The
MARSHAL OF THE COURT: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that defendants Kaltenbrunner and Seyss-Inquart will be absent from this morning's session on account of illness.
M. DUBOST: I have new completed my presentation of facts. This presentation consisted of a wide enumeration of crimes, atrocities, exactions of all sorts, which I deliberately presented to you without any auditory embellishment. Facts are deeply eloquent and are sufficient in themselves.
These facts are, so it seems to me, definitely established. I do not believe that the defense, or even history, even German history, will be able to set aside their essential aspects. They will no doubt be exposed to criticisms. Our evidence was history collected, in a country that is ruined, whose every means of communication had been destroyed by an enemy in flight, in a country where each individual has been more concerned with the preparation of the future than with looking back upon the past, even to exact vengeance, for the future is the life of our children, and the past is but filled with death and destruction. For all of France, for every country in the West, the demands of daily life, the difficulty in preparing better days, once again give its full meaning to the disillusioned statement of the scripture, "Simite mortuos sepellire mortues" ("Let the dead bury the dead"), and that is why in spite of all our efforts, of all our endeavor to prepare the work of justice which France and universal conscience are demanding, that is why we were not able to be more thorough, why errors of details possibly slipped into our work. But the rectification which time and the defense will affect shall be merely accessory. They will not eliminate the fact that millions of men have been deported, famished, exhausted through labor and privation before being put to death like worthless cattle; they will not eliminate the fact that countless innocent creatures have been tortured before being turned over to the executioner.
Rectifications may reiterate certain circumstances of time, sometimes of place, -- they will not change anything in the essential aspect of the facts even if a few details are modified. still complete our task by giving them juridical significance, by analyzing them by references to the law of which they constitute a violation, and by making clear the implications, -- in other words, by fixing the responsibilities of each defendant in respect to the law.
What law shall we apply? ceived, willed, and ordered them as a means of achieving domination through terror, and beyond that as means of extermination pure and simple, these facts constitute a common law crime as much as a violation of the laws and usages of war and of International Law. All of than could therefore be quoted separately as a violation and of an international convention and of a penal prescription of one or the other of our positive internal laws. Even more, all could be called as constituting a violation of a rule of that common law which emerges from each of our own domestic laws as shown by M. de Menthon in his address; of that common law which in the last analysis was proposed by him as being the foundation, as the root of international customs, which beyond the Charter itself is and remains the one guide of your decisions. positive internal jurisprudence chiefly condemns material acts. Now, all of our defendants remained physically divorced from each of the criminal facts which in the ubiquity of their power they multiplied throughout the world. It was their will which commanded, but as Mr. Justice Jackson recalled they never did redden their own hands with the blood of their victims. Therefore, if we were to refer exclusively to our positive jurisprudence -- and specifically to French domestic law -- the defendants could not, in any case, be considered as principle authors, but merely as accomplices "who have provoked the act through abuse of authority or of power." All of that is indeed in contradiction with the idea which each man in our nations has of the guilt of the major war criminals.
responsibility of each of the defendants. This responsibility would appear as merely accessory, where it is, in fact, a principal responsibility; it would appear fragmentary, whereas to be truly determined it must be presented at one single time, and in its entirety, present in their minds, in their intent, and their acts as leaders of the Nazi government who conceived, willed, ordered or tolerated the unfolding of the systematic policy of terrorism and of extermination of which each fact, taken separately as but a single aspect; and is merely a constituting element. Thus a reference purely and simply to common law does not bring us close enough to reality. If it does not omit as such, any of the facts to which guilt attaches, it does leave aside the psychological factor and does not give us a complete conception of the guilt of the accused in a single formula embracing all of reality. which is accepted by civilized nations as the law far relationship among citizens. Profoundly imbued with the concept of individualism this common law is not adequate to meet the requirements of collective life which international morality must determine. That is because once mare this common jurisprudence law which is the foundation of our tradition, has been held static in a cartesian sense, whereas your custom remains enriched by all the dynamism of international penal law. juridical sense the facts which I have presented before you. In creating your tribunal the authors of the Charter limited themselves with establishing the limits of jurisdiction: war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace; and even then they did not give an exhaustive definition of each of these crimes. Will the Tribunal refer on this point to Article 6, paragraphs B and C of the Charter of the Tribunal. This article merely gives an indicative enumeration. That is because the authoris of the Charter remember that penal international law is still only in the first phase in the birth of a custom, in which law is developed by reaction to fact, and where the judge appears only to save the criminals from individual vengeance, or where law is spoken only by the judge and the penalty rests only on the conscience of the judge.
Thus, the authors of the Charter did abstain from defining for us a fixed mode for qualifications, but reference to common law or on the contrary a custom. They did not say to you:
"You will take the criminal facts submitted to you one by one, and each fact taken separately will be isolated from the other facts, to be defined by reference to a stipulation of any one domestic jurisprudence or to a synthesis of internal law, yielding thus a common jurisprudence."
Nor did they say to you:
"You will take these scattered criminal facts, you will group them together to make of than one single crime, the definition of which, by a broad respective of the rules of common law, will be essentially determined by the single intention or purpose sought, without attempting to seek by anology any precedents in the different domestic laws which apply moreover, to an entirely different subject:
limits of custom and by way of consequence we ourselves have been left free, within the same limitations, we have been left free to propose to you such definition or qualification which may appear to you the most practical, which may appear to you to come closest to the changing reality of facts in their relation with general principles of law and the broad rules of morality which may seem to us to be such as to meet best the demands of human conscience expressed by international public opinion duly enlightened on Hiterlian atrocities and which will in fact remain within the limits of international penal customs. This custom is indeed still in a formulative stage, but if this trial is without precedent, the problems that are being examined in this court have already been posed before the jurists who preceded us have already given them solutions. These solutions constitute precedents, and as such they constitute the first elements of your custom. In his memorandum to the commission on the responsibility of the authors of the war and on sanctions (Peace Conference of 1919-20) Mr. Larnaude, French jurist, spoke as follows:
"Criminal law could not foresee that through a singular defiance of the essential laws of humanity, of civilization, of honor, an army could systematically in consequence of the very instructions of its sovereign yield itself to perpetrate the actions through which the enemy did not hesitate to seek victory without success. Never before than has internal criminal law been able to prepare provisions which would permit the refreshing of such acts. And still one must, in the interpretation of every law, cling to the intention of the law maker...if in a few specific cases particularly auspicious one might succeed in seizing individuals bearing responsibility and of whom the Emperor could, by extention be considered as an coomplice, one would only suceed, and not without difficulty to narrow the responsibility which he bears by limiting such responsibility to a few precise cases..it is a very restrictive approach to the problem of William II; it is equivalent to diminishing it and bring it to the proportions of a criminal case or a court-martial case . . . the higher justice which an anxious world awaits would not thus be satisfied.
Thus, if the German Emperor were judged only as an accomplice or even as co-author of a common law crime, his actions as Chief of State must be considered in conformity with their true juridical character . . ." in the last paragraph of Article 6 of the Tribunal:
"Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan."
That is, crimes against peace, crimes of war, crimes against humanity. German concept of the "Fuehrertum," which places responsibility on the leaders and on those who are at the beginning with the leaders, at their very source of impulses. the Charter of 8 August and Article 6 of the Charter of your Tribunal, by respecting the rules of common law defined by the Chief of our delegation, M. de Menthon and by following the custom, the international custom, which is now beginning to develop in the field of international penal law, to require of your Tribunal to declare allthe defendants guilty of having in their role as principle Hitlerian leaders of the German people, conceived, willed, ordered or merely tolerated by their silence that assassinations or other inhuman acts should be systematically committed, that violent treatment should be systematically imposed on Prisoners of War or on civilians, that devastations without justification should be systematically committed as a deliberate instrument for the accomplishment of their purpose of dominating Europe and the world through terrorism and of exterminating entire population in order to extend the living-space of the German people.
having taken part in the execution of this design by ordering the seizure and the execution of hostages, in violation of Article 50 of the Convention of the Hague which prohibits collective sanctions and reprisals. and Ribbentrop guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan. death followed of members of the resistance. part in the execution of this plan by exposing the health and the lives of Prisoners of War notably by submitting them to privations and hard treatments by exposing them or by attempting to expose them to bombings or other risks of war. taken part in the execution of this plan, by ordering personally or by provoking the formulation of orders which tendered to achieve the terroristic assassinations or the lynching by the population of certain combatants, more specifically of airmen and members of Commando groups as well as the terroristic assassination or the slow extermination of certain categories of Prisoners of War. by proscribing the deportation of innocent civilians and by applying to some of them the "N.N." regime which designated them to extermination. by ordering the arrest with the view of deportation of the Jews in Denmark. Hess guilty of having taken part in the execution of this plan, by justifying the extermination of the Jews or by establishing a statute to be applied to them with a view to their extermination.
control of the State Police. by tolerating and approving fatal physiological experiments on the effect of cold, increasing or decreasing pressure, which experiments were conducted by Professor Rascher with material provided by the Luftwaffe and controlled by Prof. Rascher, in the concentration camp of Dachau on deportees who were involuntary subjects for the said experiments, and as a chief he associated himself with these experiments. under inhuman conditions in the armament factories of the Luftwaffe. by employing in large numbers the internees for exhausting labor under inhuman conditions in the armament factories. by participating in the extermination of internees in concentration camps. we associate ourselves with the conclusions of our British and American colleagues. in accordance with the stipulation of Article 9 of the Charter of your Tribunal, to find the OKW and the OKH guilty of the execution of this plan by having ordered and participated in the deportation of innocent civilians from the occupied countries in the West.
plan by participating in the formation of the doctrine of hostages as a terroristic means and by prescribing the seizure and execution of hostages in the countries of the West, by bringing to a degrading level the material conditions of living of Prisoners of War, by depriving the latter of the guarantees granted them by international custom and by positive international law, by ordering or by tolerating the employment of Prisoners of War in dangerous labor or in labor directly connected with military operations. By ordering the execution of escaped prisoners or prisoners attempting to escape and the execution of numerous groups of commandos, by giving the SS and SD directives for the extermination of airmen. plan. for exhaustive labor under inhuman conditions in the armament factories of the Luftwaffe. effect of cold, increasing or decreasing pressure, which experiments were carried out for the benefit of the Luftwaffe and conducted by Dr. Rascher, a doctor of the Luftwaffe, who was attached to the concentration camp at Dachau. having deported and participated in the deportation of innocent civilians from the occupied countries in the West and by having tortured them and exterminated them by every means in concentration camps. plan by having given direct orders for the execution or the deportation with a view to their slow extermination; of members of commando groups, airmen, escaped prisoners; those who refused to accept forced labor, or those who were rebellious against the Nazi order; by forbidding any repression of acts of lynching committed by the German population on airmen brought down. having executed without trial members of the resistance.
OKH, in collusion with the SS, the SD, and the Gestapo, guilty of having committed or ordered massacres and devastations without justification. this plan by the deportation of innocent civilians from the countries of the West by the tortures and assassinations which were inflicted on them.
To find the government of the Reich (Reichs Regierung) and the Leadership Corps of the National Socialist Party guilty of having, for the purpose of dominating Europe and the world, conceived, prepared and participated in the systematic extermination of innocent civilians from the occupied countries of the West through their deportation and their assassination in concentration camps, and of having taken part in it. government of the Reich guilty of having for the purpose of dominating Europe and the world through terrorism, conceived systematically and provoked tortures, summary executions, massacres and devastation without cause as described above. Leaders of the Nazi Party guilty of having for the purpose of dominating Europe and the World conceived, prepared and participated in the extermination of combatants who had been brought to their mercy, in the demoralization of extensive exploitations and the extermination of prisoners of war. honor of submitting to you. But a few lessons emerge from these facts. May the Tribunal permit me to state them in conclusion. vanquished, their enslavement and their annihilation through misery, through hunger, and through steel and fire. It is because a message of brotherhood had been given to the world and the world could not forget entirely this message even in the midst of the horrors of war. From generation to generation we observed an effort upward ever since this message of peace had been given. We were confident that it was without any thought of retracing a step, that man had taken the road of moral progress; that formed the part of the common heritage of civilized nations.
All nations revered equally good faith in relationships amongst individuals. All of them had come to accept good faith as the law of their mutual relationship. The international morality was little by little emerging and international relationship, like relations between individuals, was more and more coming under obedience of the three precepts of the classical Roman jurists! "honneste vivere alterum non laedere, suum quique tribuere." from a long tradition of Christianity and liberalism added on this common heritage and achieved at the price of hard experience. Each nation enlightened by the properly-conceived interests of man was coming to understand that in public affairs as well as in private affairs loyalty, moderation, mutual aid were the golden rules which none could transgress indefinitely and with impunity. The defeat, the catastrophe which has fallen upon Germany confirm us in this thought and gives only more meaning and more clarity to the solemn warning addressed to the American people by President Roosevelt in his address of 27 May 1940:
"Although our Navy, our guns and our planes are the first line of defense, it is certain that back of all of that there is a spirit and the morality of a free people, which gives to their material defense power, support and efficiency . . . " it was indeed those who could rest their strength upon law, nourish it with justice, who won out, but because we have followed step by step the development of the criminal madness of the defendants and the consequences of that madness throughout these last years, we must conclude that the patrimony of man, of which we are the recipients, is frail indeed; that all regressions are possible and that we must with care watch over this heritage. There is not a nation who ill-educated, badly led by bad masters, would not in the long run revert to the barbarity of the early ages. and musicians we like, whose application to their task we admire, and who was not without giving example of probity in the most noble works of the spirit; these German people which came rather late to civilization, beginning only with the eighth century, had slowly raised themselves to the ranks of nations possessing an older culture.
The contributions to modern or contemporary thought seemed to prove that this conquest of this spirit was final -- Kant, Goethe, Jean-Sebastian Bach belonged to humanity just as much as Calvin, Dante or Shakespeare, and still we behold the fact that millions of innocent men have been exterminated on the very soil of these people, by the men of these people, in execution of a common plan conceived by their leaders, and these people had not a single gesture of revolt. That is what has become of them because they have scorned the virtue of political freedom, of civic equality, of human fraternity. This is what has become of them, because they had forgotten that all men are born free and equal before the law; that the essential action of the State has for its purpose to introduce more and more deeply the respect of spiritual liberty and of fraternal solidarity in social relationships and in international institutions. very souls. Evil masters have come who awakened their primitive passions and made possible the atrocities which I have described before you. In truth, the crime of these men is to have caused the German people to retrogress twelve centuries. Their crime is to have conceived and achieved as an instrument of government a policy of terrorism toward the whole of the subjugated nations and toward their own people; their crimes is to have pursued as an end in its policy of extermination of entire categories of harmless citizens. That alone would suffice to determine capital punishment. And still, the French prosecution represented by M. Faure, intends to present proof of another crime; the crime of attempting to "exterminate from the world certain concepts which are liberty, independence, security of nations, but which are also called faith in the word 'pledge' and respect of the human person . . ." The crime of having attempted to kill the very soul, the spirit of France and of the other occupied nations in the West. We consider that that crime is the gravest crime committed by these men, the gravest because it is written in the Scriptures, Matthew, XII, 31-32:" ......all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy unto the Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men. Whosoever speaketh against the Spirit it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. For the tree is known by its fruit. Race of vipers, how could ye speak good words when ye are evil ......."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
M. EDGAR FAURE: Mr. President, Honorable Judges: I have the honor of submitting before the Tribunal the concluding statement of the French Prosecution. This presentation relates more particularly to the letters J and I of Count No. 3 of the Accusation, Germanization, Oath of Allegiance, moreover, to letter B of Count No. 4, Persecutions for Political, racial and religious reasons. idea which will orient the plan of my presentation. The concept of Germanization has been stated in the presentation of Monsieur de Menthon. It consists essentially in imposing upon the inhabitants of occupied territories forms for their political and social lives such as the Nazis have developed them, according to their own doctrine and for their own profit. The combined activities which carry out the Germanization or which have Germanization for their purpose and which are illegal acts have been defined as a criminal enterprise against the condition of mind. territories which were annexed to the Reich. The Germans intended even before the end of the war to integrate these territories into their country. These territories, annexed as they were and therefore Germanized in an absolute manner, are the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Belgian cantons of Eupen and Malmedy and the three French departments of Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin and the Moselle. if one considers the regions occupied by the Germans. This in no wise limits the reprehensible character of these annexations. But moreover we should note at this point two essential aspects of our subject. The first of these aspects or propositions: The Germans had conceived and prepared more extensive annexations than those which they had in fact carried out officially. Because it was not to be done at the time, they did not proceed with these planned annexations during the period of time at their disposal. The second proposition, moreover, the annexation was not the unique or necessary procedure of Germanization.
The Germans discovered that they could employ different means and varied means to achieve their purpose of universal domination. The selection of the means according to circumstances which vary, in order to attain and to hide an identical result, was one of the characteristics of what has been called the Machiavellism of the Nazis. Their conception is technically much more pliable, more clever and more dangerous then the classical conception of war of territorial conquest. In this connection, the most brutal conqueror has in regard to them the advantage at least of being frank and open. extensive territory. There are numerous indications on this point that can be gathered. I would like to give you only two citations. The first of these is taken from the Documentation collected by our colleagues of the American Prosecution in regard to an American document which has not yet been submitted before the Tribunal. I should say in addition that in my own statement I shall only refer twice to the American documentations. All the other documents which I shall sub twill be new documents which will be produced by the French prosecution. The document of which I speak now is Document No. 1155-PS, of the American documents, and it appears in the dossie of the documents submitted to you under No. 601. It will be submitted to the Tribunal under that number for French documentation.
This document is dated Berlin, 20 June 1940. It bears the notation. Secretary General Staff Document. Its title is, "Note for the Dossier's File, Concerning the Conversation of 19 June 1940, at the Headquarters of General Field Marshal Goering." The notes which are included in this document reflect therefore the views of the leaders and not individual interpretations. I would like to read before the Tribunal only paragraph 6 of that document, which is to be found on page 3. It is the first document, bearing No. 601. I proceed with the reading of paragraph 6:
"General plans in regard to political development.
"Luxembourg is to be annexed to the Reich. Norway is to become German. Alsace-Lorraine is to be re-incorporated into the Reich. An autonomous Breton state is to be created.
Projects have been presented concerning Belgium, and the fate to be given to the Flemish in that country, as well as the creation of a State of Burgundy." refers to a French document which I place before you under No. 602. This document comprises the minutes of the interrogatories of Dr. Globke, a former assistant of the Secretary of State, Dr. Stuckart, in the Ministry of the Interior. It is dated 25 September 1945. This questioning was collected by a Commandant of the French Judiciary Service. In the minutes -- or to the minutes -- there has been added a memorandum which was delivered following the questioning by Dr. Globka. I read a passage from this interrogatory, at the beginning of the document, paragraph 1.
"Question: Have you any knowledge of any plans which envisage the annexation of other French territories at the time of the conclusion of peace Belfort-Nancy, the de Brisy Basin, the coalfields of the north, the so-called "Red Zone", territories attached to the general government of Belgium?
"Answer: Yes, these plans did exist. They were formulated by Dr. Stuckard, upon a personal instruction of the Fuehrer, and I have Seen them. They were communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the OKW and to the Armistice in Wiesbaden. All these documents have been destroyed, at least so claims Dr. Globke. The Secretary of State, Mr. Stuckard, brought a preliminary project to the headquarters of the Fuehrer before the launching of the Russian Campaign -- in 1940.
After examination the Fuehrer thought that this project was too moderate and he gave instruction that it should extend to other territories, specifically along the Channel. Dr. Stuckard then prepared a second draft and there was even a map drawn up in headquarters therewith, in which the approximate borders were indicated. I have seen it and I can show it to you roughly on a map of France -- large-scale map of France. I do not know whether this second plan was approved by Hitler."
I now read a passage from the memorandum. It is annexed to the minates just cited.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you tell us who Dr. Globke was?
M. FAURE: Mr. President, he is the assistant of Dr. Stuckard who was Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He was designated as drafting officer for matters concerning Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and had been there since 1940.
I now read a passage from the memorandum annexed thereto. This appears in your Document Book immediately after the passage I have just read. Still under No. 602. I am now reading paragraph 6 of the memorandum in question. It is the beginning of the document before your eyes.
"The project of moving the Franco-German border was elaborated upon in the Ministry of Interior by the Secretary of State von Stuckard, upon order given to him personally by Hitler. This plan envisaged that the territories in the North and the East of France which for any pretended historical background, political, racial, geographical reasons or any other reason whatsoever, could be considered as not belonging to Western Europe but to Central Europe, were to be given back to Germany. A first draft was submitted to Hitler at his headquarters and it was approved by him in its entirety. Hitler nevertheles indicated his desire -
THE PRESIDENT: The typing of these documents has got mixed, because our copy of this part of the documentation after translating into English reads, "After examination, the Fuehrer found this project too moderate and ordered it to extend to other territories, notably to the length of the Channel." I think there must be a miscopying there, if what you read is right.
M. FAURE: I ask the Tribunal to excuse me. There is indeed a paragra which has been omitted in the dossier which is entitled "Presentation", which is before your eyes. But if the Tribunal is willing -
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could give us a corrected copy afterwards. If you continue your reading now, perhaps you could let the Tribunal have the corrected copy afterwards.
M. FAURE: I shall not fail to do that, Mr. President.
DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): The Defense has not received these documents at all! Consequently, even today we are in a poor position to follow the presentation. Above all, we are not in a position to know whether the formal pre-suppositions on which the case is based are really founded in fact.
THE PRESIDENT: Monsieur Faure, is that correct, that none of these documents have been deposited in the Defense information Centre?
M. FAURE: They have been deposited, Mr. President. They were deposited with two photostat copies in the Document Centre of the Defendants' Counsel. Moreover, before I complete my statement, I am sure that the Defense Counsel will have all opportunity to study this very brief document and to submit any corrections which it may wish to supply, but I can give you formal assusrance that those documents were delivered.
THE PRESIDENT: What assurance can you give me that the orders which the Tribunal has given have been carried?
M. FAURE: The documents have been delivered to Defense Counsel in accordance with instruction and true photostat copies have been delivered in the Document Room of the Defense. These documents are in the German language, which should greatly facilitate the task of Defense Counsel. In fact, the interrogation was taken in the German language by the Officer of the French Judiciary Services.
THE PRESIDENT: You have heard what M. Faure has said.
DR. STAHMER: I should certainly not raise any objections of these documents really were in our Document Room and at our disposal. This morning I looked into the matter along with Dr. Steinbauer and made an effort to deter mine whether the documents were really there.
We could not find out. Dr. Steinbauer can verify that we could not find the documents. I cannot tell, of course, whether they may not have come in the meantime.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has stated on a variety of occasions that they attach a great importance to the documents being deposited in the Defendants' Information Centre and copies supplied in accordance with the regulations which they have laid down. Whether that has been done on this occasion, is disputed by Dr. Stahmer. The Tribunal proposes therefore to have the matter investigated as soon as possible and to see exactly whether the rules have been carried out or not. And in future they hope that they will be carried out with the greatest strictness. In the meantime, I think it will be most convenient for you to continue.
M. FAURE: The Defendant's Counsel tells me that the documents are in the Defense Counsel Room, but they have not yet been distributed. I therefore insist upon the fact that the orders were fully respected, but because of the burden of work it may be that they may not have individually received these documents. In any event, I was prepared to submit immediately to Defense Counsel most definitely concerned with this, photostat copies which would enable them to follow my reading of the documents, which, incidentally, are quite brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will have the facts investigated. And in the meantime, you can continue. The Marshal of the Court will immediately find out and report to the Tribunal what the facts are, about the deposition of the documents and the time at which they were deposited. In the meantime you can continue, and we shall be glad if you will assist the Defense Counsel by giving them any copies you may have available.
M. FAURE: I was saying, then, Document 602, which is annexed to the memorandum -- will the Tribunal be kind enough to follow the reading of this document and if you would kindly take the book entitled "Expose" or "Presentation", and turn to page 6 thereof, the passage is given there. The passage which I now read is the last paragraph of page 6 of the book entitled "Expose" or "Presentation."
THE PRESIDENT: Is it Expose on Luxembourg or Alsace-Lorraine?
M. FAURE: It is entitled "introduction."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the last page.
THE INTERPRETER: Page 6, Your Honor.
M. FAURE: Mr. President, you indicated to me a while ago that in the document book a sentence had been skipped. I was therefore asking you to take the text of may presentation where the said sentence is included in the text, in order to avoid any error in this connection.
It is entitled, "Introduction," Presentation, page 6, third and last paragraph:
"A first draft was made to Hitler at his headquarters and it was approved by him in its entirety. Hitler, however, expressed his desire to see allocated to Germany fractions of more extensive areas of territory, in particular along the coast of the Channel. The final draft which was to serve as the basis for future discussions with the departments of the Governments concerned, these discussions did not take place. The approximate outline of the frontier which was considered then started from the mough of the Somme, went along the northern limits of the Parisian Basin, and Champagne, up to the Argonne, then curved to the South, crossing Burgundy and incorporated Franche Comte, finally joining the Lake of Geneva. Various discussions were envisaged for a few provinces." measures having to do with the territories in question, measures which might be designated pro-annexation measures.
I come now to the second proposal which I referred to a while ago. With or without annexation, the Germans had in mind to take and maintain under their domination all the occupied countries. As a netter of fact, their will was to Germanize and to Nazify all of Western Europe and even the African Continent. This intention of theirs is clear from the very fact that the conspiracy which has been so completely developed before the Tribunal by my colleagues of the American Prosecution, as will be shown by the applications of it which were made, and the principal of which will be traced in this statement. I merely wanted to recall to the Tribunal this general point that the purpose of Germanic domination is defined according to the German interpretation itself in a public diplomatic document, which is the "Tripartite Pact of 27 September 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan. In this connection I would like to quote before the Tribunal a few sentences of a comment given in connection with this treaty by an official German author, von Freytagh-Loringhoven, a member of the Reichstag, who wrote a book on the foreign policy of Germany from 1933 to 1941. This book was published in a French translation in Paris at the editing house of Sorlot under the Occupation. I don't want to submit this as a document but merely as a quotation from a public work, which book is here in your hands.