Consequently, when the defendant Sauckel, as is likely, will come to 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.
As to France alone, for the demand for workers at the beginning of 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.
The defendant Sauckel consequently committed the offenses already known 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.
Speer, first of all, took part in the working out of the program of 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.
As concerns more particularly France, Hitler and the defendant Speer 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.
The defendant Speer knew that the levies for forced work in the occupied 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.
Finally, the defendant Speer, knowing that the foreign workers were 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.
The preceding paragraphs summarize the declarations made by the defendant Speer in the course of his interrogation already mentioned, of the 18th of October, 1,45.
Moreover, Speer was a member of the Central Committee of the Plan. 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.
I refer to Documents R-124 and R-125 which have been submitted under No. USA 179, on 12 December 1945, by the American Prosecution, Finally, Speer did not hesitate to advocate methods of terror and of 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.
I recall to the Tribunal Document R-124, relative to the minutes of 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.
The defendant Speer likewise bears a responsibility for the use of 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.
Finally, a very important question in regard to the responsibility of 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.
In the end, Speer came to establish near the factories concentration 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.
I f the Court will now turn to page 3 of my statement on Goering, I should 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.
During the trial at several times we have treated an order by Hitler, the 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.
In the occupied territories the isolated members of commandos who would 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.
We know, also, that the same date, October 18, 1942, Hitler had a 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.
On the other hand the Tribunal already is aware that numerous Allied 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.
I refer to Document USA 533 of the 19th of December 1945.
Goebells, in an article of the Voelkischer Beobachter, interfered in the 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.
These instructions were literally carried out, as shown by the fact that the American forces have, since the capitulation, brought to trial a considerable number of German civilians who had murdered unarmed Allied aviators.
But the Defendant Goering was not satisfied to simply let these things 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.
This is Document 1631-PS, which is a photostatic copy which is found on the 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.
It was agreed, consequently, with the OKW that Himmler, Goering, and 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.
For himself, General Warlimont, in the name of the OKW, proposed two 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.
On the 17th of June 1944, Keitel wrote to Goering to ask him to approve 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.
I refer here to Document 732-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under the 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.
On the 26th of June 1944 the aide de campe of the Defendant Goering 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.
I refer to Document 733-PS and 740-PS, cited the 31st of January 1946, by the French Prosecution, under the number 374 and 375.
Finally, Hitler, in a memorandum the 4th of July 1944, let it be known 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.
Such are the facts which are found in these incontestable documents. 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.
In fact, the defendant Goering confesses that he never gave an agreement 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.
But, gentlemen, without referring to the famous principle or Fuehrer 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.
Moreover, what did he do to end the massacres of aviators by people whom he had commanded to do the opposite, according to the orders which were forbidden to be written out?
And if, to give Goering the full benefit of legal argument, we consider 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.
Now, during all the war in Germany they put to death Allied aviators. 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.
I shall not speak either of the use of war prisoners and prisoners in 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.
Concerning economic pillage, I shall not stress the considerable part 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.
After the Armistice in 1941, the Defendant Goering operated to the effect 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.
Concerning this, the Court will realize that Goering shares jointly with the Defendants Rosenberg, Ribbentrop and Seyss-Inquart the responsibility for this spoliation Concerning the spoliation of works of art, we have documents which permit 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.
I will let the Tribunal apply the proper article of domestic law concerning 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.
I rapidly recall that this document prescribes that works of art taken 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.
To not exceed the time which the Tribunal has at my distribution, I should 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.
I simply submit in passing that on the top of page 11 you will find the 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.
I merely want to point out to you the worry, the annoyance, which Rosenberg felt on this occasion.
Mr. President, gentlemen, concerning the interference of the accused Goering in crimes against humanity, notably concentration camps, I shall ask the Tribunal, when they have time, to simply refer to a few paragraphs which I rapidly call to their attention.
There is a document which has not been submitted to the Tribunal which I would like to submit today, which concerns the surgical and medical experiments of which they have already spoken to you, the experiments of Dr, Rascher concerning certain medical subjects.
There is a question which I treat on Page 17 of my brief which concerns the document which I submit under Number 1427. This is a document which originally had the number L-170, which is the report authenticated by Major Leo Alexander of the British Medical Corps, concerning the institution called the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, Major Lee Alexander, at the time of the defeat of Germany by the Allied Forces, conducted an investigation concerning the experiments of Dr. Rascher, and these experiments were carried out in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.
This report is entitled "Neuropathologie and Neurophysiologie", including Electro Encepalographie". This Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was an institute for cerebral research, page 18 in my brief. This institution had formerly been in Berlin Buch, and was divided into three establishments, one in Munich, one in Gottingen, and a third one, which interests me, was found in Dillenberg. In Hesse-Nassau there was a special department for pathology directed by Dr. Haller-vorden.
THE PRESIDENT:Could we see the original?
(A document was submitted to the President).
THE PRESIDENT:Is the series "L" referred to in Major Coogan's affidavit?
M. MOUNIER:Yes, Mr. President, part of the documentation.
Mr. President, I would like to point out this number F-170 is the same as concerns the sane Major Alexander concerning the experiments of Dr. Rascher.
It is the same number,
THE PRESIDENT:As this document has already been put in evidence in the series "L" - it is L-170 I think - the Tribunal will treat it for the moment as being in evidence and will further consider its admissibility.
M. MOUNIER:Yes, sir. In all events, I would like to remind the President that I submit in this brief and communicate the passage which I wish to cite, which I consider of my interest in my brief. The passage is quoted entirely in my brief.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. Which passage do you wish to refer to?
M. MOUNIER:Pages 20 and 21 in my brief.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes; do you wish to read them?
M. MOUNIER:I simply will do whatever the Court considers proper in this matter. If the Court considers this superfluous, I would like to point out that I find striking in this document is the manner in which Dr. Hallervorden ordered the delivery of brains which he examined when he said this:
"I went to then and I said 'Listen, my friends, since you are going to kill all those people there, at least keep those brains which we may use.'
"They then asked me 'How many can you examine?' 'An unlimited number, the more the better,' I told them. 'I will give you couplings, jars, boxes, necessary instructions for removing and fixing brains.'" I call the attention of the Tribunal to the truly horrible character of the measures which one took concerning the people who were to be killed merely to nave their brain examined.
For they were first taken in the different buildings of the establishments, according to Page 20, following measures simple and rapid. Most of the establishments did not have enough physicians, so either through exfess of work of by indifference they had gotten rid of the selection of those patients to be killed and placed that selection on nurses and male nurses. Whoever appeared tired, in the view of the nurses, was placed on the list and then taken to the death center.
The worst part of the matter was the brutality exercised by the personnel.
They selected whom they did not like and put them on the list.
I shall limit my citation there, Mr. President, but what I should like to do subsequently, unless the Tribunal is going to
THEPRESIDENT: (Interposing) Dr. Stahmer wants to say something.
DR.STAHMER (Counsel for Goering): I object to the introduction of this protocol, I can see no connection between what happened as described in those documents and the Defendant Goering. Goering was completely unaware of these events, and tells me he had nothing whatever to do with those matters.
THE PRESIDENT:I hate to interrupt you, Dr. Stahmer, You will have a full opportunity of presenting arguments to us to show that the evidence which is adduced, which is brought forward now against the Defendant Goering, has really no reference to him. You will have a full, opportunity to do that at the appropriate stage when you present the defenses. The only question we are considering now, the technical question, is whether this document is a document which is admissible. We are considering it of course, but it is not the appropriate time for you to present your argument, that the document doesn't refer to Goering and that Goering had no knowledge of it. That will be your defense. It isn't an objection to the admissability of the document. It is an argument to show that you are now presenting to us that Goering didn't know anything about the document and didn't know anything about the experiments.
Do you understand what I mean?
DR. STAHMER:Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Mounier, continue.
M. MOUNIER:Mr. President, I should like to point out that my friend, Mr. Elwyn Jones, just pointed out to me that this is a proof considering the conditions under which this was submitted.
This is the document which is entitled, "The Intelligence Division Sub committee APO 430.
The Combine Intelligence Subjective Committee."
This reference is found in the English copy which I submitted in the modern book which I submitted to the Tribunal.
I would like generally in citing this short passage-
THE PRESIDENT:Maybe the Tribunal had better keep the original document for the present.
M. MOUNIER:Yes. By the way, Mr. President, considering the short passage, I want to demonstrate what there is truly atrocious in the way in which they treated the people in order to procure the matter which they alleged had experimental purposes.
This concerns the prosecution of Hermann Goering, for which the Tribunal will take account of this fact - of these experiments; made for the purpose of Goering's information on a scientific nature or pseudo-scientific nature concerning the result of experiments upon the brains of aviators, and of which accidents might come to the aviators.
These experiments are linked to those of Dr. Rascher, concerning which correspondence was addressed, which includes permission unknown by the accused Goering, who was directly interested in the aviation branch of which he was the chief.
I cite for instance a letter of 24 October, 1942, which was addressed by Himmler to Dr. Rascher, which I submit to the Tribunal under the number 1409-RF.
To save the Tribunal the effort I shall not read this letter.
I shall simply refer to another document which has already been cited as document 343-PS.
It was submitted by the American Prosecution under USA number 463, the 20 December 1945, and it is a letter which proves that Marshall Milch was entrusted with this beginning with 20 May, 1942, by the accused Goering, but transmitted to the SS with the special facts for the aid which they had brought to the Luftwaffe from the experiments of this date of medical experiments.
Consequently, we consider on this point the responsibility of the defendant Goering is found clearly established.
Mr. President, and gentlemen, I shall like to conclude with a few points concerning the defendant Goering, to which I would like to draw attention of the Tribunal direct. That is all my brief against Goering, and in conclusion, I shall not read it, but with the permission of the Tribunal, I shall say that this conclusion is an extract of Book No.1699, which is well known in Germany, which is called "Simplizius Simplizissinus;" the work of Grimmelshausen by an eminent personage Hallervorden, of which fortunately the realization seemed to be made in, naturally, German regime.
I now go to the accused, Seyss-Inquart, whose case has appeared through the interest of our friends in the Netherland, for which I act as counsel.
Mr. President and gentlemen, consequently, concerning the defendant Seyss-Inquart, both in the name of Netherland Government, and for a thorough account, the French prosecution attempts to point out as briefly as possible the particular points of accusation against the defendant Seyss-Inquart. The part played by Seyss-Inquart is his participation in the annexation of Austria, which was carefully studied during the course of his trial, but all his operations in Holland should be considered today to be brought to the light of day.
On 13 May 1940, the Netherland Government left Holland a rich country and an Allied country where its presence showed a firm will to advocate in any way its prerogative of sovereignty.
On 29 May, 1940, the Defendant Seyss-Inquart who had the title of Reichsminister without Portfolio, was named State Kommissar for the occupied Netherland region.
We must consider then that from that day until the day of the capitulation of the German Army, the Defendant Seyss-Inquart in his function was responsible for all the acts of the alleged Civil German Government.
It is clear from the evidence of his speeches, which he made, that he was invested not only with purely administrative functions, but also with political power.
In vain he tried as he did try before Colonel Thomas Dodd, my friend Colonel Dodd, who interrogated him, to maintain in Holland that he only was in some way an official entrusted to put his seal on orders, as formerly in Austria he was practically only a telegraph operator.
The pages in this interrogation dated 18 September 1945, were pages 20 to 22.
I don't wish to bring these interrogations before the court since there are a great number of them, but I merely want to draw this Tribunal's attention to these interrogations at the time the cross-examination on those interrogations may be brought forth.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Mounier, has the interrogation been put in?
M. MOUNIER:No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, as a matter of technical procedure-
M. MOUNIER:I know that I cannot put in this evidence as proof.
I know that this cannot be proof in your eyes.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, it can be given if the rule is complied with.
M. MOUNIER:Under the given rule which you put down, yes.
I simply want, Mr. President, to simplify it, itself.
THE PRESIDENT:M. Mounier, I think you are misunderstanding me.
Under the article the Prosecutors have got the right to interrogate any of the Defendants, and this was an interrogation of one of the Defendants.
M. MOUNIER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:If the Prosecution choose to do so, they can offer their interrogation in evidence.
M. MOUNIER:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:If they don't choose to do so
M. MOUNIER:No.
THE PRESIDENT:They need not do so.
M. MOUNIER:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Under such circumstances the interrogation is not in evidence, and need not be furnished to the Defendant until it is.
M. MOUNIER:Yes, Mr. President, I will not allude to these statements of the Defendant Goering during his interrogation.
I simply propose to point out to the Tribunal that in the order of the cross-examination at that time we can then submit these statements of which I speak now.
With the permission of the Court I shall now take up the subject of the terrorist activity of the accused Seyss-Inquart.
It is manifested in the Holland measures, first, by a system of collective fines.
In March 1941 was established a system of collective fines imposed upon the Dutch cities, where were found fined all where they believed should be fined, the resistant element.
Thus in the city of Amsterdam they had to pay a fine of fifteen million guilders, and the city of Hilversum was fined two million and a half.
The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also established the system of hos tages, and on May 18, 1942, published a proclamation where he mentioned the arrest of 460 persons in important official positions, who were simply suspected of being in relation with the resistence movement.
In fact, the defendant has admitted before Colonel Thomas Dodd such. I will not discuss the interrogation, or the possibility of it. I simply point out in a general way, and I ask the Court to consider as facts, and under this charter, I should like to point out to the Court that this Seyss-Inquart tried to hide behind the shadow of the Fuehrer.
By the decree 7 July 1942, the defendant ordered that the German Tribunal, of which he appointed himself one of the judges, concern themselves with the case of concerning not only the German citizens in Holland, but also citizens spoken of actively hostile of the Reich, hostile to the Nazi Party, or hostile to the German State. At the same time the defendant Seyss-Inquart introduced death penalties against those who had not properly carried out their security task assigned by the Wehrmacht, or the Security Police, who had not informed the German Command Posts of all the criminal projects directed against the occupational forces, and of which they had knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT:M. Mounier, you were citing then a proclamation dated 18 May 1942. You didn't give us any number as yet.
M. MOUNIER:Mr. President, I am saying that I referred to the official report of the Netherland Government.
THE PRESIDENT:You stated in there, that that also applied to the document of 7 July 1942, that you just spoke of.
M. MOUNIER:Yes, Mr. President. The defendant Seyss-Inquart in May mentioned the SS Gruppenfuehrer Raucher, called the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Raucher, he had appointed him as general commissar for Security. This latter was responsible for all these murders in Motherland and the provinces which was carried out with tact and in agreement with Seyss-Inquart, and also considering the feet the appointment of Raucher was always kept intact and that he was never recalled.
On the other hand the Nether land Government reproaches Seyss-Inquart with having created a series of emergency courts, and in May 1943 he created summary police jurisdiction, and by a decree of Hitler, Dutch war prisoners who had been freed shortly after the cessation of hostilities were to be new internees.
They then said a very strong resistance arose in Holland factories, thus no summary jurisdiction intended and several citizens were executed.
Moreover, Seyss-Inquart during a meeting of Dutch collaborators didn't fail to boast of glorified terroristic measures, and claimed the responsibility for them. The defendant Seyss-Inquart was in Holland the supreme representative of Hitler. He should then be considered as responsible with the defendant Sauckel for the deportation of people in mass from Holland to the Reich in 1940 to 1945.
If the German military authorities had in their hands to interfere in the mobilization of labor of Holland, officials of Sauckel in Holland found themselves placed under the authorities of the Statekommissar Seyss-Inquart, and he must then be considered as responsible for their actions. It was SeyssInquart who signed the decree of Reichskommissar No. 26 in 1942, which is found in the official Dutch Labor order of Germany sending Dutch labor to Germany, who didn't wish to work for Germany did not eat; the occupying authorities even reached the practice of huge roundups in the streets of Rotterdam, and with a hope that they procure labor for the fortifications of the Wehrmacht.
Considering the operation of the economic pillage under the Reichskommissar of the defendant Seyss-Inquart, the Dutch colonies with all the other occupied countries were pillaged. That during the winter of 1941-1942 there was an order by Seyss-Inquart for requisition of woolen for the German Army on the eastern front. In 1943 there was a requisition of textile, and every-day household articles for the benefit of the German population which had been bombed, and application of what the occupying authorities called the "Action Boehm", and the Hollanders were obliged to sell wines and various objects which were destined to be presented to the German population on the celebration of Christmas 1943.
In the organization of the black market, the same interference and purpose of carrying out the four-year plan, Seyss-Inquart brought to the defendant Goering, and the defendant Speer an application of aid and pillage of Dutch Colony. "We can maintain a vast black market with this encouragement and maintain it."
The "Vierjahresplan" was utilized by the agents for these alleged purchases but when the Netherland agencies for persons would intervene they were prevented by the German police.
In 1940 the defendant Seyss-Inquart issued a decree permitting the German authorities in Holland to confiscate the property of all persons who could be accused of hostilities against the Germans in the Reich. The property of the Royal Family was upon the order of Seyss-Inquart confiscated by the general kommissar of Security. The occupation troops considered themselves able to utilize every one possible.
This pillage was manifested in a particular cruel manner, sofar as the requisition of elementary food products. In fact, the official reports indicate by a document which was already submitted by the economic section of the French prosecution under No. L-RF 130. Our document RF 139, and RF 140. At the beginning of the occupation the food supply was systematically taken away with the agreement of Seyss-Inquart, as were the agriculture products which were taken to Germany in 1944. Colonel Dodd in his deliberation. on South Holland where was a strike taking place in the north, told of SeyssInquart defending himself to break up this strike forbade any transportation from the northeast to the west of any food. Because of this it was impossible to establish food stocks for the winter in the west, and, consequently, the responsibility for a famine which took place in the winter of 1944 and 1945, which resulted in the death of 145,000, remained his, and the responsibility is under Seyss-Inquart.
Sofar as the Works of Art is concerned, the pillage was carried on the say way. The defendant Seyss-Inquart must be considered responsible for having organized a removal of works of art in Holland. because he called to his service a friend, Dr. Muehlmann, who is a specialist in this launch. I refer the Tribunal to this document which is submitted by the economic section of the French prosecution under No. 1342, No- 1343, and No. 1344.
Finally the defendant Seyss-Inquart took by a series of measures control of International Law which caused Nether land a considerable prejudice in 1941. The Netherland authorities had established a custom control which permitted to follow acquisitions made in Germany money, or of any merchandise, or of public funds, and any uprposes of avoiding so that the economic of Holland could not be deprived of valuables thereof, of material, or of currency.