Thus for instance, on the 18th of December, 1941, Rosenberg suggested to Hitler the seizure of Jewish property in the occupied territory of the West, to serve for the establishment of Party organizations in the regions of the East.
THE PRESIDENT: It would help us, I think, when you are passing on in your expose, if you were to say that you were passing to such and such a page. We should then be able to go on with it.
Will you do that?
M. GERTHOFFER: Yes. This is page 14 of the brief. It is a copy of a document which was discovered by the American Army, which bears the number 1-PS, which I offer in evidence in the form of a copy in the Document Book under the number 1311.
"Everywhere in the East the Administration found conditions of life dreadful, and the possibilities of provisions are so limited that it is practically impossible to buy anything more. That is why I request from the Fuehrer his approval for the seizure of all the furniture belonging to Jews who have fled, or these who are on the point of escaping from Paris, as in all the occupied territories of the West, to furnish, so far as possible, the Eastern Administration." letter dated the 26th of February, 1942, addressed to the German Armistice Commission by the German military commander in France, of which I offer a photographic copy under the number 1312; and this is at page 16.
Here are a few extracts of this letter. "Taking into consideration the special mission, of which the Rosenberg Special General Staff is instructed, which consists in seizing the artistic property of the Jews, protests of the French Government against the acts of the Special General Staff are 'still being presented to the OKH, and the reply is made to the French Government. by an immediate decision, that is to say, the request is transmitted to the department concerned in Berlin for an examination of the decision."
And further on in the same letter we read, "The mission of the Rosenberg Special General Staff must be as in the past kept secret, as far as the French authorities are concerned." tration in Paris of April 7, 1942, which I offer in evidence under the number . 1313, shows in the same direction--here is a passage.
"Furniture belonging to Jews of English and American nationality will not be requisitioned for the time being, but only the furniture of Jews of German nationality; Jews who are nationals of the Nazi state partially or totally or those who have lost their nationality. The requisitioned objects become the property of the Reich, No receipt will be given. The right of third parties, particularly those of lessors or of owners of warehouses are considered as null and void." sub-heading six. "The carrying out of the operations must be as discreet as possible. As for the requests coming from the local French authorities concerning operations, it must be realized verbally that this is a punitive measure ordered by higher authority. Any supplementary explanation is superflous."
And further on: "Explanations to the press concerning the use of Jewish premises which had been left vacant for the moment are not considered opportune." June 18, 1942, signed by Rosenberg and addressed to the defendant Goering. I offer in evidence a copy of this letter under the number 1314. Here is the passage which I shall read to the Tribunal. Page twenty of the brief; page two of the document book. "Some time ago I approved the instructions given by the chief of my Einsatzstab to Doctor Lohse and to Stabfuehrer Utikal, of the Office of Paintings, in order that he might be put at your disposal for the carrying out of your personal desires."
twenty-two of the breif given at the first confiscation made by the military authorities. "The Devisenschutzkommando, the Germany Embassy, and the Special General Staff came on the scene only at a time in which the great collective seizures had already been completed. The greatest part of the collections of Rothschild, Kann, Weil-Picard, and Wildenstein had been seized and represented three-quarters of the total booty of the Special General Staff." As far as the methods which were used to seize these works of art are concerned, I submit to the Tribunal a document which is a letter of the Secretary of French Finance, dated the 25th of October 1941. I offer it in evidence under the number 1315; and in order not to abuse the time of the Tribunal I shall not read this document since it is quite probable that my colleague, who is concerned with individual culpability, will allude to it. Page twenty-four of the written brief.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you prove the greater part of the collections of Rothschild, Kann, Weil-Picard, and Wildenstein were confiscated in the middle of November 1940? What is the evidence of it?
M. GERTHOFFER: This is from general information which was furnished by the Fine Arts Department.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you put in a report of a government committee which states that?
M. GERTHOFFER: No, I have not the report. I didn't think it was necessary to offer that in evidence; I thought that it would be admitted that the collection of Rothschild was seized.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think we can take judicial notice of it in the absence of some government report, and simply upon the statement.
M. GERTHOFFER: I think the question is not important.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal can not take any notice of statements which are not supported by evidence; therefore we shall disregard that statement.
M. GERTHOFFER: I think that the question will not be important, because soon we will see that enormous quantities of works of art were stolen by the Germans, and it would be useless. The details are given by the owners.
THE PRESIDENT: I see that I am informed that in the document 1015-PS, which is in your second document book, the facts are stated. I don't know whether you are going to make use of that document--1323.
M. GERTHOFFER: Number 1323 is the report of Doctor Scholz of the activities of the Rosenberg General Staff. In this report details of quantities of work of art which were seized-
THE PRESIDENT: And it includes the dates October 1940 to July 1944, and includes the Rothschild collection. I don't know whether it refers also to the other collections which are mentioned in your expose.
M. GERTHOFFER: I will cite this document a little later on.
THE PRESIDENT: I only intervened for the purpose of saying that we can not take any notice of statements of fact unless there is some evidence to support them.
M. GERTHOFFER: The seizures, page twenty-four of the--these operations were analogous to seizures, properly speaking. This operation was a very great work. It will be excessively long and it is very complicated considering the labor and the lack of order and the method. Objects were brought to the Museum of Jeu de Paume and to the Louvre; often in one lot. They came from very diverse origins, which made it impossible to inventory the seizures. A great quantity of material was classified as "Unknown" so far as origin was concerned. Nevertheless, in the report of the Rosenberg General Staff of the 15th of April 1942, discovered by the American Army, which is under the number 172-PS, and of which I submit a copy under the number 1316, we can find the following passage, which concerns the detailed study of the seized material; it being a faithful account of the whole seizure operations from the financial point of view.
"The preparatory work was carried out in such a way, but once the general report had been made it might be considered as an incontestable document relating to a census operation and an operation of artistic seizures unique in its time in history," Page twenty-six in my brief, "Certain of these works of art were considered by the Germans as degenerate works, and their entrance into the National Socialist territory is forbidden.
In theory they should be destroyed, but in the scope of the economy of total war these pictures, although condemned, still represented a commercial value; a certain exchange value which was quite high. Thus, carefully selected from the great collections and in private collections, these pictures were seized, and as provided for in subheading five of the decree of November 5, 1940, delivered to the French and German art commerce. In addition to these condemned pictures others were left aside since they were of less interest for official collections. These pictures furnish the matter of numerous abuses.
Now we arrive at the classical works of art. We are not concerned with secret operations which were the personal act of such-and-such members of the Rosenberg Service, but here we are concerned with official operations. Page twenty-seven. Staff--exchanges and sales.
Exchanges. In this subject, as an example, the deposition, page 27(b), of Mr. Gustav Roechling, received by Mr. Marcel Frapier, the examining magistrate, on January 6, 1943, I submit as document 317. This affidavit, of which I read an extract--"Goering, the years 1941 and 1942. I exchanged different old pictures for eighty modern pictures delivered by Lohse who told me that these exchanges were carried out upon the order of Goering, and that these pictures which have been received were to be sent to Goering. I have learned since that all the pictures given in exchange were from the Goering collection. I delivered for exchange about thirty-five pictures, and perhaps more." his report of April 15, 1943, filed under the number 172-PS and already cited, and of which I offer a copy under the number 1313. Here is the passage;
"Upon the order of the Marshal of the Empire a certain number known artistic value.
It is thus that under very interesting masters, Dutch or German old masters, having a high known value."
and others in Germany and in Switzerland. The calculation appears, this.
Page 29 of the brief. These justifications are first, arrangements concerning the nature of the seizures.
These are temporary measures for the preservation of the objects.
The Count
THE PRESIDENT: 1318, is it?
M. GERTHOFFER: 1318, at the bottom of page 29 of the brief.
"Beginning with my arrival in France I am able to take account transported."
And further in the same paragraph: "We do not provide for guarantees for the future peace treaties."
No instructions in great and the expression "under guard" has not been interpreted.
The vague plan submitted various interpretations. According to some the seizure was only a temporary measure; but the question of permanent appropriation still hung high.
For the Defendant Rosenberg the solution was simple.
Expressed in his letter already "I think then, and you will be in agreement with me on this Party.
As far as the material for documentation is concerned, the General Staff must be given to the higher school.
It will also be "These confiscations are henceforth no longer measures of has been considered beyond law."
even this. I submit this report under the numbers 1319, 1320 and "Measures of German reprisal against the Jews has also been their salvation in the law of nations.
There is in the law of "Now, the Jews have in all, since time immemorial, formulated considered as cattle, and subsequently are deprived of rights; and has been abandoned, that is to say, as having no master or owner."
Tribunal. The Belgian, Dutch and French authorities' protest was always received brutal refusal.
Page 32 of the brief. It would be himself on several occasions made an estimate of his booty.
In a letter to the press of the Schwarz Party, November 14, 1940, U.S. document booty amounted to half a billion Reichmarks.
The documents coming to permit us to fix some quantitative data.
The seizures of the artistic General Staff first.
The fundamental document is a report the quantities of art objects which were seized.
According to this David Weil, Levy do Benzion, and the Seligmann brothers.
In that
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
(A recess was taken from 11,20 to 11,30 hours.)
paintings and objects of art, but also in books. Thus, it appears Holland, likewise, provided a heavy tribute of books.
Rich libraries were taken.
This appears in document 176-PS, discovered 1325.
The value of the books amounted to thirty to forty million The Rosenberg staff likewise pillaged furniture.
This appears "For the execution of the many actions there was created in and Holland in in France.
This service has sent up to this day 40,000 tons of furniture, freely utilizing all means of transport;boat and railroad.
The Reichsminister has put a great part of this refugees."
1943, Document 1737-PS dated Paris, of which I submit a copy under Number 1328, indicates that in favor of the war refugees 52,828 Jewish domiciles were seized and placed under seal.
"The sending to bombed cities, including special missions, has made it possible to send 47,569 complete installations." the offices of the defendant Rosenberg, Document 8 of which I submit under Number 1329, shows that more than 79,619 Jewish lodgings were pillaged; that the furnishings included more than one million cubic meters, and which took 26,984 railroad cars to fill or 674 trains. 1330, which indicates that in Paris only 38,000 Jewish lodgings were emptied of their contents. indicates that in Holland from March 1942 to July 1943, inclusive, 22,623 lodgings were emptied of their contents and that it took 586 barges and 178 freight cars to move this furnishing. economic pillage, carried out in Western countries by the special staff of Rosenberg, are the same, there can be no question of simulating the pillaging -as the history of this or that conqueror shows -- to compare that type of pillaging with the pillaging which has been practiced by the defendants. What makes it impossible to make this analogy is the difference in intent, however delicate the analysis of it may be. The old pillaging, pillaging of works of art, may be traced above all to the vanity of a conqueror or to his sensibility, his taste, his love of glory, which plays the determining role in pillaging. No doubt it is possible to find the same feeling as the basis of the criminal activity of this or that defendant. But here is the fundamental difference. In the value of such a painting or a given work of art, the National Socialist leaders knowingly took account of the criteria of ideal wealth and that of the material value; in other words of the exchange value of such works of art exchange value whether it is a question of keeping a credit which could facilitate or at least serve as a means of pressure in negotiations of a future peace treaty, as the documents presented to the Tribunal show in several cases.
leaders in seizing the artistic patrimony of Western Europe, either by theft from the museums or seizure of the Jewish collections or even by direct purchases from the owners or from art dealers, the criminal intent is the same. The German motive war, undoubtedly, to set up a reserve of value, not for the satisfaction of an individual, but for the satisfaction of a collective need in conformity with the might of the Greater Germany. vantage. First of all a cultural advantage, and an economic advantage in the second place. Here we have the basis of financial speculation and a reserve of value, easily exchangable on the world markets and finally, a reserve of fixed value, absolutely unresponsive to the fluctuations in the exchange of raw materials, which is not affected either by the deviations or by monetary manipulations; finally a reserve of value representing a political importance in the hands of negotiators of a peace treaty. chases on the free market cannot be held against the defendants because of the fact of their character of contracts and as a result of the agreement of wills and the existence of other parties to the negotiations. But the facts presented to the Tribunal make it possible to affirm that the operations have only the appearance of regular operations, when one looks at the conditions under which the contracts were drawn up or one considers the fact that the operations were made under the threat of violence or when one thinks of the rights of the other parties. stolen, the counter-parts of sales regulated in national currency, came from more or less regular contributions, notably occupation indemnity. Most of these purchases, from the point of view of the general principles of criminal law, are affected by a double point of view, paid for with spoliated money on the one hand, the works of art having been sold, could not legitimately enter into the patrimony of those who acquired them.
Violence, fraud, deceit, on the other hand, characterized an important part of the negotiations as is shown by numerous documents, such as the extract from the report of the interrogatory of Sir Gustav Rochlitz of 8 January, 1946, which I quote and which is Number 1317. I should like to read a few passages. Rochlitz declares:
"Lohse came to see me in February 1941. He told me that he was locking for pictures for different persons but chiefly for Goering. I presented to him a paiting by Wennix, which I owned and a portrait of a man by Titian which belonged two-thirds to Brichentski --"
THE PRESIDENT: A little more slowly, please.
M. GERTHOFFER: "---which belonged two-thirds to Birchentski and one-third to me. Lohse bought them. Then ten days later he proposed to me instead of money to offer some paintings in exchange. He considered, besides, that I had sold the paintings too dearly. The price was two million. He added that Goering had seen the paintings; that he did not want to pay for them at the agreed price; that he had given the order to exchange them for modern paintings that came from Germany.
"He showed me a certain number of paintings and offered me eleven of them in exchange for the two paintings. He would not let me look at the backs of the paintings."
Further on, the same witness says the following:
"I thought at that time that the paintings came from Germany. I found out shortly after that these paintings and those later exchanged with Lohse were paintings confiscated from Jews. When I saw these paintings were confiscated paintings I protested and Lohse answered, "I am acting under the orders of Goering. You have nothing to fear. These confiscations have been provided for by the Armistice Convention and the exchanges are perfectly regular."
"As I protested, he called me an enemy of the people." Never -- and this is the last remark I shall make on this subject never has history furnished an example of wholesale pillaging organized on a basis so completely scientific.
The spoliation became in the cultural domain, with the special General Staff, a recognized institution as in the economic domain.
It became a recognized institution with the organization of the Economic Detachment of the ROGES, whose functioning has been presented to the Tribunal, My colleague, who will make the individual accusations, will come back to this. I shall simply submit a few more documents and submit a few more quotations on this point. The orders emanated from him as shown in the course of the interrogatory heard by Colonel Hinkel, and I submit a copy of the interrogatory of 28 September, 1945 under Number 1332.
Rosenberg. He wrote himself on the 21 November, 1941, Document 1651-PS, which I submit under Number 1335, as follows:
"I have done what was necessary to support energetically the work of your staff and to put at its disposal what you otherwise cannot obtain, notably the means of transport and personal guard. The Air Corps has received the order to give you all facilities."
There was discovered in France a sheet, gilded on the edges. These are instructions given by Goering in Paris, in unknown writing. It bears the date of 11 February, 1941. I submit the original under Number 1333. I quote:
"All the paintings marked 'H' are for the Fuehrer."
THE PRESIDENT: Has this been read already?
M. GERTHOFFER: It has never as yet been read, Mr. President.
"--One case marked 'AH' for me. Everything that is marked"-
THE PRESIDENT: Is this identified?
M. GERTHOFFER: This was seized by the French authorities who transmitted it to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the identification to show this is the document identified by the French authorities?
M. GERTHOFFER: This document was transmitted as it is with a series of documents, of which I have produced only a certain number. If the Tribunal wishes I can obtain a special authentication.
THE PRESIDENT: I suppose there was probably a report of the French authorities which probably sufficiently refers to this document.
M. GERTHOFFER: The document was sent with a series of other documents; as they were extremely numerous, we took those that seemed the most important to present them to the Tribunal but if the Tribunal wishes, I can obtain an affidavit indicating under what conditions the document was discovered and that it was discovered by the French authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, the document hasn't anything on it to indicate that the French Government already found it nor that they have ever seen it and, therefore, the Tribunal doesn't consider that it is properly proved by mere introduction of the document without anything on the document. Perhaps you can furnish some supplementary proof,
M. GERTHOFFER: I can have it identified.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
M. GERTHOFFER: I can bring an affidavit to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the other document been certified?
M. GERTHOFFER: The other document? I am sorry, I didn't hear that,
THE PRESIDENT: Just leave it here.
M. GERTHOFFER: The others have been certified individually but this formality can be carried out subsequently,
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we must wait until this is properly identified.
M. GERTHOFFER: I shall then pass to the reading of the document and I point out to the Tribunal that in all the countries of the West, Goering had a whole series of buyers, the best known of whom were Dr. Lohse, who was a part of the special staff, and Hofer. Hofer and Lohse acted for the accused, for the defendant most often, however, under their own names. The personal collection of the Defendant Goering was notably enriched. I submit in this regard a document under No. 1332, which my colleague, in charge of personal and individual accusations, will refer to. staff of Rosenberg, it must be mentioned that the Defendant Ribbentrop in his capacity as Minister of Foreign affairs, it was von Ribbentrop who was responsible for the order of the Fuehrer of 30 January 1940 which I presented a while ago under No. 1301 and which I read to the Tribunal. Ribbentrop's activity is shown likewise in a letter of 1 July 1940, addressed by Abetz, to the Military Commander of Paris, a copy of which I deposit under No. 1334. I submit furthermore -
THE PRESIDENT: What is this document 1334?
M. GERTHOFFER: 1334?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what is the document?
M. GERTHOFFER: It is a copy of a letter addressed to the Military Commander of Paris by Ambassador Abetz, page 56 of the presentation. I can read it to the Tribunal, if it wishes. It shows Ribbentrop's activity.
"I beg you to please have transmitted by radio...."
THE PRESIDENT: What does this mean at the top of the document "COL, Bureau of" -
M. GERTHOFFER: This seal? It is the seal of the office which seized the letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Government in any way certify this document? You see, we don't knew what that stamp on it means.
M. GERTHOFFER: That was sent to me by the Agency of the General--That is a registry numbering, 9,024.
THE PRESIDENT: I see what that is, but it doesn't of itself show that it is a French document, does it? Is there any French Government report, anything which could be considered to be within the meaning of the article of the Charter, an official Government document or report, or an act or a document set up by the Government itself? Unless it comes within Article 31, we are not at liberty to consider it as evidence, unless there is an affidavit which deals with it.
M. GERTHOFFER: I do not insist on the submission of this document. The activity of Ribbentrop as Minister of Foreign Affairs is shown by other documents. It is a superfluous bit of evidence. I therefore do not insist on presenting it.
THE PRESIDENT: If you find that there is some Government report which identifies it, anything which proves that that stamp on it shows that it is a Government document within Article 31, then of course you may renew your application,
M. GERTHOFFER: I think that it is not necessary, Mr. President. I think that the case has been sufficiently proved. The activity
THE PRESIDENT: One moment! You are passing ever that document, then, one three double three? Is it in 1336?
M. GERTHOFFER: 34.
THE PRESIDENT: 34, very well.
M. GERTHOFFER: The document 1336 is composed of a series of orders, the reports of the army and of the special service, described in document 1015-PS, which were submitted. The provisions of execution concerning the cooperation with the army will be prescribed by the chief of the high command of the army after agreement with the Reichsleiter Rosenberg. I shall not insist on the responsibility of the Defendant Keitel. My colleague, who will deal with individual indictments, will bring this out; and to hasten the case, I shall simply mention that the Defendant Seyss-Inquart bears the heavy responsibility in the pillaging of works of art in Holland.
I now cone to the conclusion of my presentation. Whatever were the markets, whoever were the purchasers as concerns the transfer of works of art the motive is the same, the methods are the same. It is difficult to conceive that identical acts of pillaging committed simultaneously in all the occupied countries of Western Europe were not the result of a single will, a pitiless will to domination in all fields, which expressed itself in the concern to give a legal appearance to the most irregular acquisitions.
This is proved by the numerous declarations by the Defendants, as they have been submitted to the Tribunal, a will to domination in the cultural field which is expressed in the will to extend the action of confiscation to ever-new regions, a will to despoil the occupied countries which was manifested to the very last hours of the occupation, and this will be my last reading before the Tribunal. This is Document 1060-PS. I put this in the document book under No. 1346. I read it. It is extremely brief:
"14 August, 1944. Mission. The Section Chief, Dr. Lehse and Dr. Roechlitz, of my special staff for the occupied territories, are charged with transporting from the Jeu de Paume Museum and the Louvre, by all means still available, the works of art put in security, on application of the Fuehrer's order and which are still in Paris. The Empire of the Marshal of the Great Reich has recently put the two above-named at the disposal of the special staff until the completion of this mission. This has been done by means of a personal notification, dated 13 August, 1944. I beg to assure the two section chiefs of all the necessary protection." to justify the seizures of Jewish property, this property has never lost the character of private property. They have in this respect remained guaranteed by the clauses of the Hague Convention and notably by Article 46. The seizure of this property cannot in particular be explained as a measure of protection made necessary by circumstances since, for France at least, the French Administration of Domain was in a position to take all necessary measures. As for the fate reserved for the National Socialist rulers, the documents produced have shown sufficiently their intentions and their plans. occupied territories were not taken to Germany. If such an argument were to be presented, I should answer: first, for various reasons, the occupying authorities did not have the possibility, since they barely had time to centralize, to inventory, and transport the numerous objects of art in the occupied countries. Second, it is obvious that the occupying powers seized by priority the private works of art which are in general easily negotiable, even in neutral countries:
whereas, the National works of art are in a sense beyond the realm of commerce and in any case are difficult to negotiate, to buy and sell in foreign countries. having been found, the removal of these can hardly be considered a serious offense. You will consider, gentlemen, that if many works of art have been found by the Allied armies, usually in places of concealment, the reprehensible act which is held against the defendants nevertheless subsists.
In fact, these works of art have been found against their will and thanks to the victory of the Allied armies. The crime was therefore entirely consummated at the moment of their discovery. It emerges from this declaration that it is chiefly works of art of private individuals, Belgioms, Dutch, and French, qualified most often as Jews by the occupying; power, which were looted; and this, with the obvious aim of procuring, in addition to a private satisfaction, property of great value from the economic point of view against the principles of international law. These acts of pillaging were often accompanied by aggravating circumstances, by constant threat of violence. In the occupied countries, the looting of works of art, thus appears in consequence as a form of economic pillaging in general and the defendants must answer for this before your high jurisdiction.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you go, gentlemen, could you tell me what document FA-20, 21, and so forth, refers to. There is an inscription which is on these various documents. If you look at document 1333, or 1334, you will see that on the copies that are before us, there is an inscription "International Military Tribunal," and then the "French Delegation, the Public Ministry, Economic Section," and then "LVR, Document FA 21", and "Document FA-20". Now, what is document FA 21, what is the document FA-20?
W. GERTHOFFER: It is an order number. It is 1334, which the Tribunal had rejected.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what is Document FA-20 or document FA-21, what does it mean?
M. GERTHOFFER: It is the order numbers which had been given to this document in the series of documents which were received. It has no importance
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that it is put in as a number given by you or it is given by the Economic Section?
M. GERTHOFFER: It is a number which the Economic Section gave to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, if that shows it is the number given to this document by the Economic Section, if does identify the document as a document of a public nature.
M. GERTHOFFER: We had likewise given to the document, which I quoted a while ago, a number which was
THE PRESIDENT: Document FA-21, 1334.
M. GERTHOFFER: We likewise gave it a number.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, the Economic Section is merely a section of the French prosecution.
M. GERTHOFFER: Yes, it is a section of the French prosecution.