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.
claim that he had absolutely nothing in common with this institution which is called the Gestapo, which is hated by all, or with the Sicherheitsdienst, we may answer him by an official German document showing that he used the police forces and that he resorted to all the blameable means, which have already been pointed out to you, for the recruiting of labor power. 1944 was at the figure of 1,000,000, and this figure was in addition to the figure of workers, men and women, which had already been sent to Germany, and which was from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000. to the Court. We have an old adage, an old slogan, we may say, "The Court has the law; we present only the facts." I shall, therefore, not go further into these matters.
Mr. President, your Honors, I should like now to briefly summarize the activity of the defendant Speer, for concerning France and the countries of the West, the defendant Speer had responsibilities which were of the same nature as those of Sauckel. Like the defendant of whom I have just spoken, he committed violations of laws of war, violations of laws against the human condition, in working for the execution of a vast program of forced deportation and of enslavement of the occupied countries. forced labor, thus, in the course of the interrogatory, he recognized first that he participated in the discussions in which it was decided to have recourse to forced labor. Second, he supported the execution of this plan and took part in it. Third, the basis of this program was the removal to Germany, by means of force, of foreign workers under the authority of Sauckel. He was Plenipotentiary of Labor within the framework of the FourYear Plan.
The Tribunal will kindly refer to USA No. 220, submitted by the United States delegation 12 December 1945, which I quote under number 1411 of our documentation.
held a conference on the 4th of January 1943, in the course of which it was decided that more severe measures would be taken with a view to hastening the recruiting of French civilian workers without discrimination between skilled and unskilled workers. This is brought out by a note which I ask the Tribunal to refer to. That is a note signed by Sauckel which has already been presented by the American prosecution under No. 556-PS, French No. 1412. territories were obtained by force and by terror, and he approved the continuation of these methods. From September 1942 on, for instance, he knew that the workers of the Ukraine were being deported by force in order to go to work in the Reich. He knew, likewise, that the great majority of the workers of the occupied regions of the West were sent to Germany against their will. He even declared before the American magistrate who was questioning him that he considered these methods regular and legal. recruited and deported for the purpose of forced work in Germany, formulated demands to obtain foreign workers, and sought their utilization in diverse and various branches of activity placed under his direction. Speer in the course of his interrogation already mentioned, of the 18th of October, 1,45. Because of this fact, and along with Field Marshal Milch, he had above him only Hitler and Goering for everythin that had reference to demands for labor. He likewise took part, in this capacity, in the discussions with Hitler for the settling of figures for foreign workers. He know that most of these numbers came by deportation, through constraint and the enslavement of the occupied countries. Proof of this is furnished by various passages of the minutes of the Central Committee of the Plan and the conferences of Speer with Hitler.
No. USA 179, on 12 December 1945, by the American Prosecution, brutality as a means of bringing to its culminating point the productivity of forced work, justifying the action of the SS and of the police and the use of concentration camps against the recalcitrants. the 21st meeting of the Central Committee of the Plan, 30 October 1942, page 1,059, already quoted. This is the document which I quoted previously, Document USA 179, on 12 December 1945. warprisoners in military operations directed against their countries, for in his capacity as chief of the Todt organization, he forced the citizens of allied nations to work for this organization, notably in the building of fortifications and, among other things, the famous West Wall. He likewise forced Frenchmen, Belgians, Luxembourgers, Dutchmen, Norwegians, and Danes to manufacture arms which were to be utilized against the allies of the countries to which they belonged. the defendant Speer. He participated in a direct manner in the use of prisoners of the concentration camps. He proposed the use of prisoners of the concentration camps in the armament factories. Now, in view of the wretched physical condition of the prisoners, from this measure could be expected no productivity but solely the extermination of the prisoners. This use of prisoners of the concentration camps in the factories had the effect of augmenting the demand for this form of labor, and this demand was satisfied in part, at least, by the sending into the concentration camps of persons who in ordinary times would never have been sent there. camps which served solely to supply them With labor.
He know the camp of Mauthausen. The spanish witness whom the Tribunal heard a few days ago attested this under oath. He had seen, with his own eyes, the defendant Speer visit the camp of Mauthaousen and congratulate the directors of this camp.
He even declared that he had worked to prepare photographs of this scene because this visit to the camp must be considered absolutely beyond question. Speer, himself, therefore, saw the barbarous conditions under which the prisoners lived. Nonetheless, he persisted in utilizing labor from the camp of Mauthausen in the factories which were under his authority, I have concluded the case against Speer.
I am at the disposal of the Tribunal to continue.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for ten minutes.
(Whereupon a recess was taken from 1120 to 1130 hours).
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, given the strictly limited time, I see that in considering Goering, of whom I shall have the honor to speak to you, I will be compelled to skip pages 1, 2, 3 of this presentation. like indeed to present to the Tribunal the question of the responsibility of the defendant Goering in the measures which were taken against the commandos, Allied aviators, who fell into the hands of the Germans during their missions. 18th of October 1942, which was submitted by the American delegation the 2nd of January 1946 under the number USA 501. It is an order which stipulated the measures to be taken concerning commandos. In the operations in Europe and Africa they were to be exterminated to the last man, although in military uniform, and no matter what their transportation was, boat, plane or parachute. The order was given to take no prisoners. happen to fall in the hands of the German forces were to be immediately handed over to the Sicherheitsdienst, the branch of the RSHA. This order did not apply to enemy soldiers who were captured or who surrendered in open battle or in the scope of combat operations.
Among those notified was the Oberkommando of the Luftwaffe. Consequently. the defendant Goering knew of this order, and in his capacity as commander-inchief of aviation, and in his capacity as chief of one of the three military branches, he shares jointly the responsibility with the leaders of the other branches. memorandum distributed stipulating that if they should take for the moment one or two prisoners to obtain from them information, they were to be put to death immediately after their interrogation.
I refer to Document USA 502 of the 9th of January. The American Prosectuion, which produced this document, has also submitted to the Tribunal a certain number of SS cases that prove that under numerous circumstances these orders were carried out. aviators who were in German territory after the loss of their plane were mistreated and lynched by the Germans with agreement and aid of the authorities.
For proof we only require the order of August 10, 1943, by which Himmler forbade the police to concern itself with these lynchings and to avoid any opposition to them. same way. Bormann, in a memorandum of May 30, 1944, confirmed these instructions and stipulated that they should be handed over to the administrative authorities, not in writing but orally. I refer to Document USA 329, cited the 17th of December 1945 by the American Prosecution. the American forces have, since the capitulation, brought to trial a considerable number of German civilians who had murdered unarmed Allied aviators. occur. At the time of a meeting which took place the 15th and 16th of May, 1944, he stated that he would propose to the Fuehrer to put to death on the spot and immediately, all soldiers, not only soldiers who had come down in parachutes but the American or English crews who attacked indiscriminately cities and civilian trains. This is Document 766, cited the 13th of January 1946 under the number 166, In fact, Goering saw Hitler between the 20th and 22nd of May 1944.
The General of Aviation, Korten, sent the Defendant Keitel a memorandum pointing out that Hitler had decided that enemy aviators who were shot down should be put to death without trial when they had participated in acts characterized by terrorism. bench of the Court. I ask the Tribunal's permission not to be required to read this document, and that the Tribunal refer to it and read it. However, I am at its disposal if it wishes me to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: No; it has already been put in, has it not?
M. MOUNIER: Yes. Mr. President. Ribbentrop would be consulted on the measures to be taken in this matter. Ribbentrop proposed that any attack upon German cities should be considered as constituting an act of terrorism.
means: lynching, and what they called the Sonderbehandlung, or special treatment, which consisted of delivering the concerned parties to the SD where they were subjected to divers treatments of very notorious character., for instance, the Kugel action, which has already been spoken about, and which was simply a way of doing away with those in question. Document GB-151, 9th of January 1946, was submitted to this effect. the definition of the acts of terrorism, in the way that Warlimont had drawn up this definition. On the 19th of June 1944, Goering had his reply, that the population should be forbidden to act as it had done against enemy aviators, and that these enemy aviators should be brought to trial, given that acts of terrorism were forbidden by the Allied Government to their aviators. Number RF 1405.
Consequently, I draw the Tribunal's attention to this: On the 26th of June 1944, Reichsmarschall Goering said that he was pleased that a judiciary action should be taken against these aviators. Remember this date is 1944, because it is important. telephoned to the staff of the OKW, who had insisted upon an exact reply, and notified it of the agreement of the SD leader, the Reichsmarschall Goering, of the definition of acts of terrorism, and the proposed procedures which were to be either delivery to the SD and the Sonderbehandlung or special treatment, or immediate execution. by the French Prosecution, under the number 374 and 375. that the Anglo-Americans having decided the reprisal against the V-1 to make aerial attacks against small cities without military importance, asked the German radio and press to announce that any enemy aviators shot down during an attack of that nature should be immediately put to death after their capture.
and if I cite the reply made in June 1944 by the accused Goering, it is with the concern to bring to the Tribunal the authenticity of the documents in question. But I see that I am obliged to conclude, despite the order of June 26, 1944, of the full responsibility of the defendant Goering. to these measures, and Captain Breuer is the one who had the telephonic conversation with the staff of the IKW. He, according to the Defendant Goering, acted without having consulted Goering prior to acting, and according to the statement that he made he doesn't consider himself responsible for all these absurd things, all without importance, accomplished by his subordinates. principle, for I see in it a way of replying to those interested in German law, in all of that Goering is responsible in his capacity as leader. Where authority is, there we find responsibility. he had commanded to do the opposite, according to the orders which were forbidden to be written out? the position taken by him in the order fo June 19, 1944, to which I have referred as establishing truly at that date his doctrine concerning the massacre of aviators and of parachutists, we are obliged to observe that at that date, the 19th of June 1944, even the blindest in Germany knew that the German forces were shortly going to succo mb to the weight of the Allied armies. Moreover, if the Defendant Goering maintains that the letter of 19 June 1944 was written by his aide de camp, he is obliged to admit that the letter of the 26th of June, 1944, written by the aid de camp also, can be imputed to him, although signed by one of his subordinates. We consider, then, that the documents signed by the aide de camp link Goering as much as if he had signed them himself.
Mr. President and gentlemen, I shall not extend my argument concerning the responsibility of the defendant Goering concerning the compulsory labor. I ask the Court to permit me to refer, if necessary, to the enlightenment that I have tried to put in this brief concerning the question. concentration camps, as I said in Page 10 of my brief. I should like simply to say a word concerning the economic spoliation and the spoliation of artistic treasures as far as these questions are treated on page 11 at the bottom of my brief. taken by the accused Goering as the leader of the Four Year Plan in all the measures which contributed to strip all the Western countries of their substance I shall simply point out one fact which I believe has not yet been brought to your knowledge, which is found in the next to the last sub-heading of page 12. that the Hermann Goering Werke should be handed over by Roechlin, who was the custodian, and that all the factories of Lorraine belonging to the family of Wendel should be handed over the Hermann Goering Werke. This is naturally related to all the parts of the economic section and the information which we considered necessary, which was furnished by the French Prosecution. the Defendants Rosenberg, Ribbentrop and Seyss-Inquart the responsibility for this spoliation us to conclude concerning this, which is obviously not agreeable for a man who had the high place of the Defendant Goering, to wit, the fact that a part of the works of art of great value which were pillaged from the western countries were reserved for him without any osrt of compensation. ing this type of legal violation, but what I should like to say today is that the putative appropriation of works of art by the Defendant Hermann Goering is proved in documents which cannot be contested which have already been submitted to the Tribunal.
I refer particularly to Document USA 368 of the 18th of December 1945. This document was submitted by the Economic Section of the French delegation under the number 1309. from the Louvre will be classified, in the first place, works of art which the Fuehrer reserved for himself the right to fix their destination. Secondly, works of art which were destined to complete the collection of the Marshall of the Empire, and so on. I won't read the rest of the document.
What was the result of these levies by the defendant Goering? Did he pay anything for these? It seems that the contrary is true. In the interrogation of the defendant Rosenberg, which was given under the number 1330, it is pointed out that the Defendant Goering made his selection among the works of art which had been assembled by the special staff of Rosenberg. This selection was made for Goering, and Goering made no payment in compensation to the Reich Treasury. respectfully like to ask if we can now go back to page 10 of the transcript previously cited, where they will see the intervention of the Defendant Goering concerning the levies of works of art. There you will find that no sum of money was paid in compensation. statement in reply to a question asked by Colonel Hinkel.
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to page 10 and 11 of which document?
M. MOUNIER: Page 11, Mr. President of Document 1403, which was submitted under the number 1330, by my colleague.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
M. MOUNIER: It is not there for reasons I have already pointed out to the Tribunal.
Colonel Hinkel, at the bottom of pace 10, asked the following question:
"Isn't it said in the last paragraph of this letter that you didn't think that Goering was to pay for these objects which he had chosen for himself?"
The reply of the defendant Rosenberg: "Not exactly. I would like to add the following." What he adds is important, I think. "I felt rather bothered when I heard for the first time that Goering had for his own use taken a part of the artistic works which the special staff had sent to Germany".That is all, gentlemen, I won't say anything more.