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.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, Your Honors, and the High International Tribunal, I have the honor to appear before your high jurisdiction in order to submit before it the conclusions of the French prosecution concerning the responsibilities incurred individually by the defendants present before this Tribunal. By virtue of the distribution of the various tasks impending upon each of the four nations according to the indictment placed in accusation by the charter of 8 August 1945, which agreements have been arrived at by the four delegations of the French prosecution in the presentation which it has made, it has been particularly concerned with the study of war crimes constituting the Third Count of the Indictment; that is to say, of those committed by the defendants in France, and in the countries situated in the west of Europe, and in the course of war operations, or of German occupation. follow, the cases of certain defendants will be left aside, since their responsibility will have been established by the other delegations, more particularly involved in the crimes which the defendants committed, and which correspond to the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Indictment, however, the French prosecution intends to join in the accusations thus made by the other delegations against the defendants, which concerns notably in regard to the defendant von Neurath and the defendant von Ribbentrop. made against them by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The same is true as concerns the defendants Hess, Kaltenbrunner, Funk, Bormann, Frick, von Schirach, Streicher, Raeder, Doenitz and Fritzsche.
Moreover, Mr. President and your Honors, we should like in this brief presentation to depart from the order in which the defendants appear in the Indictment, and in the Dock, and this is for reasons of clarity. It appears desirable in presenting certain ones of the chiefs of the National Socialist conspiracy under the angle of the war crimes committed in the west to show how they altered into actions their philosophical, political, economical and finally military conceptions which they had proclaimed. This is the order which is thus determined or acknowledged we shall expound the case of the defendants.
concerning the procedure, which is meant to be followed in this case, all the defendants have not as yet been heard in person in their oral explanations, and the hearing of most of the witnesses, at least the important witnesses, has not as yet taken place, this is why the French prosecution reserve themselves with the authorization of the Tribunal, or the privilege of completin later its brief with regard to the defendants taken individually on the one hand, and the groups under the accusation of international indignity presented with all desirable moderation, the French Delegation is anxious to avoid as far as possible any undue. lengthening of the session. The Tribunal has had put before it an imposing number of documents. Their reading, which was presented first of all for its own information, and then for that of the defense, and, finally, it must be said for that of the world public opinion, has taken up a very considerable time already. This is why with the permission of the Tribunal we shall abstain as much as possible from submitting before it more ample documents, and unless written evidence has already been furnished by the American, British and French Prosecutions, which joined to those which will be submitted by the prosecution for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will permit the Tribunal to assure itself as to the guilt of the defendants. citing documents already produced in order to connect the evidence with that which we shall bring forward as evidence, already furnished.
I should like, however, Mr. President, before entering upon the case of the defendants, whom I wish to accuse individually, I should like to say a word about a question of a very general nature. It would be vain to conceal from oneself a certain part of an opinion of not the least inquiring in the old as in the new world, and has shown some surprises in seeing that Indictment, which as its basis for the present prosecution denounces in a collective manner the criminal character of certain organizations, such as the Reichsregierung, and the Corps Leadership Corps of the National Socialist Party of the SS, including the SD, the Gestapo, the SA, the General Staff, and the High Commands.
various prosecutions to present written memoranda to establish the basis of the imputation which the Indictment brings forth, but may I be allowed, before a more complete memorandum is presented before your Tribunal, to present to the Tribunal a few ideas which it seems to me need to be recalled here. It seems that this concept of collective responsibility of the various groups is parallel with that conspiracy which constitutes the other main idea of the Indictment. is featured in the Indictment, there can be no doubt that one finds first of all in the acts of the defendants the mystery which generally accompanies any conspiracy of whatever nature, and that the various documents already presented for the Tribunal are sufficient to show the existence of all the elements making it possible to affirm that the defendants, their co-authors, and their accomplices had in effect conceived and carried out the fraudulent activity which was to enable them to disturb the peace of the world by means contrary to the laws of war, international law, and international morality. a secret character upon all their meetings, whether they were regular and administrative in nature, or, whether they were occasional and outside of the regular kind. This is a fact within itself of being normal; thus, one may isolate from all the others, but added to all the other elements in the case, it clearly shows the guilty intent of the conspirators for only this absolute secrecy, his condition of use of criminal means, which we shall have to true. the orders which were transmitted very often, it happened that certain paragraphs were erased, particularly as to regional traces. This is a fact which, notably, the defendant Hermann Goering recognized in the course of interrogations. This fact confidentially shows the intent not only to act in the greatest of secrecy, but also the intention to do away with any traces of what had taken place.
course of the war of 1914-1918, in connection with the destruction of certain ships of the Allies, as concerned this paragraph, it would be a case of what would be called "Spurloses verschwinden," which means "The disappearance which leaves no trace." eminently criminal character of the decision taken in the secret council.
THE PRESIDENT: Now would it be convenient for counsel ID break off at this time?
M. MOUNIER: Sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient for counsel to break off now?
M. MOUNIER: I am at the disposal of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT : Very well.
(Noon recess was taken from 1250 to 1400 hours) Justice Lawrence presiding:
(A recess was taken from 1300 to 1525 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Mounier, owing to technical difficulties we will not be able to continue the sitting this afternoon because the technical difficulties we are advised, cannot be remedied for some hours, and under those circumstances the Tribunal thinks it better to adjourn now. But the Tribunal hopes that you will be able tomorrow to conclude the case on behalf of the French prosecution, and that the case against the defendant Hess would be presented on behalf of the British prosecution. Do you think that will be possible?
M. MOURNIER: I hope I will answer you, sir, I thank you for your speech, and I assure you that I will be ready to continue the indictment on behalf of the French prosecution, and that we will manage every possibility for the British delegation to expound the case against Hess,
THE PRESIDENT: The translation will now be given of what I said into French, German, and Russian.
(The translation was given into French, German, and Russian,)
M. MOUNIER: I understand, Mr. President, and I shall get in touch with the British prosecution and we shall arrange to conclude that part of the case tomorrow.
(The translation was given into English, German, and Russian.)
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, do you wish to say anything?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, Mr Lord. We are ready to go on with the presentation against the defendant Hess, and we think that it should take two and a half hours, approximately.
(The translation was given into German, Russian, and French.)
(thereupon at 1530 hours the hearing of the Tribunal adjourned to reconvene at 1000 hours on 7 February 1946.)
M. MOUNIER(Counsel for France): Mr. President, your Honors: I had begun yesterday before the break in the session, to explain or expose to you very briefly the relations which, in our eyes, unite the two leading ideas of the accusation; namely, the accusation of conspiracy held against certain groups designated in the Indictment, and which I enumerated yesterday, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the various acts which make it possible to conclude as to the criminal character of the activity of the National Socialist conspirators. activity was the deep mystery, the absolute mystery, which surrounded their meetings, the official as well as the unofficial ones, a fact which is corroborated by statements made by certain of the Defendants in their interrogatories, by virtue of which it was understood that a part of the orders were to be eliminated and completely removed from the records in order to leave no trace. common plan which existed among the conspirators is shown by the criminal character of the decisions arrived at in the course of these secret councils, and which were intended for the conquest of neighboring countries. manner in which these criminal plans were carried out with the use of means which are condemned both by international morality and by the written law. For instance, in the international diplomatic order is the most cynical violation, the use in foreign countries of what is called the "fifth column'. And, finally, the financial camouflage, the abusive pressure, supported by demonstrations of force. And at last, when these methods no longer suffice, the recourse to war of aggression.
free will in the meetings of groups and organizations, like those that have been pointed out in the Indictment, their voluntary membership in these groups or the active and conscious role which they played in their activity suffice to demonstrate that they had indeed the intention to furnish to these groups an active participation and one that leaves no doubt. In view of the aims pursued and the means utilized, this intention could only be a guilty intention. constituting a crime, this suffices, it seems, to prove what we call the consilium fraudis, and to make possible the verification of the causal link between this will to evil on the one hand, and the criminal deed on the other, and to make it possible to insist on the criminal character of the understanding between the conspirators, and the bond between the conspirators and their criminal acts. for labor the order to recruit one million workers for the Reich, forget that this act was contrary to international conventions, and leave out of consideration the tragic consequences which this murderous action in its execution would entail for these people and for their families? the order of the chief of the air force, underground aviation factories in the internment camps - could he, I say, fail to be aware that using prisoners who were already exhausted under such conditions was equivalent to causing their premature death? instruments intended to assure the stability and the peace of the world as scraps of paper - could he lose sight of the fact that these acts would bring the civilized world into a universal cataclysm? less obscure feeling that they were, infringing human and divine laws is a question which we need not ask on the juridical plane. But even admitting that on the psychological plane, we consider it our duty, out of our juridical scruples, to remember two essential concepts.
The first is that the German, according to the observation of the French writer, combines at times in himself the identity of contrariness. Consequently, it is possible that in certain cases he may consciously do evil while remaining convinced that his act is irre proachable from the moral point of view. The second concept is that, according to the rule of National Socialist ethics formulated at times in so many words by certain National Socialist leaders, Good is what is in conformity with the interest and the ideology of the Party; Evil is that which is not in conformity with the interest and the ideology of the Party. masterly speech given by M. Francois de Menthon that some of his words, striking in their accent of deep humanity, had stirred consciences. Even today, after so much accummulated proof, we may wonder if the Defendants admit their responsibility as chiefs, as men, as representatives of the incriminated organizations. This perhaps will be revealed in the course of the proceedings.
Mr. President, your Honors: With the permission of the Tribunal we shall now take up the question of the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg. spending his vacation in Bavaria, which was then one of the happiest among the German provinces, could hardly suspect that thirty-five years later he would be called upon to apply the international law against the future masters of this country. When, after a halt at the Bratwurstgloeckli, he climbed up to the ramparts to look at the sunset from the heights of the Burg, while the lines of a ballad of Uhland rang in his memory, he surely was not thinking that evil masters and false prophets would unleash twice in a quarter of a century the lightning over Europe and the rest of the world, and that because of them so many treasures of art and of beauty would be despoiled, so many human lives sacrificed, so many sufferings accummulated. Indeed, there could be no question of romanticism when one studies the genesis of this unheard of drama. Rather, what we have to do with is a perverted romanticism, a morbid deformation of the sense of greatness, and the spirit remains baffled before the true value of the ideas of National Socialism, ideas which I shall touch upon only in passing, to show how they led the Defendant Rosenberg and his co-defendants to commit the crimes which are held against them:
where the mixture of ethnic types of the greatest variety took place through the centuries upon a gigantic scale; this anti-scientific confusionism which mingles the physiological traits of man with the concept of nations; the neo-paganism which aims to abolish what twenty centuries of Christianity have brought to the world in the way of moral rules of justice and of charity; this myth of the Blood which tends to justify racial discrimination, with its consequences of slavery, massacre, looting, and the mutilation of human beings.
I shall not dwell, Mr. President, on what we consider a hodgepodge with philosophic pretensions, in which the most heterogeneous remnants of all kinds can be found, from the megalomaniac concepts of Mussolini through the Hindu legends to the Japan of the Samurai, the cradle of Fascism, which swept over the world like a tidal wave.
The previous presentations have already adequately dealt with these conceptions. I shall simply stress today that these psuedophilosophic conceptions tended solely to set back humanity by millions of years by reviving the notion of Clan, which assumes the rule of Force, the Faustrecht already enunciated by the Iron Chancellor, the right to deceive other men, the right to take the property of others, the right to reduce man to slavery, the right to kill, the right to torture. International law is not a morality without obligation or sanction. The statute has recalled and specified the obligation; it is up to you, gentlemen, to apply the sanction.
One of the consequences of these premises of the so-called "Germanic Race" was to lead certain of the conspirators, notably the Defendant Rosenberg, of whom we are speaking, to become a looter, and it is this form of the activity of the Defendant Rosenberg which I should like very briefly to stress, for this concerns France and the occupied countries of the West, and had for their artistic, intellectual, or simply utilitarian patrimony, deeply harmful con sequences. with a view to removing from France and the occidental countries artistic treasures, cultural works and properties belonging to groups or to individuals, and tie transfer to Germany of all these riches. posal, I shall limit myself today to recalling how, through orders, through higher orders, certain organisms or groups were led to collaborate in this pillaging. I shall indicate, first, of all, the intervention of the Gestapo, which was ordered by a decree or an order by the Defendant Keitel, dated 5 July 1940, which bears He. 137-PS, and which was submitted by the American delegation, under No. 369. I refer likewise to a second order under date of 30 October 1940, which specified more particularly the orders which had been given for pillaging by what was called the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This is No. 1304, which was quoted by the French prosecution, Thus, Keitel and Rosenberg were returning to the notion of a booty-exacted by the German people triumphant over the Jewish people, towards which it was linked by no conditions of the Compiegne Armistice.