does not bear any indication of a printer and to know and to realize that this is a German publication and not a publication of the French publishers, for only the Germans were free of the French legal rule requiring the mention of the name of the printer. somewhat liberal, and later an ordinance of 27 April 1942 was published in the Official Journal of May 13, an ordinance entitled "Concerning the Rational Use of Printing Paper." This ordinance decided, under the pretext of the rational utilization of paper, that all publications, without exception, should bear the German authorization number.
I point out in addition that, in order to smother French publishing, the Germans had a very effective weapon, which was their control over paper.
I submit as document No. 1106 the affidavit of M. Marcel Rives, Director of Internal Commerce at the Ministry of Industrial Production. I shall not read this document, to shorten the proceedings. I summarize that this document demonstrates that the whole distribution of paper available was made under the authority of the Germans, and that the Germans reduced the amount of paper that was made available to publishers to a proportion of reduction of any other contingent of paper with relation to the situation before the war. I must add that out of this very reduced amount of paper which the French had at their disposal, the Germans furthermore took a certain amount for their own propaganda publications. Thus, for their propaganda, not only did they utilize the paper which they had in Germany, but they took part of the small amount of paper which they allowed to French publishers, I should like simply to read in this connection a few lines of a document which constitutes Appendix 2 of document 1106, which I have just submitted. I simply read a few lines in this Appendix 2, which is a letter fromthe German Military command of the 28th of June, 1943, to the Ministry of National Economy.
"Notably, in the course of the month of March, which you particularly mention, it has been impossible to grant the publishers any quantity out of the current production, inasmuch as this was needed for important purposes of propaganda." in fact, an intensive propaganda by means of all kinds of pamphlets andpublications of all sorts. This propaganda literature is extremely far-fetched. I should like to mention a single detail, which is indicative of the constant method of camouflage of the Germans. I have here, and I shall naturally submit them without reading them, under No. 1006b, a few pamphlets of German propaganda, the first of which constitutes a part of a collection entitled "England without a Mask", or "England Unmasked," The first numbers of this collection, taken at random, indicate on the left page, "Office of German Information, England Without a Mask, No. etc." There is here then no kind of attempt to conceal. The reader knows what he has before him, but by a curious hazard, No. 11 of the same collection no longer bears the mention "German Office of Information", and we see instead of this, "International Publishing House, Brussels."
author's name is Reinhard Wolf, and this is a German name.
But here, by way of a last example, is a pamphlet entitled "The Pact Against Europe", and which is also published by the International Publishing House, Brussels. We know from the other examples that this publishing house is but a firm of the German bureau, but the people who are not informed may believe that this is a French or Belgian publication, for here the name of the author is Jean Dubreuil. say a few words about the press. occupied countries were under the control of the Germans, and that most of them had been set up at the instigation of the Germans by persons who were in their pay. As these facts are well known, I shall abstain from submitting documents on this point, and I shall limit myself to the following indications: First, restrictive measures -- censorship. Although all, these newspapers were practically their own papers, the Nazis nevertheless submitted them to a very severe censorship. I shall submit as evidence on this point document 1108, which is the account of a press conference of 8 January 1943, in the course of which are defined the new orders and the new regime of censorship. the same nature were found in the archives of the French Office of Information, which was under German control, and they are submitted, They have been deposited either in the Bibliothece National in Paris or in the Documentation Library of the War Museum, and these documents have been selected by us either in the form of copies, photocopies, or original documents of the French collection.
the Germans the problem was to set up a more liberal regime of censorship. If one reads the document one sees, nevertheless, thet almost all news and articles are submitted to censorship, with the exception of serial novels, criticisms of films and plays, scientific or university news, radio programs on a certain number of subjects completely secondary. was constituted by the directives given to the press, and these directives were given through press conferences such as that of which I have just spoken. number of documents numbered 1109 to 1118. These documents I produce in evidence not because of their content -- which is a far-fetched repetition of German propaganda -- but as proof of the continual guidance and pressure on the press. I should like to indicate also how these things were carried on, Champs Elysees, or at the German Embassy. The representatives of the press were gathered by the competent Nazi officials, who gave them directives. After the conference, the extracts of these directives were established in the form of a dispatch from the French Office of Information. The Tribunal knows that agencies sent to the papers dispatches which served as a basis for the information of the latter. Once a dispatch was established, it was submitted to the control of the German Bureau, which affixed to the dispatch a seal, and at that point it could be distributed to the papers. these conferences, which are dealt with in Documents 1109 to 1120. I should like only to read a very brief document, which I submit under the number 1121, which is the minutes of a press conference of 16 April 1943 at the Propaganda Abteilung. I quote:
"At the end of the conference the German commentator declare that on the occasion of the Fuehrer's birthday the newspapers would appear on Tuesday, the 20th of April, in four pages instead of 2, and on Wednesday, the 21st of April, in two pages instead of four. He asked the reporters present to stress the European aspects of the Fuehrer's political personality and to treat Franco-German relations very broadly.
'It is necessary, however, to act in this respect with a great deal of tact and reserve in order not to give the newspapers an aspect which, no longer being French, would risk shocking public opinion.'" is necessary to stress, from the sometimes very varied facts which we are forced to present, that which, in these facts and accounts, characterizes the intention and the realization of an act condemned by penal law. From this point of view I quote, and I produce, Document 1124, which is an attempt to favor, by the press and by propaganda, the military recruiting of Frenchmen in the enemy army, a crime which is covered by Article 65 of the French Penal Code. And I recall that in juridical doctrine such crimes can be prosecuted even against enemy nationals. I read this document, which is brief:
"At the end of the military conference, Dr. Eich pointed out that the O.F.I. would broadcast this afternoon an article devoted to the necessity of participation of French sailors in the Kriegsmarine. He begged the newspapers to add to this text commentaries developing, for instance, the following theme: 'To be a sailor is to learn a trade.'
"The article broadcast by the O.F.I. is to be published tomorrow, a four-page day, on the first page, or at least begun on the first page." properly speaking, there were so-called culture conferences in which the German authorities gave their orders on all subjects. I should like to read a few very brief extracts from one of these culture conferences in order to characterize the general pressure which resulted from the interference of the Germans in all domains without any exception. I present these documents under numbers 1125 and 1126, and I read two sentences on page 1 of the document 1125, which is an account of the minutes of the conference of the 22nd of April:
"Reproductions of paintings by Picasso have recently been made in spite of contrary directives which had been given in this respect previously.
"Theatre: Certain press organs have seen fit to devote to the operetta Don Phillipe articles in which the excessive praise turned out to be belied by the reception given to this work by the greater public: This goes beyond the limit."
I read from page 2:
"The press has made an obviously exaggerated praise of jazz concerts, particularly that of Fred Jumbo. This shows a lack of subtlety which is all the more regrettable, as a very small place has generally been given to concerts of real value." is interesting:
"The nationality of scientific, artistic, and other personalities quoted in these press articles is to be indicated as being that of the Greater German Reich for all countries in which these persons are born, and to have been attached or brought to the Greater German Reich or have been incorporated into it." one can find the evidence of the will to Germanize, and of the criminal will to strip men of the nationality to which they have the right.
I shall now say a few words about the motion picture industry. One may do injustice to the Germans, but they have never failed to understand the exceptional importance of the motion picture as a means of propaganda. In France they devoted to this subject seven ordinances or decrees. presentation of films-
THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, don't think that evidence that the Germans used the cinema as a method of propaganda is really somewhat cumulative? you have shown already that they forbade a great number of books which they considered hostile to their ideas, and that they controlled the press, and isn't it almost cumulative and a matter of detail that they also controlled the cinema?
the evidence which you have given, I think the Tribunal will be satisfied that the Germans did adopt all these methods of propaganda.
M. FAURE: The impression which a brief presents at the moment when one introduces it leads, indeed, to observing that there sometimes exist arguments which are cumulative, whereas in the work of preparation that had not appeared so clearly.
I shall not speak, then, of this chapter concerning the cinema. I wish simply to point this out to the Tribunal. We have thought that on these questions of propaganda, which we are expounding in an abstract manner, it would, perhaps, be well to recall in a concrete manner a few of the figures of German propaganda. To this effect we propose, with the permission of the Tribunal, to present presently, in a very brief manner, the projection of a few of the themes of German propaganda. I wish to point out that themes are taken from posters which we have found but which we intend to present in image form, of one minute each. They were taken from a German propaganda film which was produced in France by a Frenchman, but at the instigation and with the financial support of the German offices. of the Tribunal, it appears to me indispensable to present, merely as a document, Document No. 1141. This document, which is the interrogation of the producer of the film, establishes the proof that this film was produced on the order of the Germans and that it was paid for by them. I therefore present in evidence this Document No. 1141, which is necessary by reason of the presentation which we are about to make. sufficiently far along as concerns the various means of propaganda, I shall apply the same line of reasoning to the part which had been anticipated for broadcasting. I should like simply, for this part, to present a document which exceeds the question of simple propaganda. This is Document No. 1146. obviously encountered an obstacle which they had not found to the same degree in the other fields, and this obstacle was the broadcasts of the free radios. As the Belgian witness said yesterday, the inhabitants of the occupied countries followed these broadcasts with great interest. The German Command then thought up the idea of penalizing the persons who listened to these broadcasts. extent, in a very urgent manner, of asking the French authorities to institute very severe penalties, going even to the death penalty, for persons repeating news of the foreign radio.
I think it is therefore interesting for me to deposit, as evidence, this document which emanates from the military command, signed "Stuelpnagel", which demonstrates the criminal intentions of the German General Staff.
I should like to read this document 1146, beginning at page 1. I read from the middle of the second paragraph, or the beginning of the third paragraph :
"The French law of 28 October 1941 does not provide special sanctions for the broadcasts of news from foreign radios capable of disturbing the public security or welfare, although this infraction constitutes a particularly grave danger. It is indispensable that the broadcasting of such news be punished by hard labor and even by the death penalty, in particularly serious pases, without taking account of the fact that the person who broadcasts such news may have heard it by a direct communication or in any other way.
"The possibility ofmaking such an offense legally subject to such heavy sanctions does not suffice to make the population abstain from listening to the British radio and to spread the news heard, inasmuch as the law which regulates the functions of the tribunals of the state does not mention the offense of listening to foreign radios, and thus the connection between the fact of listening to andspreading this news, and the sanctions of forced labor and the death penalty, has not been established. The population, therefore, has not yet been able to realize that such an offense is susceptible of entailing forced labor and death.
"Consequently, I ask that within a period of time, which will expire on the 3rd of January, 1942, a draft law modifying the law of 28 October 1941 be submitted to me.
"I add as an appendix the text of the German decree which regulates themeasures of exceptions concerning radio broadcasting, and which will inform you of the details of this regulation."
I shall now submit a document bearing the number 1147. I think this document may interest the Tribunal. It presents a quite different character from that of the documents which I have produced up to now. This document includes, first of all, a letter from Berlin of 27 October 1941, the subject of which is an agreement relative to collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I read this letter, which is very brief, and which authenticates our document:
"With the authorization of the Minister, we send you herewith for your information, as a secret matter of the Reich, a copy of the agreement relative to the collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as a copy of the executed agreement. One may speak of this agreement, but not of the details which it contains." text, which I shall not read, of the agreement made between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Reich for Information and Propaganda relative to a collaboration between their respective services or offices. I think this document presents great interest, and that is why I submit it. I shall simply point out to the Tribunal that it demonstrates at once the whole extent and the whole character of organization, of the general encroachment which the Germans wished to assure themselves of over the spirit of the persons dwelling in the occupied countries, or even in the foreign countries.
Chapter I of this document is entitled, "Collaboration by Branches." Sub letter "A" concerns the cinema, the theater, music, and exhibits. Letter "B" concerns publications. I think it might be interesting for me to read the first few lines of this letter "B", for, as I have explained to you, the propaganda, from the point of view of the people who received it -that is, it is interesting to realize the question from the point of view of the persons who presented or who issued this propaganda. And, on the other hand, one must not lose the occasion to observe the extraordinary variety and skill of the German methods.
This quotation is very brief:
"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Reich for Information and Propaganda maintain a common and equal share in a society designated as Mundus A.G., within which will be grouped the publishinghouses situated in Germany and abroad, and which are controlled by these two ministries. These firms will serve to publish literary works for foreign distribution and for distribution abroad. In this society will also be included all functions or future participations of the two ministries in this realm."
On page 3, the fourth paragraph, I should like also to read a sentence:
"The two ministries take part reciprocally in the establishment of the plan of propaganda publications edited within by them or upon their initiative, but for foreign consumption." paragraph, and I quote:
"In order to group, in a single organization, foreign broadcasting stations belonging openly to Germans, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry for Information and Propaganda will exploit in common, with a 50 percent participation for each of them, the covering society Interradio A.G., whose set is in Berlin".
The Tribunal has noticed the phrase "belonging openly to Germans." at the beginning of the second paragraph:
"For political reasons the semi-official activity, secretly carried on over the foreign broadcasting stations, is to have no relation with the avowed covering society." Document 1148, which is a message circulated to all the German propaganda officers. in defining the very general use of propaganda as a means of indicating the most serious enterprise of extermination of nationality and of existence of a country. In this case what is involved is the Czech culture and tradition, and I quote from paragraph 4:
"In a positive manner the belonging of Czechs to the German European cultural space must always be set forth prominently. It is proper to insist, on all occasions, on the strong influence which German culture has exercised over Czech culture, even to insist on the dependence in which the latter was in relation to the former; and notably, also, to insist upon the German cultural achievements in Bohemia and Moravia and their affect on the cultural activity of the Czechs.
"It is also desirable to take account of the fact that the Czechs speak a Slav language, but having lived for centuries with German peoples possessing a superior culture in empires of German predominance, they really belong to the German cultural environment and have almost nothing in common with other peoples of Slav language.
"From the historic point of view, there is always occasion to bring out the epochs in the course of which and the personalities with whom the Czechs sought and found contact with German culture: St. Wenzel, which was the period of Charles IV and Ferdinand I, of Rudolf II, of Baroque de Boheme, etc."
I finally submit, without reading it, Document 1149. I wanted to place this document in my list of documents for it constitutes a report of a year on the propaganda activity in one of the occupied countries, which is, in fact, Norway. I have spoken at great length of this county, and that is why I do not wish now to quote the text of this document, but I do wish to mention that the German propaganda was regularly reported on, and in these reports all subjects were treated: Press, cinema, radio, culture, theater, schools, education. This German propaganda is, therefore, as I indicated at the beginning, something much more extensive than what we understood was included previously in this word. No realm of our life is foreign to it; it respects none of the things that are precious to us; it can became a real penitentiary for the spirit, for even ideas become captives. so that after this presentation, which I have now concluded, the films may be projected? the most odious and constant displeasures of the life that we led in the occupied countries when we were obliged to see constantly before us, in walking about the streets, for instance, the frightful, stupid, images of German propaganda.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn for 15 minutes, (A recess was taken from 1120 to 1155 hours).
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the motion which was made before the adjournment by counsel for the General Staff, the opinion of the Tribunal is this.
eye-witnesses because Article 19 provides that the Tribunal shall admit any evidence which it dooms to have probative value. the member of a governmental committee as a witness to give evidence with reference to the governmental committee's report. But the Tribunal considers that if such a witness is called the governmental committee's report must be put in evidence, as a matter of fact, the counsel for the Prosecution have offered to put the committee's report in evidence in this case and not only to do that but also to make available to counsel for Defense the affidavits of witnesses upon which that report proceeded. Essen, gave evidence which were altogether outside the report or so it appeared to the Tribunal.
As to the weight which is to be attached to the witness' evidence, that, of course, is a matter which will have to be considered by the Tribunal, It is open to the Defense to give evidence in answer to the evidence of Mr. Van der Essen and also to comment or criticize that evidence and so far as his evidence consisted of his own conclusions drawn from facts which he had seen or evidence which he had heard, the correctness of these conclusions will be considered by the Tribunal, conclusions being matters for the final decision of the Tribunal. report was to be filed in evidence. I intended to say that, I thought that I said so. The report must be filed in evidence and the affidavits, as they are to be made available to the defendants' counsel will, of course, also be made available to the Tribunal.