Far from modifying them, they reinforced them. I shall strive to show how this policy was carried out from the time when the policy of hostages had failed, it was necessary to appeal to the German police to keep in servitude the occupied countries. With the failure of the policy of the execution of hostages there followed, as you remember, by General Falkenhausen in Belgium, arbitrary arrests to the point of becoming a constant practice, substituted for that of arrests of hostages.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you say the number of the document again?
M. DUBOST: 715-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the first document in the document book?
M. DUBOST: The first document in the book. transferred to Germany in protective custody.
"Purpose: Measures to be taken against French Officers.
"In agreement with the German Embassy in Paris and with the Chief of the Security Police in the Security Department, the High Command in the West makes the following proposals;
"First: The general officers enumerated below will be arrested and transferred to Germany in honorable custody: The Generals of the Army Frere-who died subsequently in Germany after his deportation -- "Gerodias, Cartier, Revers, de Latre de Tassigny, Fornel de la Laurencie, Robert de Saint-Vincent, Laure, Doyen, Pisquendar, Mittelhauser, Paquin; Aviation Generals Bouscat, Carayon, de Geferier, D'Harcourt, Mouchard, Mendigal, Rozoy; Colonels Loriot and Fonck I continue on Page 2:"It concerns generals whose names have a propaganda value in France and in foreign countries or whose attitude and capacities represented a danger."
"Moreover, the information service in France has put in its files in two years have come into the foreground.
For its part, the Security later date, depending on the situation was to be prepared."
The sixth paragraph at the bottom of the page:
"Concerning all officers of the French Army of the Armistice, the Chief territory, a check of domiciles and of professional occupation."
Page 3, paragraphs 7 and 8:
"As a measure of reprisal, families of suspected persons having already solved.
Afterwards we can contemplate as a later measure the withdrawal out in other cases by Laval.
The police and the army will be joined in all of these arrests."
is concerned in this. Document 723-PS, which becomes Document 295, will be read in this session. It is the third document of the document book. It is addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and is dated Paris, June 5, 1943:
"In the course of a conference which took place yesterday with the to be taken:
"These measures must have for a purpose to make impossible through the same time to prevent these personages from organizing themselves, in the event of an Anglo-Saxon invasion of France, in any resistance movement.
"The personages to whom these measures apply all belong to the military circles--officers who by their rank and experience or by their name would strengthen in a capital fashion the milltary command or the political credit of the dissenters in the event that they should decide to join them. In the event of military operations in France, we must consider them as being of the same importance."
Page 2, fourth paragraph:
"The list has been established in agreement with the High Command of the West, the Chief of the Security Police, and the General of Aviation in Paris."
I'll not read these new names of High French Officers who were to be arrested, but I'll ask you to go to Page 4, where the Tribunal will see in the second paragraph that the German authorities contemplate "causing officers already arrested by the French Government to undergo the same fate as officers who had been placed under the surveillance of the French authorities, such as Lattre de Tassigny, Laure, Fornel, La Laurencie. These generals should be literally torn away from the French authorities to be deported."
Paragraph 3 as follows:
"Considering the general situation at present and the security measures which are envisaged, all officers present are even now considering it inopportune to keep these generals in French custody, for they might, either through negligence or with the voluntary aid of the personnel of the guard, escape and recover their liberties." families:
"General Warlimont had asked the Commander in Chief of the Western Front to raise the question of reprisal measures to be taken against the families of persons who had become dissenters and to make certain proposals concerning them eventually. President Laval declared himself ready, not long ago, to take measures of this kind in behalf of France, but to limit himself, nevertheless, to famil ies of several outstanding personalities." 3,486 of May 29, 1943:
"They were to wait to see if Laval really was ready to apply in a practical way such measures.
All those present at the meetings were in agreement, in any event, that such measures should be taken as rapidly as possible against families of well-known personages who had become dissenters. For example, members of the family of General Giraud, Juin, Georges, the former Minister of the Interior, Pucheu, Inspector of Finance, Couvre de Murville, Roy Beaulieu and others. The measures may also be carried out by the Germans, since the persons who have become dissenters may be considered as foreigners belonging to an enemy power, and the members of their families may be considered as such. In our opinion, the members of these families were to be interned. We must verify with care how these measures are carried out in fact."
I skip one paragraph:
"We might also study the question of whether these families should be interned in regions particularly exposed to air attacks; for instance, proximity to Talsperren or industrial regions which are particularly bomb targets. A list of families who are being interned is to be formulated in collaboration with the Embassy." Ribbentrop, the defendant Goering, the Defendant Keitel; for it is their departments who made these proposals, and we know that these proposals were agreed to.
THE PRESIDENT: In my document book it is what?
MR. DUBOST: It is the second in the document book which was handed to the Tribunal before this session, 720-PS. S-293. We must point out the participation of foreign arrests through the OKW. It is a fact that these arrests were carried out on members of the family of General Calier who were deported. General Frere was deported and died in the concentration camp. The orders were carried out. They were approved, before being carried out, to the approbation and recommendation of the defendants, whose names I just gave you. The arrests were not only directed at the officers, but were general. They were much more extensive, and theyvaried to a great number of French officers, who were arrested. We have no exact statistics.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you produce any facts for your last statement?
M. DUBOST: I believe on the arrest of General Frere and his being in the concentration camp; I shall bring you the proof when I treat the concentration camps; of the arrest and death of several French generals in the concentration camps in Dachau, and, generally, the Tribunal still remembers the testimony of Blaha so far as the family of General Sicherheit is concerned. I shall bring this proof to you. I didn't believe it was necessary, as this was a well-known public fact, that the family of General Georges was deported. It is a matter of public knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you sure that we can take judicial notice of all the facts which may be public knowledge in France?
M. DUBOST: I shall submit to the Tribunal the supplemental proof concerning these people as soon as I receive it. It is in a camp that I will show you how he was murdered. On the other hand, there exists a document in the Document Book under No. 470, submitted as 297, which was captured from the German Armistice Commission, which establishes that the German authorities refused to free French generals who were prisoners.
as this question was concerned, an attitude of refusal, not only from the point of view of their freeing, but so far as their hospitalization in neutral countries was concerned. That is S-417, the fourth document in your document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
M. DUBOST: "As to the freeing and hospitalization today, we will now consider the Fuehrer as ordering the transfer to Germany of all French generals living in France. That was signed by Warlimont, and in the manuscript it is noted, "No reply to be given to the French". A "no" to approve this last paragraph, after the Fuehrer had ordered a transfer to Germany of all the French generals living in France. But I shall show you these arrests were surpassed by an infinite number, -- or a limited scope of generals, -- or the families of well known persons, who were envisaged by the document which I just read to the Tribunal. A very great number of French were arrested. We have no statistics, but we have an idea of the number, which is considerable according to the figures of the French, who died in the one French prison alone under a German commander and supervised by German personnel under the General Doenick occupation; that forty thousand Frenchmen died in one French prison alone in France. This is shown in a document which will be submitted later in the case against atrocities, and which I shall submit at the end of my statement, which comes from the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees, an official figure produced by the Ministry on the prison registry of the Reich Security and Custody, presented by my American Colleague and shown the Tribunal. It is on the case of custody when they read document 1723-PS, submitted under No. 266. It is useless that we should go back to this document. It is adequate to remind the Tribunal that the Prison and Security Custody were considered by the German authorities as the strongest measure destined to inform one in visit fashion of all foreigners who through mutual arrangement should neglect their attitude towards the German community, and compromise the security of the German State; they have to conform to the general interes, and to the doctrine as a disciplinary measure of the state.
remembers clearly; an arbitrary custody of arrest of those who were interned in security arrests that had no right. They could not justify themselves. There were no tribunals before which they could ask for justice. Now we know through official documents which were given to us, notably by Luxembourg, of a very abundant application of this particular custody being carried out. The Tribunal will read in Document S-229, already submitted as USA 243, S-215, a list of twenty-five persons arrested and placed in different concentration camps under protective custody. Tribunal to the case of the arrest of Ludwig, because he was strongly suspected of having aided deserters. Bottom of the page. The testimony of the application of protective custody in France is given in our Document RS-300, submitted under No. 300, which follows in your document book.
THE PRESIDENT: 278.
M. DUBOST: Marked S-278 at the top, at the right. Copy marked VAA-723, Secret Minister of Foreign Affairs, Berlin, 18 September 1941. There is an error there. The date is not clear but we know it is 1941. "Relating to the report of August 30, 1941, the explanations of the military command of the 1st of August are considered in general to be satisfactory for us to reply to the French note. Here, also, we consider there is every reason to avoid any new discussion with the French concerning preventive arrest, for this discussion can only end in a clear expression of the limits of the exercise of this power by the occupying power, which is not desirable in the interest of the liberty of action of the military authorities. The signature cannot be read; and below, the Representative of Ministry of Foreign affairs at Wiesbaden -- The Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- VAA P7 236, SECRET, Weisbaden, 3 February 1941 -- 23 of September, 1941, copy." suitable time of the reply made to the French note. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was still concerned with this question of protective custody.
Affairs and according to the testimony of this Document, this document was based on a very fragile foundation; nevertheless, the Minister for Foreign affairs does not forbit it. The arrests were carried out under multiple pretexts but all these pretexts may be allied to two general ideas; they arrested them either for political reasons or for reasons of race. The arrests were individual or collective, in one case as well as in the other; the pretexts were of a political nature from 1941 on. The French established that there was a certain synchronism between the evolution of political events and the rhythm of arrest. The French Document, which is at the end of your Document Book, Document 300, will show this. Page 3 to 6.
THE PRESIDENT: At the end of the document?
M. DUBOST: At the end of the document book is found, Mr. President, a book like this one; page 3 to 6.
THE PRESIDENT: We have two documents.
M. DUBOST: Page 3 to 6. This book is a report of the Ministry of Prisoners
THE PRESIDENT: You said page 326. I only have 125 pages in the book.
M. DUBOST: Beginning at page 3 to page 6. I believe that the copy which the Tribunal has, has the same appendages as mine. We begin with page 3, a description given by the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees, the conditions under which these arrests took place, beginning in 1941, a critical period in the history of the war, since it was from 1941 that Germany was at war with the Soviet Union.
Page 7 of the German translations: "The synchronism between the evolution of political events and the rhythm of arrests is evident. The doing away between the line of demarcation between the occupied and nonoccupied zones, the establishment of groups of existence, the formation of the Marquis, the result of the Bureau of Compulsory Labor, invasion of North Africa and invasion in Normandy, obviously relates to the figure of arrests whose maximum curve is found from the period of May to August 1944, especially in the southern zone and particularly in the region of Lyon. We repeat that these arrests were carried out by the Nationals of all the categories of the German repressive system, the Gestapo in uniform or in civilian clothes, SD, the Gendarmery, particularly at the demarcation line: Wehrmacht and SS."
Page 4, second paragraph:
"The arrests took on a characteristic of collective operation. At Paris, as a result of an attempt on someone's life, the 18th Arrondissement was rounded up by the Field Gendarmery. Its inhabitants, men, women, and children could not return to their homes and spent the night "where they could find shelter, A roundup was carried on in the Arrondissement".
I don't think that it is necessary to read the following, which resulted in the arrests at the University of Clairmont-Ferrand, which the Tribunal certainly remembers, which related also to the arrests in Brittany in 1944, at the time of the invasion.
The last paragraph:
"One cannot enumerate the cities and villages where other pretexts of conspiracy for attempted crime of killing families. Then the Germans proceeded roundups within the Bureau. The Germans carried out roundups when the Bureau of Compulsory Labor no longer furnished them sufficient labor. Roundup in Grenoble, the 24th of December 1942, the day, Christmas Day. Roundup at Cluny, in March 1944. Roundup at Figeac in May 1944. Most Frenchmen who thus have been rounded up were in reality not used to work in Germany but were deported, to be interned in concentration lamps."
We might multiply the examples of these arbitrary arrests. In delving into official documents which have been submitted by Luxemburg, by Denmark, by Norway, by Holland, and by Belgium, these roundups were never justified on any juridical basis. They were never even considered as a penalty. They were always arbitrary and carried out without any apparent reason, for no apparent reason or at any rate, without any act of a Frenchman being notified as a reprisal.
Other collective arrests were made for racial reasons. They were of the same nature, they were of the same odious nature as the arrests made for political reasons. In page 5 of the official document of the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees, the Tribunal may read a fewdetails, a few odious details which were involved in these arrests. The third line at the bottom of the page. "Certain German policemen were especially entrusted to seek out Jewish persons, according to their physiognomy. They called this group 'The Brigade of Physiognomists'. This verification sometimes took place in a public way as far as men were concerned. (At the station at Nice, some were unclothed with a revolver pointed at them). The Parisians remember these roundups in their quarters. The great police buses transported old men, women and children and brought them en masse to the Velodrome D'Hiver, under dreadful hygienic conditions, before taking them to Drancy, where they awaited deportation. The roundup of the month of August 1941, has remained famous. All the exits of the subway of the 11th Arrondissement were closed and all the Jewish in that quarter were arrested and imprisoned.
The roundup of December 1941, particularly, was aimed at intellectual circles, and then there were the roundups of July 1942. All these cities in the southern zone, particularly Lyon, Grenoble, Cannes, and Nice, where numerous Jewish persons had taken refuge, became familiar with these roundups after the occupation of all France". ing. "They sought out all Jewish children who sought refuge with private citizens or with groups. In May 1944, they proceeded to arrest the children of the Colony of Eyzieux, and the arrests of children who had sought refuge in the Colonies of Ugif, in June and July 1944. I do not believe that these children were enemies of the German people." I do not know of what peril the German army might have suffered through these children.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us break off now.
(Whereupon at 1700 hours, an adjournment was called until 1000 hours the following day, 25 January 1946).
Military Tribunal, in the matter of:
25 January, 1946, 1000-1245; Lord Justice
COURT OFFICER: Your Honors, Defendants Kaltenbrunner and Streicher will be absent from this morning's session.
M. DUBOST: Yesterday I was reading from an official French document, which is in your document book. It is a report. It is a report which concerns the arrest of Jewish children in France, who were in private asylums or in public institutions where they had been put. viously, concerning the execution of orders given by the German General Staff, with the approval of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Reich, to arrest all French generals and imprison all the families of these generals, who were dissidents as far as collaboration was concerned. not require facts of public knowledge to be proved. In the enormous amount of facts which we submit to you there are many which are known but are not of public knowledge. There are some, nevertheless, which are both known and also are of public knowledge in all countries. like to remind the Tribunal of six principal points as to this deportation. In the first place, we all remember to have learned by the Allied radio that Madame Giraud, the wife of General Giraud -
THE PRESIDENT: What is it that you are going to ask us to take judicial knowledge of with reference to the deportation of General Giraud's family?
M. DUBOST: I requested, Mr. President, that the Tribunal, as far as this fact is concerned, according to the application of Article 21 of the Charter, to wit, that this provision specifies that the Tribunal will not require that facts of public knowledge be proved.
of these facts, which we consider to be of public knowledge for they are known not only in France but in America, since the American Army participated in these events.
THE PRESIDENT: The words of Article 21 are not "of public knowledge" but of "common knowledge." It is not quite the same thing.
M. DUBOST: Before me now I have the French translation of this document, which is interpreted according to the French translation: "The Tribunal will not require that facts of public knowledge --" -- "notoriete publique" is the translation.
We interpret it thus; it is not necessary to bring documentary proof or evidentiary proof of a fact which is universally known.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you say "universally known", but supposing the members of the Tribunal did not know the facts? How coult it then be taken that they were of common knowledge/The members of the Tribunal may be ignorant of the facts. At the same time it is difficult for them to take cognizance of the facts if they do not know them.
M. DUBOST: I understand, Mr. President, it is a question of fact which will be decided by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will say whether they know or do now have knowledge of these six points which I submit to them.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will retire.
(Whereupon at 1020 hours the Tribunal recessed until 1030 hours)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the facts with reference to General Giraud's deportation and the deportation of his family, although they a re very probably matters of common knowledge or of public knowledge within France, cannot be said to be of common knowledge or of public knowledge within the meaning of Article 21, which applies generally to the world. from France which state the facts with reference to the deportation of General Giraud, the matter assumes a different aspect and if there are such documents the Tribunal will, of course, consider them.
M. DUBOST: I must bring proof that the crimes committed individually by the leaders of the German police in each city and in each region of the occupied countries of the West were the execution of the central will and permanent will of the German Government, which will permit me to take up one by one the accusations of which the defendants are guilty.
This can only be done by submitting documents. You must consider as facts and as valid the depositions which I am about to read, which were collected by the American and French Army and the French Service for the Research of War Criminals. The Tribunal will excuse me if I am obliged to read numerous documents. the proof that everywhere and in every case the German police used the same methods concerning patriots who were interned. The internment, the custody or arrest took place in France in civilian prisons, which the Germans had seized or French prisons which the French had requisitioned which they occupied and French officials were forbidden to enter there. Those in custody in all these penal institutions were subject to the same regime. We shall prove this through the reading of depositions of those arrested and who were in German penal institutions in France or in the Western occupied countries. This regime was absolutely inhuman and permitted those in custody to survive under the most precarious conditions.
cup of herb tea at 7 o'clock in the morning and a ladle of soup with a small piece of bread at 17 hours. This is established by Document 555, which you will find in your document book, which we submit under the number 302.
THE PRESIDENT: I have not found the document.
M. DUBOST: The eleventh in the document book, F 555, first page of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you see, these document books are not paged or tabbed in any way. We have it now.
M. DUBOST: It is the first page of this document, second paragraph. This is an analysis of the depositions which were received. It is adquate to refer to this analysis from which we will read a few lines. Montluc, the prisoners who were taken in the round-up of the Gestapo on September 20, 1943, were stripped of all their property. The prisoners were treated in a brutal fashion. The food ration was quite insufficient. The modesty of the women was not respected. at Saint Gingolph. This deposition refers to the arrests made at Saint Gingolph, which were carried out in the month of September 1943. The witness relates on page 2, fifth paragraph, at the top of the page, number 2; after returning from the interrogation the young boys had their fingers burned by means of wadded cotton which had been dipped with gasoline.
THE PRESIDENT: Which paragraph on page 2?
M. DUBOST: The fourth paragraph -- fifth paragraph.
"On their return from the interrogation the young people had their toes burned by means of wadding, soaked with gasoline; others their ankles burned by means of a flame from a soldering lamp; others were bitten by dogs."
DR. MERKER (Counsel for Gestapo): The French prosecution submits documents which do not contain affidavits under oath and confirmations which do not show who took them. As a matter of principle I have to protest that these mere depositions of persons who did not take an oath and who didn't make whatever they had to say in the form of affidavits, should be admitted as proof.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you have to say?
DR. MERKER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear the answer from M. Dubost.
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, the Charter which admits evidence of public knowledge does not fix rules as to the way in which testimony should be received, which is submitted to you as proof. The Charter leaves one free to determine or decide as to certain documents, whether such and such a way of investigating can be accepted. is quite legal, according to the customs and usages of my country. It is obvious, in fact, that the police transcripts were received without the witnesses having given the oath. uncover war crimes must be considered as authentic proof. Article 21 says: "The Tribunal will not require that the facts of public knowledge must be proved but will take judicial notice of them. They will also consider as authentic proof the documents and official reports of the Governments of the United Nations, including those which were made by Commissions, established in different Allied Countries for investigation of war crimes, as well as the transcript of sessions and decisions of Military Tribunals or any other tribunals."
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dubost, is the document that you are reading to us either an official document or a report or is it an act or document of a Committee set up in France?
M. DUBOST: This report, Mr. President, comes from the Surete Nationale. You can establish that by examining the second sheet of the copy which you have in your hand, at the top to the left: "General Direction of the Surete Nationale." That is the top to the left, the second page: "Special Commissariat of Saint Gingolph."
THE PRESIDENT: May we see the original document?
M. DUBOST: Certainly. This document was submitted to the Clerk of the Tribunal. The Clerk or Secretary only has to bring that document to you.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Is this a certified copy?
M. DUBOST: Yes, it is a certified copy. It is a copy which is certified by the Director of the Cabinet of the War Ministry.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dubost, I am told that the French Prosecutors have all the original documents and are not depositing them in the way which was done by the other Prosecutors.
Is that so?
M. DUBOST: The French Prosecutor submitted the originals of yesterday's session, and they were handed over this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we wish to see the original document. We understand it is in the hands of the French Secretary. We should like to see it.
M. DUBOST: I shall send for it, Mr. President.
(A document was submitted to the Tribunal).
M. DUBOST: This document is a certified copy of the original, which is preserved in the archives of the French War Crimes Commission. This certification was made, on the one hand, by the French Delegate of the Public Prosecution. You will see the signature of M. De Menthon, and it is certified also by the Director of the Cabinet of the Minister of Justice, M. Jombeau, with the official seal of the Ministry of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: It does appear to be a governmental document. It is the act and document of a committee set up by France for the investigation of war crimes, is it not?
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, it is a document which comes from the general direction of the Surete Nationale, which was established by the French Committee for the Search for War Crimes. the Cabinet of the Ministry of Justice in Paris.
THE PRESIDENT: I was not upon the question of whether it was a true copy or not; the question I was upon was whether or not it was, within Article 21, either a governmental document or a report of the United Nations, or a document of a committee set up in France for the investigation of war crimes. I was asking you whether it is, and it appears to be so. It is, is it not?
M. DUBOST: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything to what you have said, M. Dubost?
M. DUBOST: No, I have nothing to add.
THE PRESIDENT: You may speak now, sir.
DR. MERKER: These reports are not reports of a government, and cannot be considered as such. They are only minutes which have been taken by police authorities, and are thus not at all authentic declarations of a government or a government agency. police authorities have not been taken under oath, and I have to protest that they are introduced here and considered as proof.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wash to add anything further?
DR. MERKER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is M. Binaud? J. Binaud?
M. DUBOST: He is the police inspector of the special police, who was attached to the special commissariat of Saint Gingolph. said this was a petty police office. This is not true. This was a very important police service, which was a border service. Even though they are found in small towns, they are still part of a very important police service.
M. DUBOST: M. Dubost, you understand what the problem is? It is a question of the interpretation of Article 21. The Tribunal requires your assistance upon that interpretation, as to whether this document does come under the terms of Article 21. If you have anything to say upon that subject we will be glad to hear it.
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, it seems to me impossible that the Tribunal should not receive this document and documents such as this, for all these document bear, for authentication, not only the signatures of the French Government, but of the Delegate of the Ministry of Justice for War Crimes.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell us where the signatures are.
M. DUBOST: There is here, sir (indicating on document), a mention of that. This document was handed over by the French Ministry as a proof of the Service concerned with the seeking out of war crimes, and below is the signature of the Director of the Cabinet of the French Ministry of Justice. And you find, over this signature, the seal of the Ministry of Justice.
You read: "The Service for the Research of Enemy War Crimes."
THE PRESIDENT: Is this the substance of the matter, that there was an inquiry by the police?
Can't you hear? Is my voice not coming through to you, or is the translation not coming through to you.
M. DUBOST: The translation has not been completed.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't complete the sentence. What I was asking was this. Is this the substance of the matter, that there was an inquiry by the police into these facts, and that police inquiry was recorded, and then the Minister of Justice, for the purposes of this Trial, adopted that police report?
Is that the substance of it?
M. DUBOST: That is correct, Mr. President. I think that we are in agreement. The Service for the Research of Enemy War Crimes in France is directly attached to the Ministry of Justice. It carries out investigations. These investigations are made by the police authorities, such as M. Binaud, the inspector of special police, attached to the special commissariat of Saint Gingolph.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know when the Service of Inquiry into War Crimes was established.
M. DUBOST: I cannot, from my memory, give you the exact answer, or the exact date, but this Service was established in France shortly after the liberation. Beginning in October of 1944, they already functioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it established after the police report was made?
M. DUBOST: In the month of September.
THE PRESIDENT: September of what year?
M. DUBOST: In September, 1944, this Service for the Inquiry into Enemy War Crimes in France was established. This Service gave orders -
THE PRESIDENT: Then the Police inquiry was held under the Service? You see, the police report is dated -- I think it would be better if you kept your earphones on. The police report is dated the 9th of October, and therefore the police report appears to have been made after the Service had been set up. Is that right?
M. DUBOST: You have the testimony, Mr. President. If you look at the top of the second page at the left, it shows the beginning of the testimony: "Purpose: Investigation of atrocities committed by Germans against the civilian population." into War Crimes.
THE. PRESIDENT: Yes. It appears, though, as if the Service was established in September, and this police investigation is dated the 9th of October.
(Whereupon a recess was taken from 1105 to 1130 hours)