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.
This intervention of the government of the chief of the army, which is indicated by the orders which I have just referred to, would suffice to demonstrate the important role taken by the German Army in this looting, and the Tribunal will not fail to remember it when it will have to decide on the guilt of the Defendant Keitel and of the Defendant Goering, ment proves that this defendant supported the operation with his full weight, inviting all the organizations of the Party, of the State, and of the Army to bring full protection and full aid to the Reichsleiter Rosenberg and to his collaborator Utikal, who had been, on the 1st of April, 1941, appointed by Rosenberg himself as chief of the Einsatzstab. This is the order of the 1st of May, 1941, which we produced under our No. RF-1406. When we examine the text of this decree tentatively we cannot fail to be struck by the first paragraph. The Tribunal will surely allow me to read it:
"The struggle against the Jews, the Free Masons and their allies, as well as the prosecution of the various powers upholding a conception of the world different from ours or opposed to ours, is a pressing task for National Socialism in the course of the war." the Weltanschauung, to be exposed to seeing one's cultural property seized and transferred to Germany. But the Tribunal surely remembers, by the documents, that have already been presented to it, that not only cultural property was involved, but anything that had any kind of value was taken away. which was carried out by the superior officers in charge of the preliminary interrogations, to claim, without conviction it seems to me, that the cultural property in question was intended to enhance the collections of the "Hohen Schulen." We shall see presently, in presenting the text of this interrogation, what he thought of this. But it is a fact which I shall wish to present now that, at least in the state of the documents which we possess, it does not seem that the Defendant Rosenberg appropriated works of art, precious stones, or other objects of value for himself, so that no accusation of this kind can be brought against him.
We shall not state as mcuh of the Defendant Goering, of whom we shall speak a little later and who, according to the documents that we possess, may be conficted of having, taken for his personal use a part of the objects of art taken from the countries of the West. of art. I shall immediately come to the interrogatory of the Defendant Rosenberg. This is the document that was introduced yesterday by the French Prosecution, which bears No. 1330-RF, and which we use today with its orders No. 1103. In this interrogatory Colonel Hinkel asked the Defendant Rosenberg to hell him what -
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think the numbers are coming through right. The number of the document you are now referring to in the French numbering is 1401; is that right?
M. MOUNIER: The interrogatory of the Defendant Rosenberg has been submitted yesterday. It bears the number 1330-RF. It isn't in your document book. I produce only a reference, since this document has already been submitted. I beg the Tribunal to refer to the document book which was produced yesterday by the economic section. It will find in extenso this record of the translation in French and in German.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; go on.
M. MOUNIER: I think that the Tribunal will easily be able to refer to this document in camera, but I should like to refer to this document and summarize the essential points which I think should be brought up.
him what was the legal basis that could justify such looting. The "I considered"--he is referring to the measures taken by him-"them a necessity caused by the war and by the reasons which caused the war."
But Colonel Hinkel replied to the Defendant Rosenberg:
"You meant to put these in safe-keeping? Why was that? Why didn't you put everything in safety?
Why did you put in safety only what seemed to you to have to be kept, while you abandoned the rest?"
the Luftwaffe. But it is nonetheless true that the criminal and which is the report of Dr. Lohse, the collaborator of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg.
This report was submitted by the Economic the Rothschild collection.
The President asked my colleague, "Do objects were taken from the Rothschild collection?"
Mr. President, I would like to point out that there are two proofs of this.
The first is shown by the Rosenberg interrogation I beg the Tribunal to refer to page 5 of these minutes.
I read from "How do you justify the confiscation of objects of art belonging to the Rothschild family?"
A very precise question. This had to I have just presented to the.
Tribunal a few moments ago. Second point:
the Defendant Rosenberg thus admitted with his own lips despoiled.
The confession, Mr. President, your Honors, can be the following.
I beg the Tribunal to refer to the report of Dr. Scholz that was produced yesterday in the document book of the Economic Section.
This is number RF-1323.
report of Dr. Scholz, the second paragraph of page 1, it will read the following:
"The special staff not only seized very important" -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): As I said the other day, we can't keep all the books before us. We haven't got this book before us, but it seems to me that as you have shown that the defendant Rosenberg agreed that this collection had been taken, that is quite sufficient.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I understand perfectly your point of view. I should like to observe respectfully that I was to speak immediately after my colleague, and if I had spoken immediately after my colleague you would have had before you this document book. The mechanical system broke down and we had a delay, and I apologize for not having thought of asking you to bring this document again this morning. reference which it will find easily. It is a passage which is very brief, which I ask to read to the Tribunal. It will not take very much time. This declaration is simply the following:
"The special staff" -- that is to say, the Einsatzstab Rosenberg -"not only seized very great portions of the collections which the Rothschilds had abandoned in their Parisian mansion..." which demonstrates, like the previous proof, that the Rothschild collections were among those which were pillaged.
I shall not insist on these facts which are known to you. It seems to me that the two points on which I have just cast light suffice to stress the reality of the illegal seizures, the fraudulent seizures operated by the defendant Rosenberg tothe detriment of France and to the detriment, likewise, of the countries of the West. Tribunal by quoting statistics. I respectfully ask the Tribunal to refer to the Scholz report which I have mentioned twice in the course of my previous statements.
time being without quoting to thr Tribunal a passage from an article by the French writer Francois Mauriac of the French Academy. Francois Mauriac was present on the 7th of November 1945 at the inaugural session of the constituent national assmbly at the Palais Bourbon. On this occasion, Francois Mauriac evoked a memory which was recalled in these terms in the paper Le Figaro of 6 November 1945:
"Almost five years ago to a day, from the height of this rostrum, the most Allustrious in Europe, a man spoke to other men dressed in vert-de-gris. His name was Alfred Rosenberg. I can testify to the exact date. It was 28 November 1940.
"At this rostrum where have been heard the voices of Jaures and of Albert de Mun, and where, on the 11th of November 1918, old Clemenceau nearly died of joy, Rosenberg stood on that occasion, and here are the words that he spoke:
"'In a gigantic revolutionary burst, the German nation has obtained a harvest as never before in its history. The French will admit one day, if they are honest, that Germany has freed them from their parasite which they could not rid themselves of by their own means.'
"And the Nazi philosopher," Mauriac continued, "then proclaimed the victory of blood. He meant the victory of race, but it happens that a man may utter prophetic words unwittingly and that he does not realize the import of the words which God places upon his lips. As Rosenberg predicted at the Palais Bourbon on the 28th of November 1940, it was indeed blood that was victorious. It was the blood of the martyrs which finally choked the executioners." method which I have used, and I hope the Tribunal realizes that I am not abusing its patience. I would like to say a few words on the individual accusation concerning Fritz Sauckel.
remarkable work and the definitive work which was presented to it some time ago by my colleague and friend, Mr. Jacques Bernard Herzog. This is why, with your permission, I shall pass over the facts themselves, which are known to you, and I shall limit myself to the part which begins on page 3 of my expose, and we shall examine together, if it please the Tribunal, the basis of the excuses alleged up to now by the defendant Fritz Sauckel.
One question must be asked first of all: did Fritz Sauckel act under orders when he proceeded to this so-called voluntary recruiting, which was actually, in most cases, forced recruiting of laborers who were to feed the needs of the Reich for manpower? According to Sauckel, when he was named Plenipotentiary of Labor on the 20th of March 1942, his initial program did not include the conscription of foreign workers. It is supposed to have been Hitler who intervened at this moment. the interrogations, and I am sure that when we shall hear the voices of the defendants before the Tribunal you will see the defendants for the most part hide behind two great shadows, the shadow of the former Fuehrer, and the shadow of his second, Himmler. Here it is Hitler who intervenes to declare to Sauckel, according to the letter, that the use of foreign workers within the occupied territories is not contrary to the Hague Convention for two reasons:
"First, the countries involved surrendered unconditionally, and consequently we can apply to them any kind of work conditions.
"The second reason concerns the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which was not a signatory of these conventions. Consequently, as to the friends of Russia, in recruiting workers by force and using them until death, we do not violate the Hague Convention."
this point. It is thus that Hitler is supposed to have given him the order to proceed to recruit workers by using, first, persuasion, and then all means of constraint which you already know, namely, suppression of ration cards which obliged people who saw their wives and children suffering from hunger to come to offer their arms to work which was going to turn against their own fellow citizens and against the soldiers of the Allied armies, with whom they felt as one.
place, Sauckel, by virtue of the power which his function conferred upon him, enjoyed full power in regard to everything concerning the labor necessary to the execution of the Four-Year Plan. On the other hand, in assuming his functions as Plenipotentiary of Labor, Sauckel knew that he would not be able to carry out his mission without sooner or later resorting to means of coercion. extensive powers, and autonomous power. Consequently, he cannot hide behind the orders which he may have received.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you must forgive me if I interrupt you, but as I pointed out yesterday, I think, we have already had an opening statement which contained argument from the United States, from Great Britain, and from M. Menthon on behalf of France, and we have, in the past, confined other counsel who have followed them to a presentation of the evidence and have not permitted them to go into an argument. cases because it is, perhaps, somewhat difficult to confine the matter, but we have on several occasions pointed out to counsel who have followed the counsel who has made the leading statement that they ought to confine themselves to a presentation of the evidence. I think the Tribunal would wish you, if possible, to adhere to that rule, and therefore not to argue the case but to present the evidence, that is to say, to refer us to the evidence in so for as it has already been put in evidence, to refer us to it by its number, possibly stating what the substance of the evidence is, and in reference to any document which has not yet been put in evidence, to read such parts of that document as you think necessary.
M. MOUNIER: Very well, your Honor. Mr. President, to meet the desires of the Tribunal, I shall limit myself as concerns Sauckel to referring to figures which seem to me not susceptible to discussion of any kind. Since these are figures pointed out by the defendant Sauckel himself in the course of the interrogation, this does not seem to me to infringe upon the rule which the President has just recalled to me.
The figures which are indicated are the following: In 1942 there were already one million foreign workers in Germany. In a year Sauckel incorporated into the Reich economy 1,600,000 war prisoners, approximately, in order to meet the needs of the war economy. my document book. This is an interrogation of the defendant Speer under date of 18 October 1945, which has already been, submitted by the U.S. prosecution on 12 December 1945, under No. 220. The defendant Sauckel in this interrogation recognizes that 40 per cent of all the war prisoners were employed in production of arms, of munitions, and in related industries.
I likewise recall, under No. 1412, Document U.S. 225 of 13 December 1945, which is a memorandum signed by the Secretary of the Reich, which relates the discussion which occurred in a conference on 4 January 1944, at which, in addition to the defendant Sauckel, the Fuehrer himself was present, and Himmler, Speer, Keitel, Marshal Milch, and so forth. They decided that 4,000,000 would be the figure of new workers that Sauckel was to furnish. Sauckel, expressed doubts as to the possibility of furnishing this number of workers if he were not given sufficient police forces. Himmler answered that he would attempt, by increased pressure, to help Sauckel to achieve this objective.