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. 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. 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, 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.'" 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.
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
THE PRESIDENT: (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."
modern book which I submitted to the Tribunal. I would like
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe the Tribunal had better keep the original
M. MOUNIER: Yes. By the way, Mr. President, considering the matter which they alleged had experimental purposes.
This concerns account of this fact - of these experiments; made for the purpose of Goering's information on a scientific nature or pseudo-scientific These experiments are linked to those of Dr. Rascher, concerning 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 343-PS.
It was submitted by the American Prosecution under USA 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. 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. an Allied country where its presence showed a firm will occupied Netherland region.
We must consider then that from that day alleged Civil German Government.
It is clear from the evidence of operator.
The pages in this interrogation dated 18 September 1945, were pages 20 to 22.
I don't wish to bring these interrogations merely want to draw this Tribunal's attention to these interrogations
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
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
M. MOUNIER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: If the Prosecution choose to do so, they can
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
M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President, I will not allude to these statements of the Defendant Goering during his interrogation.
I of the terrorist activity of the accused Seyss-Inquart.
It is fines.
In March 1941 was established a system of collective fines believed should be fined, the resistant element.
Thus in the city 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. 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. 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. 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. kommissar 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
frontier currency systems existing between the Reich and the Holland terri tory thus by way of abusing any monetary matter by the occupying power and adding inadmissible German requirements in the matter of its production exigencies 500,000,000 Reichsmarks.
24 March 1941 the frontier control between Netherland occupied territory and Germany was also done away with, probably on order of Goering, in order to expedite the pillage of Netherland economic system. When the forces of the army began to be in control of the Reichsmark, Seyss-Inquart, on 1 September 1944, then became systematic in its destruction. The objective which the Germans proposed in the Netherlands were the following: docks, port installations, or development lines, bridges, railway equipment. Secondly: To bring about floods in the western part of Netherland. Thirdly; to seize raw materials, half finished products, manufactured products, machines. At times by requisition, at times by monetary payment and in numerous cases by simple armed thefts. Fourth: To force by stealing where valuable articles were, like diamonds, and to seize illegally. The results of these measures for which the accused Seyss-Inquart is responsible, or which he shared the regular responsibility to throw Holland into a dissolute state.
I have now concluded, Mr. President, the case of Seyss-Inquart.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, how long a time do you anticipate you will take this afternoon, because I understand that the case against the defendant Hess will be presented afterwards, and it is important that he should finish that day, so that the chief prosecutor may have a full day for his opening statement.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, with the evidence of yesterday, and today I have yielded to the desire of the Tribunal, I understand perfectly your concern to shorten as much as possible the trial, and with this point in view this morning I shortened my remarks which I was going to mate to you. That is why I state in the name of the French prosecutors I shall now prosecute the case of the other defendants, which was on the schedule, but I merely ask the Tribunal to permit me simply, except for the cases of Keitel and Jodl, may it please the Court, present at the beginning of this afternoon session my presentation.
Mr. Quarte calls to my mind we will try to make it as Short as possible, in that way the British Delegation will have two hours necessary for the case of Hess.
May it please the Court, Mr. Quarte will take the floor at two o'clock for one hour, and that will leave two hours for the British Delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: Another question that I would like to ask you, M. Mounier, as to the document against the other defendants, other than Keitel and Jodl, have they been furnished to the defendants concerned in them,
M. MOUNIER: Yes, they have, Mr, President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken from 1250 to 1400 hours) Official transcript of the International
M. QUARTRE: Mr. President, your Honors, I have the honor today to bring to a close the presentation of the French prosecution by bringing together the charges that weigh against the Defendants Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl. Before going into my statement. I shall ask the Tribunal for the authorization to present a few observations. First of all, to spare the time of the Tribunal, we have joined together the two defendants in the same brief. Their activities were so common, so closely linked, that in separating them one would risk making tedious repetitions and for the same reason, I am condensing as far as possible what I have to say.
This expose' includes three parts. In an introduction, I have endeavored to situate the two defendants in the framework of their activities. The first part following this is devoted to the preparation of the plans of aggression, and will be merely mentioned. It has already been sufficiently expounded so that it need not be brought up again. responsibility of the accused in the crimes committed in the course of the war. In this connection, I shall not make use of all the documents, the testimonies and interrogatories which concern these two defendants. If their guilt is a function of the repetition of their crimes, it is characterized above all by the criminal intent which preceded over their execution. This criminal intent is particularly brought out by a few documents which I have selected. I shall ask the Tribunal's permission to make a few quotations from these. Deliberately they will be as brief as possible. section number which you will find read in the margins of the copy which you have before you. I shall thereupon indicate the original, number. If the document has already been submitted, I shall furnish the date at which it was submitted and the number under which this document was submitted, will.
The unity which he had established between the Party and the State was, Reich, Hitler endeavored first of all to submit the German army to his sole as he thought, to reign over the Arny, the State, and the Party.
Thus only would the war machine be capable of fulfilling its function. The Party would give the impulse, the State would translate this into acts and the Army would impose it, in case of need, within the country as well as without. To achieve this aim, it was necessary first of all to impose a legislation subordinating in fact the whole military organization to the Furher. It was also necessary to proceed with the elimination of personalities that were too unyielding to submit to these measures. The execution of von Schleicher in 1934 and the disgrace of Blomberg in 1938 are two examples. It remained only to provide for their replacement by military chiefs whose conscience was sufficiently brought to ply the role of faithful executors. Keitel and Jodl were among these. Their personal convictions and the sudden fortune of their careers give proof of this. Questioned on the 3 August 1945, by Colonel Ecer of the Czechoslavakia Military Justice, the Defendant Keitel spoke thus of his relations with Hitler and the National Socialist Party.
This is document RF 1430, formerly RF 710. "Within myself I was a faithful supporter of Adolf Hitler and my political convictions were National Socialist. When the Fuehrer granted me his confidence, the personal contacts which I had with him caused me to evolve toward National Socialism. Today, still, I remain a convinced partisan of Adolf Hitler, which does not imply that I adhere to all the points of the program and of the policy of the Party." and of the Provinces, to explain to them the strategic position of Germany on the threshold of the fifth year of the war, Jodl declared this in his perorations. This is document FR 1431, L-172, submitted by the American prosecution 27 November 1945. "At this moment I should like to certify not with my lips but from the bottom of my heart, that our confidence and our faith in the Fuehrer are limitless." in 1931. Three years younger than him, Jodl, was merely made a Lt. Colonel in 1932. In spite of the opportunities presented by the campaigns of 1914 until 1918. These years had given him only a mediocre advancement. Those which led before them were going to bring them to the peak of honor and support. They saw at last their star rising at the same time that that of the new master of Germany was rising and immediately they were raised to official life.
high functions in the supreme echelons of the organization of the German armed forces. In enjoying a particular favor with the new master of Germany, he took all possible measures from the moment of accession of Hitler to power, to strengthen the influence of the Nazi ideology within the army. His activity in the Wehrmachtamt was particularly fruitful. This was a ministerial organization taking the place temporarily of the Ministry of War of the Reich and including among its powers the preparation and the coordination of plans connected with the German army. The tenure of the defendant in office, in this office, was all the more noteworthy by the fact that a deep reformed structure had st been effected. The Reichswehr of the professional soldiers gave way to the Wehrmacht, recruited by the obligatory military service. It was no longer enough to call the whole German youth to the flag; it was also necessary to clothe it and feed it and supply it with modern powerful weapons. This increase in the forces, these beginnings of a military economy of a policy of rearmament, are to a large extent the fruit of the efforts of the defendant, who at this moment enjoyed if not de jure at least de facto, enjoyed the prerogatives of a Minister of War. him commander in chief, he transferred the chief powers of the Ministry to the high command of the army and its chief, Keitel, became at the same time Chief of the Personal Staff of the Fuehrer. The defendant was to keep these functions until the moment of capitulation of the German armies. As chief of the high command of the army, Keitel did not exercise the direct authority over each of the three armies, constituting the Wehrmacht, the Land Army, the Aviation, the Navy, which were directly under Hitler. Charged more particularly with coordinating the matters affecting these three armies, he was the liaison agent between Hi tier and these three armies, but he was more than this. His role was above all that of advisor. He centralized the information that reached him from the different services under his orders, and this includes reports from the staff of operations confided to Jodl, information coming from the office of Admiral Canaris, the reports from the economic department of the armed forces of General Thomas, the administrative, financial and juridical services. However personal and authoritative Hitler's methods of work have been, they did not exclude the regular and constant participation of Keitel in the acts of his master. It is he who was in a position to carry out the demands of his chief, to suggest, to prepare, or to modify his decisions.
Reich, as member of the Secret Cabinet Counsel and of the importance of their political character, it is easy to realize the scope of the role played by the defendant in all the domains, whether it has to do with the preparation of military plans, properly speaking, of the life of the German army, or its behavior, or the distribution of manpower, or the utilization of the economic resources of Germany. Chancellory, Keitel was present. He was present at the time when Hitler made capital decisions. He was present by his side on the marches into the countries to be annexed and when orders by Hitler had to be transmitted, he in turn would order developing of the ideas of his chief and bring to these orders his personal contribution.
In signing or countersigning Hitler's decrees, Keitel added nothing to the validity of these texts from the point of view of the positive law of the Third Reich but he thereby guaranteed to Hitler their utility for the Wehrmacht and their unscrupulous execution. It was in this particularly, and notably, that he engaged his responsibility. of the new regime and of its creator. His attitude, his orders, and his activity reveal that he was a general of political Aspiration, attached to Hitler, who showered him with favors. Assuming the direction of the general staff of operations in the high command of the army, he also took an active part, an active and important part in the elaboration and orders of his chief. hostilities, shared his every day life, provoked his decisions, elaborated them and assured their execution. This role as counsellor, Jodl fulfilled, although his theoretical competence was far from having the importance of that of Keitel, which does not prevent him from intervening in realms which went beyond the framework of pure operations and in which he likewise engaged his personal responsibility.
on the preparation and on the execution of plans of aggression. We shall not return to this point. In this matter our British colleague, Mr. Roberts, has perfectly brought out the role played by Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl and we shall consider more particularly their responsibility in the conduct of the war, properly speaking; and first of all, their responsibility in the matter of murder and ill treatment of civilians, of collective sanctions and the murder of hostages. by the German armies progressed, there appeared with them measures against the civilian population, in violation of the laws of war and of the law of nations. They extended these violations, they extended apparently most benign violations to the services, sanctions, to execution, the most inhuman executions and the most useless. countries of the West, one finds everywhere the same reaction, the same unscrupulous execution of the same directives. On the 16th September 1941, Keitel signed an order relative to the repression of Communist insurrectionary movements in the occupied territories. This is document 389-PS. If the Tribunal will permit me, I choose to read briefly from this document. Keitel's directives are the following: "In every case of insurrection against the German occupying power, without consideration for circumstances, of detail, every such case shall be attributed to a Communist initiative. To choke the uprising in the bud, the most severe measures shall be taken at the first occasion in order to assure the authority of the forces of occupation and to present an extension of such movements. Moreover, it must, not be forgotten that in the countries in question, the value of a human life is less than nothing and that effective intimidation can be achieved only an unaccustomed rigor. In reprisal for the death of a German soldier, the penalty of death of fifty to one..."
THE PRESIDENT: We have had this read already.
M. QUATRE: Yes, sir. I am sorry, Mr. President. On the 5 May 1942-turning more particularly toward Belgium and France -- Keitel ordered for these two countries seizures and executions of hostages. These were to be chosen among the Nationalists, the Democrats, and the Communists. This is document RF 1433, 1590-PS, the original of which is now in the hands of the prosecution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which will not fail to submit it in the course of its presentation. This order merely confirms previous directives sent in August and September 1942, orders of the commander-in-chief in France, General von Stuelpnagel, that had already as its object the execution of hostages. This is document RF 1434, 1539-PS, submitted 29 January, by the French prosecution under No. RF 294. of the German Army, to protect the German army from all violent attempts, Keitel did not hesitate to violate the stipulations of Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention, which prohibited on the part of the occupying power the use of all means of constraint, of reprisals of a collective character and which, on the contrary, imposed respect for the lives of individuals; and these were not violations of an isolated character. In all the occupied countries the same acts are repeated. They respond well to the aim that the high command had imposed upon itself, not of that of assuring in this manner a certain attitude on the part of the population which should be of military interest. ambiguity. "It is herein advised that all military commanders are advised always to have at their disposal a certain number of hostages of different political tendencies. It is important that there should be among them leading and well-known persons; according to the place of the guilty, hostages of the corresponding groups are to be shot in case of an attempted violence." This setting up of a rule of terror was to find its whole development in the ordinance of the application of the decree "Nacht und Nebel", which was issued by Keitel on 12 December 1941. This is document RF 1436 which I submit today, document 669-PS.
If the Tribunal will allow me, I will read a few characterist lines indicating Keitel's intention.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we had it more than once already. I think we had it more than once already.
M. QUATRE: I excuse myself, Mr. President, and I shall go on. This is the original of the deportation to France, among other countries, which has made some heavy attributes. It is not necessary to insist. We know the treatment inflicted upon the women and the men, torn from their families, their homes, in contempt of all rights and laws and the atrocities committed upon them are present to all minds. 9 January 1946. That is an order of 26 May 1943, signed in his name, "Keitel," in paragraph 3, and provides that detailed investigations are to be made in given cases regarding the parents of Frenchmen who are fighting for the Russians; to find out if these parents reside in the occupied zones of France. If the investigation reveals that these relatives have given aid to facilitate their flight from France, severe measures are to be taken. of Jodl this time, sent to the commander-in-chief in Denmark, a telegram which is interesting from two points of view. It is document FR 1438, UK 56, already submitted on 31 January 1946, under No. RF. 301. The first paragraph authorizes the enrolment of Danish Nationals in the military formations of the occupying army, in SS formations. Aside from the fact that this is contrary to the respect and honor of individuals, it goes against the terms of the preamble of the Hague Convention, which stipulates that in cases not included in the regulatory provisions, the population and the belligerents remain under the safeguard of laws of humanity and the exigencies of public conscience. This attempt at Germnization ignored completely the exigencies of public conscience. deportation to Germany of the Jews of Denmark, it is the application of the general principle of deportation of Jewish populations which was to lead to their complete elimination.