CONTENTS

Morning Session

M. HENRY DELPECH (Assistant Prosecutor for the French
Republic): Mr. President, Your Honors, I had the honor yesterday
of beginning to explain before the Tribunal the methods of
economic spoliation of Belgium by the Germans in the course of
their occupation of the country.

Coming back to what was said in the course of the general
considerations on economic pillage and on the behavior of the
Germans in Norway and Denmark and in Holland, I have been
able to show that in all places the determination to economic
domination of National Socialism had manifested itself. The methods
were the same everywhere, at least in their broad outlines. Therefore
in immediate response to the wish expressed yesterday by the
Tribunal and to fulfill the mission entrusted to the French Prosecution
by the Belgian Government to plead its case before your
high jurisdiction, I shall confine myself to the main outlines of
the development, and I shall take the liberty of referring to the
details of the German seizure of Belgian production, to the text of
the report submitted to the Tribunal, and to the numerous documents
which are quoted in our document book.

I have had the honor of calling your attention to the existence
of the black market in Belgium, its organization by the occupation
troops, and their final decision to suppress this black market. One
may, with respect to this, conclude, as has already been indicated
in the course of the general observations, that in spite of their
claims it was not in order to avoid inflation in Belgium that the
German authorities led a campaign against the black market.

The day the Germans decided to suppress the black market,
they loudly proclaimed their anxiety to spare the Belgian
economy and the Belgian population the very serious consequences
of the threatening inflation. In reality, the German authorities
intervened against the black market in order to prevent its ever-growing
extension from reaching the point where it would absorb
all the available merchandise and completely strangle the official
market. In a word, the survival of the official market with its
lower prices was finally much more profitable for the army of
occupation.

I now come, gentlemen, to Page 46 of my presentation, to the
third Chapter—purchases which were regular in appearance; which
had only one aim, namely the subjugation of Belgian productive
power.

Carrying out their program of domination of the countries of
Western Europe as it had been established since before 1939, the
Germans, from the moment they entered Belgium in May 1940,
took all the measures which seemed to them appropriate to assure
the subjugation of Belgian production.

No sector of Belgian economy was to be spared. If the pillage
seems more noticeable in the economic sphere, that is only because
of the very marked industrial character of Belgian economy.
Agriculture and transport were not to escape the German hold,
and I propose to discuss first the levies in kind in industry.

Belgian industry was the first to be attacked. Thus, the military
commander in Belgium, in agreement with the various offices of
the Reich for raw materials and with the Office of the Four Year
Plan and the Ministry of Economics, drew up a program the purpose
of which was to convert almost the whole of Belgian production
to the bellicose ends of the Reich. Already on the 13th
of September 1940 he was able to make known to the higher
authorities a series of plans for iron, coal, textiles, and copper.
I submit Exhibit Number RF-162 (Document Number ECH-2) in
support of this statement.

Also a report by Lieutenant Colonel, Dr. Hedler, entitled “Change
in Economic Direction,” states that from 14 September 1940 the
Army Ordnance Branch sent to its subordinate formations the
following instructions, to be found in the document book under
Exhibit Number RF-163 (Document Number ECH-84). I read the
last paragraph of Page 41 of the German text:

All these arrangements quickly enabled the Germans to control
and to direct Belgium’s whole production and distribution for the
German war effort.

The decree of 27 May 1940, VOBEL Number 2, submitted as
Document Number RF-164, established commodity control offices
whose task was—and I quote from the third paragraph:

Article 4 of the same text indicated in detail the powers of
these commodity control offices, and in particular they were given
the right:

To conceal more effectively their real objective, the Germans
gave these commodity control offices independence and the status
of a corporation. Thus, there were set up 11 commodity control
offices which embraced the whole economy except coal, the
direction of which was left under the Belgian Office of Coal.
Exhibit Number RF-165 (Document Number ECH-3), gives proof
of this.

The execution of the regulations was ensured by a series of
texts promulgated by the Belgian authorities in Brussels. They
issued in particular a decree dated 3 September 1940, by virtue
of which Belgian organizations took over again the offices which the
Germans gave up.

These offices were to experience various vicissitudes. Although
originating from the Belgian Ministry of Economics, they were
closely controlled by the German military command. In this way,
the seizure of Belgian production was completed by the appointment
of “Commissioners of Enterprises,” under the ordinance of 29 April
1941, submitted as Document Number RF-166. Article 2 of this text
defines the powers of the commissioners:

The decline of the commodity control offices began with an
ordinance dated 6 August 1942, establishing the principle providing
for the prohibition of manufacturing certain products or for ordering
the use of certain raw materials. This ordinance is to be found in
the document book under Document Number RF-167. Supervision
of the commodity control offices was soon organized by the

appointment to each of them of a German Commissioner, selected
by the competent Reichsstelle.

From the last months of 1943 on, the “Rüstungsobmann” Office
of the Armament and War Production Ministry (Speer), acquired
the habit of passing its orders direct, without having recourse to
the channel of the commodity control offices.

Even before this date measures had been taken to prevent any
initiative that was not in accord with the German war aims. Further
and even before the above ordinance of 6 August 1942, the ordinance
of 30 March 1942 should be mentioned, which made the establishment
or extension of commercial enterprises subject to previous
authorization by the military commissioner.

In the report of the military administration in Belgium that has
already been cited, the chief of the administrative staff, Reeder,
specifies in Exhibit Number RF-169 (Document Number ECH-335)
that for the period of January to March 1943 alone, out of 2,000
iron works, 400 were closed down for working irrationally or being
useless to the war aims. The closing of these factories seems to
have been caused less by the concern for a rational production than
by the cunning desire to obtain cheaply valuable tools and machines.

In this connection, it is appropriate to point to the establishment
of a Machine Pool Office. The above quoted report of the military
administration in Belgium, in the 11th section, Pages 56 and following,
is particularly significant in this respect. Here is an extract
from the German text, the last lines of the last paragraph of
Page 56, in the French translation, the last lines . . .

THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): That
passage you read about the Defendant Raeder, was that from
Document 169 or 170?

M. DELPECH: Mr. President, I spoke yesterday of the chief of
the administration section, Reeder. He was section chief in Brussels.
He has no connection with the defendant here.

THE PRESIDENT: I see, very well.

M. DELPECH: Exhibit Number RF-171 (Document Number
ECH-10), second paragraph of the French text. The paragraph
concerns the Machine Pool transactions:

Reeder then gave a number of figures. I shall pass over these and
I come to the end of the first paragraph, Page 57 in the German text:

I pass to the end of this quotation:

Such an interpretation may leave jurists wondering, who have
not been trained in the school of National Socialism. It cannot in
any case justify the pillage of industry and the subjugation of
Belgian production.

These few considerations show how subtle and varied were the
methods employed by the Germans to attain their aims in the
economic sphere. In the same way as the preceding statements on
clearing operations and the utilization of occupation costs, they
make it possible to specify the methods employed for exacting heavy
levies from the Belgian economy.

Whereas in certain spheres, as in agriculture and transport, it
has been possible to assess the extent of economic pillage with a
certain exactitude, there are, however, numerous industrial sectors
where assessments cannot yet be made. It is true that a considerable
part of the industrial losses correspond to the clearing operations,
particularly through requisition of stocks. It will therefore be
necessary to confine ourselves to the directives of the policy
practiced by the Germans.

We may examine briefly the way in which economic spoliation
took place in three sectors: industry, agriculture, and transport.

First the industrial sector: The clearing statistics, in the first
place, give particulars of the total burdens imposed upon the various
industrial branches.

The report of the military administration in Belgium, to which
I shall refer constantly, gives the following details, briefly summarized:

From the very beginning of the occupation the Germans
demanded an inventory of supplies on which they were to impose
considerable levies, notably textiles and non-ferrous metals.

I shall confine myself to some brief remarks on textiles and non-ferrous
metals. The example of the textiles industry is particularly
revealing: On the eve of the invasion, the Belgian textile industry,
with its 165,000 workers, was the second largest industry in Belgium
after the metal industry. Under the pretext of avoiding the exhaustion
of the very important supplies then still available, an
ordinance of 27 July 1940 prohibited the textile industry to work
at more than 30 percent of its 1938 capacity. For the period from
May to December 1940 alone requisitions were not less than 1,000
million Belgian francs. They particularly affected nearly half of
the wool stock available in the country on May 10, 1940, and nearly
one-third of the stock of raw cotton.

On the other hand, the forced closing down of factories constituted
for the Germans an excellent excuse for taking away, on
the pretext of hiring, unused equipment, unless it was requisitioned
at a cheap price. The ordinance of 7 September 1942, which is to be
found in the document book under Document Number RF-174, laid
down the manner in which factories were to be closed in execution
of the right accorded to the occupation authorities; and it also gave
the right to dissolve certain business and industrial groups and to
order their liquidation. Consolidation of enterprises was the pretext
given. In the month of January 1944, 65 percent of the textile
factories had been stopped.

I shall not go into the details of these operations and I shall
pass on to Page 58. The report of the German military administration
quoted above gives particularly significant figures as to production.
Of a total output of the wool industry of 72,000 tons for the entire
period May 1940 to the end of June 1944, representing a value of
about 397 million Reichsmark, the distribution of the deliveries
between the German and Belgian markets is the following: The
German market, 64,700 tons, 314 million Reichsmark; the Belgian
market, 7,700 tons, 83 million Reichsmark. The whole spoliation of
the textile industry is contained in these figures.

Belgian consumption obviously had to suffer a great deal from
the German policy of direction of the textile market. The same
report of the military administration furnishes details, stating that

in 1938 the needs in textile products amounted in Belgium to a
monthly average of twelve kilos. The respective figures for the
occupation years are the following: 1940 to 1941—2.1 kilos per head,
1941 to 1942—1.4, 1942 to 1943—1.4, 1943 to 1944—0.7. The diminution
of Belgian consumption under the Germans is contained in
these two figures; twelve kilos per head in 1938; 0.7 kilo at the
end of the occupation.

On the other side, the Belgian Government gives the following
details on the pillage of this produce. Compulsory deliveries to
Germany during the occupation amounted to:

Cotton yarn, about 40 percent of the production; linen, 75 percent;
rayon, 15 percent.

Finally, out of the textile stocks remaining in Belgium a great
percentage was still taken away by the Germans through purchases
on the Belgian markets, purchases of finished or manufactured
products. The equivalent of these forced deliveries can generally
be found in the clearing statistics, unless it is placed under
misrepresented occupation costs.

I have finished with textiles. As to the non-ferrous metal
industry, Belgium was in 1939 the largest producer in Europe of
non-ferrous metals, of copper, lead, zinc, and tin. The statistics
included in the report of the military command, which are to be
found in Exhibit Number RF-173 (Document Number ECH-11), will
furnish the evidence for the Tribunal.

On the 18th of February 1941, in connection with the Four Year
Plan, the Reich Office for Metals and the Supreme Command of
the Army worked out a “metal” plan which provided for Belgian
consumption; the carrying out of German orders; exports to the
Reich.

These various measures did not satisfy the occupying authorities
so they ran a certain number of salvage campaigns which were
called “special actions” (Sonderaktionen) in accordance with the
method they applied in all the countries of Western Europe. I shall
not go into the details of these actions which are described on Page 63
and following of the report; the salvage campaigns for bells, for
printing lead, for lead and copper—from information given by the
Belgian Government, Document Number RF-146, Page 65 of the
report.

In other fields, but without admitting it, the Germans pursued
a policy intended to eliminate or to restrict Belgian competition, so
that in case of a German victory the economic branches concerned
would have had to restrict themselves to the Belgian market, which
would then have remained wide open to German business.

These attempts at immediate or future suppression of competition
were clearly evident in the case of foundries, glass works, textile

industries, construction works, car assembling, construction of
material for narrow-gauge railroads, the leather industry, and
especially shoe-manufacturing, for which reconstruction of destroyed
factories was systematically prohibited.

But in addition, in the textile industry as well as in numerous
sectors, especially in the iron-smelting industry, the weakening of
the economy cannot be measured only by the scale of the compulsory
deliveries but in relation to the policy practiced by the
occupying power. Belgian industry, especially coal and iron, suffered
considerable losses as a result of directives imposed to finance the
war needs at a cheaper rate.

I shall pass over the question of prices of coal. The control of
the coal industry was assured by the appointment of a plenipotentiary
for coal and by centralization of all sales in the hands of a single
organism, the “single seller,” under Belgian direction but with a
German commissioner. I am referring to the Belgian coal office,
one seller to a single purchaser, “Rheinisch Westfälisches Kohlensyndikat,”
which ordered deliveries to be made to the Reich, to
Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg.

According to the same German report, Page 67, in spite of the
rise in the price of coal agreed to on 20 August 1940, 1 January
1941, and 1 January 1943, the coal industry showed considerable
losses in the course of the occupation years. In February 1943, the
coal office having agreed to an increase of the sales price, the price
per ton for the Belgian coal was higher than on the German home
market. The German commissioner for the mining industry forced
the Belgian industry to pay the difference in rate when exporting
to the Reich by means of premiums.

From the figures indicated in Exhibits Numbers RF-176 (Document
Number ECH-35) and 178 (Document Numbers ECH-26 and 27),
the Tribunal may gather information as to the financial losses
caused by exploitation. The report of the military administration
gives in its eleventh section details regarding the iron-smelting
industry: It suffered as greatly as had the coal industry during the
occupation. In the Thomas smelting works in particular, the losses
resulted from the increase in the cost price and from price
fluctuations in respect to certain elements pertaining to the manufacture.

In this one sector, according to the memorandum of the Belgian
Government, the respective losses may be assessed at 3,000 million
Belgian francs. Still, according to the same report, out of a total
production of 1,400,000 tons, 1,300,000 tons of various products were
exported to Germany not including the metal delivered to Belgian
factories working exclusively for Germany.

According to information furnished by the Belgian Government,
the Germans removed in bulk and transported to Germany material
of very great value. The total industrial spoliation is estimated by
the Belgian Government at a sum of 2,000 million Belgian francs,
at the 1940 rate, of course.

These removals constitute a real material loss; and from the
fragmentary indications given to the Tribunal, this sum of 2,000
million Belgian francs is the figure which I ask the Tribunal to note.

In view of the information available at present it is not easy to
estimate the extent of the levies made on industry; it is even more
difficult to evaluate it in the agricultural sphere, which I shall
briefly present.

Apart from the admissible needs of the occupation troops, the
German authorities made an effort to obtain a supplement to the
food levies in Belgium for the purpose of increasing the food of the
Reich and other territories occupied by its troops. After having
employed direct methods of levying, the Germans used the services
of unscrupulous agents whose job it was to purchase at any price
on the illicit markets; and the black market in this field assumed
such proportions that the occupying authorities were frequently
alarmed and in 1943 had to suppress it.

Apart from the damage to livestock and to the woods and
forests, which play an important part in Belgium, the damage
resulting from abnormal cutting in the forests brought about an
excess in deforestation reaching a figure of 2 million tons; the
damage to capital caused by this premature cutting can be estimated
at about 200 million Belgian francs.

The military operations proper caused damage to an extent of
100 million Belgian francs; and according to the memorandum of
the Belgian Government, the total damage caused to forestry reaches
a figure of 460 million Belgian francs. Taking into account the
damage caused by abnormal cutting in the forests and by the
establishment of airfields, the Belgian Government estimates at
approximately 1,000 million Belgian francs the losses suffered by
its agriculture during the occupation.

It must be noted, without going further into this subject, that
these are net losses in capital, constituting a veritable exhaustion
of substance and a consequent reduction and real consumption of
the nation’s resources. With this I have concluded my presentation
concerning agriculture, and I pass on to transport.

The conduct of war led the Germans to utilize to the utmost the
railroad network and the canal and river system of Belgium. The
result was that the railroads and river fleet are included in those
branches of Belgian economy which suffered most from the occupation
and the hostilities which took place on Belgian soil. German

traffic was simultaneously a traffic of personnel as demanded by
military operations and a traffic of merchandise, coal, minerals,
pit-props, foodstuffs, not to speak of the considerable quantities of
construction material required for the fortification of the coast of the
North Sea.

Railroads: The report of the Belgian Government shows that
the damages suffered by the railroads consisted of losses in capital
as well as of losses in revenue. Losses in capital resulted first and
principally from requisitions and removals, to which the Germans
proceeded in a wholesale fashion from the moment of their entry
into Belgium. Thus in particular they immediately drained the
stock of locomotives under the pretext of recovering German
locomotives surrendered to Belgium after the war of 1914-1918 as
a means of reparation.

In addition to seizures of locomotives, the Belgian National Railroad
Company was subjected to numerous requisitions of material,
sometimes under the form of rental; these requisitions are estimated
at 4,500 million francs at the 1940 value.

Against the losses in capital, losses in revenue (Page 77) resulted
principally from the free transportation service required by the
Wehrmacht, also from the price policy pursued by the occupying
power. These levies and these exceptional costs could be borne by
the organizations concerned only by making large drains on the
treasury.

Regarding automobiles, I shall say hardly anything (Page 79).
The losses amount to about 3,000 million Belgian francs, out of
which individuals received as compensation for requisition approximately
1,000 million (at the 1938 value).

We come now to river transport: The carrying out of the plan
for the economic spoliation of Belgium presented the occupying
power with serious transportation problems, to which I have already
called attention.

In this sphere the German military administration imposed upon
Belgian river shipping very heavy burdens. According to the report
of the Belgian Government, the losses suffered by the Belgian river
fleet took three forms: Requisitions and removals by the Germans;
partial or total damage through military operations; excessive
deterioration of material. These three forms of damage amount to
500 million francs, of which only 100 million are represented in
clearing. Damage to waterways (Page 81), rivers, streams, and canals,
can be evaluated at between 1,500 million to 2,000 million francs,
at the 1940 value, especially with respect to requisitions and
removals of public or private harbor installations.

Fishing boats were requisitioned for marking the river Scheldt
and then disappeared without leaving any trace. Others suffered
damage through requisitions or hire for military maneuvers.

Before closing this chapter concerned with levies in kind, the
question of removal of industrial material may be briefly mentioned
(Page 82).

It has already been pointed out that the policy of production
and reorganization as pursued by the military administration had
as a result the closing of numerous enterprises, thus enabling the
Germans to seize a great number of machines under the pretext
that they were out of use.

There are no branches of industry which were not despoiled in
this way. The metal industry seems now to be one of those that
suffered most. Though we do not wish to try the patience of the
Tribunal, it seems particularly pertinent to draw its attention briefly
to the actual technique used in the organization of the levies,
details which were decided upon even before the entry of German
troops into the territories of Western Europe, organization putting
into play military formations, organization emanating from the
economy bureau of the General Staff of the Army and hence from
the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW.

The existence of these military detachments, veritable pillaging
detachments, is proved by various German documents. Under the
name of economic detachments, “Wirtschaftstrupps,” or special commandos,
these pillaging crews carried out nefarious and illegal
activities in all the countries of Western Europe.

The secret instructions for the “economic detachment J,” stationed
at Antwerp, are found in the file under Document Number RF-183.
They constitute a very important, irrefutable document on the
German intention to pillage and an additional proof of the contempt
of the National Socialist leaders for the rules of international law.

These instructions date from the last days of May 1940. I should
like to read a few excerpts of these instructions to the Tribunal
(Document Number RF-183, Page 1).

I shall skip to the bottom of Page 1 of the German document.

Machines and raw materials having thus been found and
identified, the new organizations went into action to dismantle
and put to use these machines and raw materials in Germany.

The above quoted document RF-183 gives precise and very
curious information on the formation and the strength of detachment
“J” at Antwerp. The eight officers are all reserve officers,
engineers, wholesale dealers, directors of mines, importers of raw
materials, engineering consultants. Their names and their professions
are mentioned in the document. These men are therefore
all specialists in commerce and industry. The choice of these
technicians cannot be attributed to mere chance.

According to the above instructions and more especially the
instructions found under date of 10 May 1940, coming from General
Hannecken (Exhibit Number RF-184), Document Number ECH-33,
once the machines and the stocks have been identified, the offices
set to work, the Roges on one hand, and the compensation bureaus
on the other hand, to whose activities attention has already been
called in connection with the pillage of Holland and of the Belgian
non-ferrous metal industry.

Another document, which is likewise presented as Exhibit
Number RF-184 (Document Number ECH-33), shows that the very
composition of the economic detachments emanates from the High
Command. Quoting from Page 6:

THE PRESIDENT: Is that quotation set out in your dossier?

M. DELPECH: The quotation is on Page 84, bis.

THE PRESIDENT: Would this be a convenient time to break off?

[A recess was taken.]

M. DELPECH: Besides the economic detachments to which I
have just drawn the attention of the Tribunal, detailed to remove
and redistribute machinery either to factories working in the
country on behalf of the occupying power or to factories in Germany,
these operations were directed by the Machine Pool Office.

Such offices were set up in all the occupied territories of
Western Europe during the last months of 1942, upon the order of
the Minister for Armaments and War Production, for example,
the Defendant Speer, and the Office of the Four Year Plan, for
example, the Defendant Göring.

The Machine Pool Office for Belgium and Northern France was
set up upon the decision of the Chief of the Military Economic
Section in Brussels under date of 18 February 1943. Its activity
has already been outlined to the Tribunal in connection with the
spoliation of non-ferrous metal industries. Its activity did not stop
there; it is found in all branches of industry. The Exhibit Number
RF-185 (Document ECH-29) can give us figures on its activity.
This activity continued to the very last days of the occupation.
Requisitions of machinery and instruments were not limited to
industry; Documents Numbers ECH-16 and ECH-15 (Exhibits Numbers
RF-193 and 194) show the extent of the requisitioning of
scientific instruments.

I have finished with the levies on industrial material.

I shall present briefly in the fourth chapter the question of
services, first of all:

1. The billeting of troops. By an ordinance dated 17 December
1940, Page 88, the Germans imposed the costs of billeting their
troops upon Belgium. Having done this, the occupation authorities
justified themselves by a rather liberal interpretation of Article 52
of the Hague Convention, according to the provisions of which the
occupying power may require levies in kind and in services.

The Wetter report (Document Number RF-186) wrongly contends
that the Convention does not specify by whom the settlement should
be made; Article 49 gives the right to make the occupied country
defray the expenses.

Therefore Belgium had to meet expenses to the amount of
5,900 million francs for billeting costs, equipment, and furniture.
The payments of the Belgian treasury for billeting is estimated in
the report of the Belgian Military Administration at 5,423 million
francs.

It is evident that under the pretext of billeting costs, other
expenses were entered to the detriment of the Belgian economy,
as in other occupied countries—the purchases of furniture which
was to be sent to Germany.

2. Transport and Communications.

To assure transport and communications, the Belgian treasury
had to advance a total of 8,000 million francs. As already pointed
out to the Tribunal, the seizure by the occupation authorities
covered even the river fleet to the extent that the transport plan
restricted the use of rail to the operation troops.

According to Article 53 of the Hague Convention, the occupying
army has the right to seize means of transport and communications
provided that it returns them and pays indemnity. That army,
however, does not possess the right to make the occupied country
pay the costs of transport put at the army’s disposal. That is,
however, what Germany did in Belgium.

3. Labor.

The deportation of labor to Germany and forced labor in Belgium
have already been explained to the Tribunal. It therefore seems
unnecessary to stress this point (Page 91). At the most, we should
recall certain consequences unfavorable to the Belgian economy.
The measures concerning the deportation of labor caused an
economic disorganization and weakening without precedent.

Secondly, the departure of workers and particularly of skilled
workers inadequately replaced by unskilled labor—women, adolescents
and pensioners—brought about a decrease in production at
the same time as an increase in the cost price, which contributed
to complicating the problem of the financial equilibrium of industrial
enterprises.

Third observation: The requisition of labor was the cause of
political and social discontent owing to the dispersion of families
and the inequalities which appeared in the requisition of workers.

Fourth and last observation: The workers were required for
spheres of work which were not necessarily their own, which
resulted in a loss of their professional skill. Personnel were divided
and unclassed. The closing of artisan workshops brought about
changes more or less felt in certain branches of production. The
losses thus suffered cannot be measured in terms of money, but they
are none the less important to be submitted to your jurisdiction.

I have finished with this subject and will turn to a last chapter,
Chapter V, the acquisition of Belgian investments in foreign
industrial enterprises.

Since 1940 according to their general policy in all occupied
countries of Western Europe, the Germans concerned themselves
with acquiring shares in Belgian financial enterprises abroad. The
official German point of view emerges clearly from a letter dated
29 July 1941, from the Minister of Finance to the Military Commander
in Belgium. I have submitted it under Number 187, in the
document book (Document Number RF-187).

This conception of the right to acquire shares is certainly very
far from the idea as laid down by the Hague Convention in respect
to the right of requisition. It clearly shows the German leaders’
determination for enrichment at the expense of Belgium.

Thus, the Germans, since May 1940, sought to obtain influence
in Belgian holding companies. Not being able to violate directly
international laws, particularly Article 46 of the Hague Convention,
they strove to influence the members of the executive boards
through persuasion rather than by force.

In the course of a conference held on 3 May 1940 at the Reich
Ministry of Economics, dealing with Belgian and Dutch capital
which it would still be possible to acquire, it was decided that the
Military Commander in Belgium should take all necessary measures
to prevent, on the one hand, the destruction, transfer, sale, and
illegal holding of all bonds and stocks of these countries and, on
the other hand, to induce Belgian capitalists to hand over their
foreign securities to the Germans. The minutes of this conference
are found in the document book under Number RF-187 above.

To prevent the flight of any capital, an ordinance of 17 June 1940
was promulgated, subjecting to authorization the sending abroad
of any securities and any acquisitions or disposal of foreign securities.

From 2 August 1940 the German leaders and the Defendant
Göring himself took a definite stand on this point. In the course of
the general remarks on economic plundering secret directives issued
in this respect by the Defendant Göring were read to you. It is the
document submitted under Number RF-105 (Page 97).

In spite of the German assurances and in spite of the wish of
the occupying power to preserve the appearance of regularity, the
German desire to absorb certain shares met with serious resistance.
The occupation authorities several times had to resort to compulsion
to conclude sales, in spite of the rights which they had reserved
for themselves in the above cited decree of 27 August 1940. This
was particularly the case with regard to the shares held by the
Belgian Metal Trust in the electrical enterprises of Eastern Silesia
and, still more clearly, the case regarding the shares of the Austrian
Metal Company, which at that time were wanted by the Hermann
Göring Works.

The Belgian ill-will increased as the German determination to
pillage became more evident. In this report of 1 December 1942,
Exhibit Number RF-191 (Document Number ECR-132), the German
Commissioner with the National Bank very clearly denounces this
resistance on the part of the Belgian market. Almost all acquisitions
which could be realized by the Germans were settled by means of
clearing (Page 98).

The balance of clearing capital credited to Belgium, to the amount
of 1,000 million Belgian francs on 31 August 1944, represents a
forced loan imposed upon Belgium without any legal or logical
relation to occupation costs, unless it is the Germans’ will to
hegemony.

Such a practice, contrary to the principles of international law
and to the rules of criminal law of civilized nations, falls under
Article 6(b) of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal and
constitutes an act of pillage of public or private property such as is
envisaged in the above-mentioned text.

Closely allied to the acquisition of shares and always within
the framework of legality, the levies made by the German authorities
on foreign, enemy, and Jewish property, should be pointed out to
the Tribunal.

As to foreign property seized by the Germans, it must be
mentioned that this measure was applied to French capital in
Belgium in spite of numerous protests by the French Government.
As to Jewish property, for the years 1943 and 1944, the figures are
presented in Document Number ECH-35 (Exhibit Number RF-192).

With this I conclude the presentation of the economic spoliation
of Belgium (Page 100).

The damage caused to Belgian economy in its principal branches
have just been submitted to the Tribunal. The statistical data have
been taken either from German reports or from official reports of
the Belgian Government. The available estimates and figures are
not yet sufficiently exact to fix the costs of war, the occupation and
economic spoliation of Belgium; some losses and damages cannot
be expressed in money. Among them, first of all, we must mention
the privations resulting from the German commandeering of a large
part of food supplies and from the particular situation of billeting
and clothing. This purely material aspect of the question should not
cause us to overlook the consequences of the occupation upon the
public health (Page 103). For lack of statistical data, it is difficult to
show precisely the final state of public health resulting from the
particular circumstances.

One fact, however, must be remembered: The considerable increase
in the number of persons who were eligible for special invalid
diets. This number rose from 2,000 a month in 1941 to more than
25,000 a month in 1944. It had, therefore, increased more than tenfold,
in spite of the rationing measures which became more and
more severe.

This increase in nutritional aid given to sick persons deserves
the attention of the Tribunal, less for itself and for its statistical
interest, than because it is the indication of the increase of disease

in Belgium. This increase is itself the result of the undernourishment
of the population during the four years of occupation.

This deplorable state of affairs, however, had not escaped the
attention of the occupation authorities, as appears from the letter
of the Military Commander in Belgium already quoted which is
found in the document book under Document Number RF-187:

I shall not dwell on this. This undernourishment of the Belgian
population has been the inevitable and the most serious result of
the huge levies made by the occupation authorities who willfully
disregarded the elementary requirements of an occupied country
in order to pursue only the war aims of the Reich.

The lowering of the average standard of health and the rise in
the death rate in Belgium from 1940 to 1945 may therefore be
rightly considered the direct result of the spoliations committed
by the Germans in Belgium in transgression of international law.

I have concluded the presentation on Belgium.

I would like to make a few brief remarks on the economic
pillaging of Luxembourg (Page 106).

Supplementing the presentation on Belgium it is fitting to present
to the Tribunal some details on the conduct of the Germans in
Luxembourg. The Government of the Grand Duchy has submitted
a general summary of its accusations which has been lodged with
the Tribunal as Document Number UK-77 and in which an extract
covering the crimes against property, the economic section, is in the
document book under the Number RF-194.

The Germans, shortly after their entry into the Grand Duchy,
proceeded to annex it in fact. This attitude, similar enough to that
adopted towards the inhabitants of the Departments of Moselle,
Bas-Rhin, and Haut-Rhin, calls for some remarks.

As was their wont, one of the first measures they put into effect
was the exchange of the Luxembourg money at the rate of 10
Luxembourg francs to 1 mark. This was the subject of the ordinance
of 26 August 1940, to be found in the document book under
Number 195 (Document Number RF-195). This rate of exchange did
not correspond to the respective purchasing power of the two
currencies. It constituted a considerable levy on the wealth of the
inhabitants and especially assured the Germans of a complete
seizure of the monies. It thus procured for them the means for
seizing a considerable part of the reserves of raw materials and

manufactured goods of the country. The purchases were paid for
in depreciated marks on the basis of controlled prices imposed by
the Germans.

Finally, by the Ordinance of 29 January 1941, the Reichsmark
was introduced as the only legal tender (ordinance submitted as
Document Number RF-196). The Luxembourg francs and the Reichskreditkasse
notes were taken out of circulation, as well as Belgian
francs, up to then considered as currency of the Franco-Luxembourg
monetary union. All of these became foreign currency, as from
5 February 1941.

I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact
that of all the countries occupied by Germany, Luxembourg is, like
Alsace and Lorraine, one of the few countries which was totally
deprived of its national currency.

Moreover, to procure for the Reich the financial means necessary
for the prosecution of the war, the ordinance of 27 August 1940
(Document Number RF-197) prescribed compulsory delivery of gold
and foreign currency. Moreover, the same ordinance stipulated
that foreign shares and bonds had to be offered for sale to the Reichsbank
at rates and under conditions fixed by the occupying power.

As has already been pointed out, the Germans seized industrial
stocks. In this respect, the report dated 21 May 1940, on the economic
situation in Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg, contains information
on the stocks found in the country:

1,600 million tons of iron ore; 125,000 tons of manganese; 10,000
tons of crude iron; 10,000 tons of ferro-manganese; 36,000 tons of
plated products and finished products, and I could continue this
enumeration. The German seizure spread from stocks to the
management of the industrial production.

According to the memorandum presented by the Reparations
Commission of the Luxembourg Government, Document Number
RF-198, the total economic damages amount to 5,800 million
Luxembourg francs at the 1933 value. This figure can be analyzed
as follows:

Industry and commerce, 1,900 million; Railroads, 200 million;
Roads and Highways, 100 million; Agriculture, 1,600 million; Damage
to property in general, 1,900 million.

From the same official source, the total loss in capital represents
about 33 percent of the national wealth of Luxembourg, before the
war estimated at approximately 5,000 million Luxembourg francs.

The effect on the financial and monetary situation of the country
was a loss exceeding 6,000 million Luxembourg francs. In these
damages the increase in circulation of money and the amount of

forced investments in Germany—more than 4,800 million Luxembourg
francs—as well as an additional charge imposed upon the
taxpayers of the Grand Duchy following the introduction of the
German fiscal system figure particularly. To these burdens must
be added the skimming of profits, fines, and the allegedly voluntary
gifts of every kind imposed upon Luxembourg.

Similar to what was done in other countries, the Ordinance of
21 February 1941 (Document Number RF-199, Exhibit Number
RF-199 of the document book concerning Luxembourg) provided
that no German managers could be appointed in large enterprises,
particularly in smelting works, who—and this is the text of the
ordinance—“would not be prepared to favor the interests of Germanism
in every circumstance.”

The task of these commissioners was to insure for the Reich,
within the scope of the Four Year Plan, the direction and control
of exploitation in the exclusive interest of the German war effort.
Thus, on 2 August 1940, the “Reichskommissar” for the administration
of enemy property appointed to the largest metal company
in Luxembourg, the United Steel Works of Burbach-Eich-Dudelange
(Arbed), three German commissioners who ensured the complete
control of the company. Neither did other large companies escape
this domination as can be seen from the documents submitted to
the Tribunal under Number 200 (Document Number RF-200).

The spoliation of Luxembourg and foreign interests in the insurance
field, one of the most important branches of Luxembourg’s
activities, was complete. With the exception of three Swiss companies
and a German company, all transactions were prohibited to
the Luxembourg companies, whose assets were transferred to German
insurance companies—in an official way as regards the national
companies, and secretly as regards the foreign companies.

The insurance companies of Luxembourg were deprived of the
premiums from fire insurance by the introduction of compulsory
fire insurance, for which the German companies were given the
monopoly.

Introducing in Luxembourg their racial policy, the National
Socialists seized and confiscated all Jewish property in the Grand
Duchy to the profit of the “Verwaltung für die Judenvermögen”
(Administration of Jewish Property).

Also in regard to the Umsiedlungspolitik (resettlement policy),
1,500 families (that is 7,000 Luxembourg persons) were deported.
The Germans took possession of their property. A German trust
company, set up in the German Office for Colonization and Germanization,
was charged with the administration of this property, and,
in fact, set about to liquidate it. Important assets were thus confiscated
and transferred to the Reich.

Germans from the Tyrol were, as has already been pointed out,
installed in the buildings, and industrial, commercial, and artisan
enterprises of the deportees.

That is to say, Your Honors, that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
was the victim of economic pillage as systematically organized
as that in Belgium.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Delpech, the Tribunal is grateful to you
for the way in which you have performed the task which they asked
you to perform last night, a task which is not altogether easy, of
shortening the address which you had intended to make. As far
as they are able to judge, no essential parts of your address have
been omitted. It is of great importance that the Trial should be
conducted, as the Charter indicates, in an expeditious way, and it
was for this reason that the Tribunal asked you, if you could, to
shorten your address.

M. DELPECH: I thank you, Your Honor, for your kindness.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Gerthoffer.

M. CHARLES GERTHOFFER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French
Republic): Mr. President, Your Honors, I come to the sixth section
of this presentation, which deals with the economic pillage of
France.

When the Germans invaded France, they found there considerable
wealth. They set about with ingenuity to seize it and also to
subjugate the national production.

When they failed to attain their ends by mere requisitions, they
resorted to devious methods, using simultaneously ruse and violence,
striving to cloak their criminal actions with legality.

To accomplish this, they misused the conventions of the armistice.
These, in fact, did not contain any economic clauses and did not
include any secret provisions but consisted only of regulations,
which were published. Nevertheless, the Germans utilized two
clauses to promote their undertakings. I submit to the Tribunal
as Document Number RF-203 a copy of the Armistice Conventions,
and I cite Article 18, which reads as follows:

This clause was not contrary to the regulations of the Hague
Conventions, but Germany imposed payment of enormous sums,
far exceeding those necessary for the requirements of an occupation
army. Thus she was enabled to dispose, without furnishing any
compensation, of nearly all the money which, in fact, was cleverly
transformed into an instrument of pillage.

Article 17 of the Armistice Convention reads as follows:

Apparently the purpose of this clause was to prevent things of
any kind which might be utilized against Germany from being sent
to England or to any of the colonies. But the occupying power took
advantage of this to get control of production and the distribution
of raw materials throughout France, since the non-occupied zone
could not live without the products of the occupied zone and
vice versa.

This intention of the Germans is proved particularly by Document
Number 1741-PS which was discovered by the American
army, and which I now submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number
RF-204.

I do not want to trouble the Tribunal by reading this long
document, I shall give only a short summary.

It is a secret report, dated 5 July 1940 addressed to the President
of the Council . . .

THE PRESIDENT: M. Gerthoffer, as this is not a document
of which we can take judicial notice, I think you must read
anything that you wish to put in evidence.

M. GERTHOFFER: I shall read a passage of the document to
the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

I shall cite only this passage in order to shorten my explanatory
remarks, and I now come to the following document, which is in
the nature of a reply to the German official who drew up this

report, a document which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-205
(Document Number EC-409) and which is a document found by the
American army. Here is the reply to the document from which
I just quoted one passage:

Finally, another document captured by the U. S. Army which
I submit as Exhibit Number RF-206 (Document Number EC-325),
signed by Dr. Gramsch, gives us the following information:

Further in this document:

A study of these documents shows the German intent, in
disregard of all legal principles, to get all the wealth and economy
of France under their control.

Through force the Germans succeeded, after one year of
occupation, in putting all or nearly all the French economy under
their domination. This is evident from an article, published by
Dr. Michel, director of the Economic Office, attached to the Military
Government in France which appeared in the Berliner Börsen
Zeitung, of 10 April 1942. I submit it as Document Number RF-207,
and shall read one passage from it:

Further, on Page 12 of the statement, Dr. Michel writes:

After having shown you, Mr. President and members of the
Tribunal, in this brief introduction concerning the economic spoliation
of France, the consequences of German domination upon this
country, I give you an account of the methods employed to arrive
at such a result. This will be the purpose of the four following
chapters: German seizure of means of payment; clandestine purchases
of the black market; outwardly legal acquisitions; finally, impressment
of labor.

I. German seizure of means of payment.

This seizure was the result of paying occupation costs, the
one-way clearing system, and outright seizures and levies of gold,
bank notes, foreign currency, and the imposition of collective fines
(Page 15).

Indemnity for the maintenance of occupation troops:

I shall not recapitulate the legal principles of the matter, but
shall merely confine myself to a few explanatory remarks, so that
you may realize the pressure which was brought to bear on the
leaders in order to obtain the payment of considerable sums.

As I have had the honor of pointing out to you, in the Armistice
Conventions the principle of the maintenance of occupation troops
is succinctly worded, with no stipulation as to the amount and
the method of collection. The Germans took advantage of this to
distort and amplify this commitment of France, which became
nothing more than a pretext for the imposition of exorbitant tribute.

At the first sessions of the Armistice Commission, the discussions
bore on this point, while the French pointed out that they could
only be forced to pay a contractual indemnity representing the
cost of maintaining an army strictly necessary for the occupation
of the territory. The German General Mieth had to recognize the
just foundation of this claim and declared that troops which were
to fight against England would not be maintained at expense to
France.

This is evident from an extract of the minutes of the Armistice
Commission, which I submit as Document Number RF-208. But
later this General Mieth apparently was overruled by his superiors,
since in the course of a subsequent session, 16 July 1940, without
expressly going back on his word, he declared in this respect that

he could not give any reply, that this question would no longer
be discussed, and that, in short, everything necessary would be
done to enable the French Government to draw up its budget. This
appears from an extract of the minutes of the Armistice Commission
which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-209.

On 8 August 1940 Hemmen, Chief of the German Economic
Delegation, at Wiesbaden, forwarded a memorandum to General
Huntziger, President of the French Delegation, in which he stated:

This is found in Document 210 (Document Number RF-210), which
I submit to the Tribunal and which bears the signature of Hemmen.

These exorbitant requirements provoked the reply of 12 August
1940, in which it was emphasized that the amount of the daily payment
did not permit the supposition that it had been fixed in consideration
of the normal forces of an occupation army and the
normal cost of the maintenance of this army, that, moreover, such
forces as corresponded to the notified figure would be out of
proportion to anything that military precedent and the necessity
of the moment might reasonably justify. This is the content of a
note of 12 August, submitted as Document Number RF-211.

On 15 August 1940 the German delegation took notice of the
fact that the French Government was ready to pay some accounts,
but in a categorical manner refused to discuss either the amount
of payment or the distinction between occupation and operation
troops. This is found in Document Number RF-212, which I submit
to the Tribunal.

On 18 August the French delegation took note of the memorandum
of 15 August and made the following reply (Document Number
RF-213):

The memorandum terminates as follows:

THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

M. GERTHOFFER: This morning I had the honor of presenting
to the Tribunal the fact that the Germans demanded of France an
indemnity of 400 million francs a day for the maintenance of their
army of occupation. I indicated that the French leaders of that
time, without failing to recognize the principle of their obligations,
protested against the sum demanded.

At the moment of their arrival in France the Germans had
issued, as in the other occupied countries, Reichskreditkasse notes
and requisition vouchers over which the bank of issue had no
control and which was legal tender only in France. This issue
represented a danger, for the circulation of this currency was liable
to increase at the mere will of the occupying power.

At the same time, by a decree of 17 May 1940, published in the
VOBIF of 17 May 1940, Number 7, which appears as Document
Number 214 in the document book (Exhibit Number RF-214), the
occupying power fixed the rate of the Reichsmark at 20 French
francs per mark, whereas the real parity was approximately
1 mark for 10 French francs.

The French delegation, having become concerned over the
increasing circulation of the Reichskreditkasse notes and over the
increased volume of German purchases, as well as over the rate of
exchange of the mark, was informed by the German delegation, on
14 August 1940, of its refusal to withdraw these notes from circulation
in France. This is to be found in a letter of 14 August, which
I submit as Document Number RF-215.

The occupying power thus unjustifiably created a means of
pressure upon the French Government of that time to make it yield
to its demands concerning the amount of the occupation costs, as
well as concerning the forced rate of the mark and the clearing
agreements, which will be the subject of a later chapter.

General Huntziger, President of the French delegation, addressed
several dramatic appeals to the German delegation in which he
asked that France should not be hurled over the precipice, as
shown by a teletype report addressed by Hemmen on 18 August
1940, to his Minister of Foreign Affairs, a report discovered by the
United States Army, bearing the Document Number 1741-PS(5),
which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-216. Here
is the interesting passage of this report:

In a letter and a note of 20 August, the German delegation
summoned the French delegation to make partial payments,
specifying that no distinction would be made between the German
troops in France, that the strength of the German occupation
would have to be determined by the necessities of the conduct of
war. In addition, the fixing of the rate of the mark would be
inoperative as far as the payments were concerned, since they
would constitute only payments on account. I submit the note of
the 20th of August of the German Government as Document
Number RF-217.

The next day, 21 August 1940, General Huntziger, in the course
of an interview with Hemmen, made a last vain attempt to obtain
a reduction in the German demands. According to the minutes of
this interview (Document Number RF-218), Germany was already
considering close economic collaboration between herself and
France through the creation of commissioners of exchange control
and of foreign trade. At the same time Hemmen pledged elimination
of the demarcation line between the two zones. But he refused
to discuss the question of the amount of the occupation costs.

In a note of 26 August 1940, the French Government indicated
that it considered itself obliged to yield under pressure and
protested against the German demands; this note ended with the
following passage:

The Germans had the incontestable intention of utilizing the
sums demanded as occupation costs, not only for the maintenance,
the equipment, and the armament of their troops in France, or
for operations based in France, but also for other purposes. This is
shown in particular in a teletype from the Supreme Command of
the Army, dated 2 September 1940, discovered by the United States
Army, which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-220 (Document
Number EC-204). There is a passage from this teletype message
which I shall read to the Tribunal (Page 22):

From another teletype message, which was seized in the same
manner and which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-221 (Document
Number EC-201), I read the following:

Further on in the same teletype, Page 24, Paragraph 2, there
is the following:

And finally the following paragraph:

The French then attempted, in vain, to obtain a reduction in the
occupation costs and also a modification in the rate of the mark,
but the Germans refused all discussion.

At the beginning of the year 1941, negotiations were resumed.
In view of the intransigence of the Germans, the French Government
suspended payments in the month of May 1941. Then, at the
insistence of the occupying powers, they resumed it, but paid only
300 million francs a day. This is found in the document submitted
as Document Number RF-222.

On the 15 December 1942, after the invasion of the entire French
territory, Germany demanded that the daily payment of 300 million
francs be raised to 500 million a day.

The sums paid for the occupation troops increased to a total of
631,866 million francs, or at the imposed rate, 31,593,300,000 marks.
This amount is not only to be gathered from the information given
by the French administration, but can also be verified by German
documents, in particular by the report of Hemmen.

Hemmen, Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Berlin,
had been designated President of the German economic delegation
of the Armistice Commission, and he was acting, in fact, under the
direct orders of his Minister, Von Ribbentrop, as a veritable dictator
in economic questions. His chief assistant in Paris was Dr. Michel,
of whom we have already spoken.

While maintaining his functions as chief of the economic delegation
of the Armistice Commission of Wiesbaden, the same Hemmen
was to be appointed by a decision of Hitler, under date of
19 December 1942, Reich Government delegate for economic
questions, attached to the French Government. This is verified in
the document submitted as Exhibit Number RF-223 (Document
Number 1763-PS).

Hemmen periodically sent secret economic reports to his
minister. These documents were discovered by the United States
Army. They are of a fundamental importance in this part of the
Trial, since, as you will see, they contain Germany’s admission of
economic pillage.

These voluminous reports are submitted as Exhibits Numbers
RF-224, 225, 226, 227, 228, and 229 (Documents Numbers 1986-PS,
1987-PS, 1988-PS, 1989-PS, 1990-PS, 1991-PS) of the French documentation.
It is not possible for me, in view of their length, to read
them in their entirety to the Tribunal. I shall confine myself to
giving a few brief extracts therefrom in the course of my presentation.
To show their importance, here is the translation of the last
volume of the Hemmen reports. In this last report, printed in
Salzburg on 15 December 1944, on Page 26, Hemmen recognizes
that France has paid by way of indemnity for the maintenance of
occupation troops 31,593,300,000 marks, that is . . .

THE PRESIDENT: M. Gerthoffer, these documents are in German,
are they not?

M. GERTHOFFER: Yes, Mr. President, they are in German.
I have only been able to have the last one translated into French.
Because of their length it has not been possible for me to have all
the translations made, but it is from the last volume, which is
translated into French, that I will make certain very brief quotations
by way of proof.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well then are you confining yourself
to the last document, and to certain passages in the last document?

M. GERTHOFFER: I shall limit myself to this.

THE PRESIDENT: And then, as these are not documents of
which we can take judicial notice, only the parts which you read
will be regarded as part of the Record, and be treated as in
evidence.

M. GERTHOFFER: This enormous sum imposed was much
greater than Germany was entitled to demand. In spite of the
enormous sums which the Germans may have spent in France
during the first two years, they were not able to use a sum less
than half of that for which they were credited.

This is shown in the Hemmen report, where on Page 27 (Page 59
of the French translation) he gives a summary of the French
payments made as occupational indemnity, and the German
expenses in millions of marks corresponding to these expenses. This
summary is very short. I shall read it to the Tribunal. It will
constitute a German proof in support of my presentation.

This makes from 1940 to 1944 a total amount of 31,593,300,000
marks paid by the French and 31,317 million marks of German
expenditure.

The figures contained in this table unquestionably constitute
the German admission of the exorbitance of the indemnity for the
maintenance of occupation troops, for Germany was not able to
utilize the credit at its disposal. Most of it served to finance
expenses relative to armament, operation troops, and feeding of
Germany. This is shown by Document Number EC-232, which I
submit as Exhibit Number RF-230.

According to the calculation of the “Institut de Conjoncture,”
the maximum sum of the indemnity which could be exacted was
74,531,800,000 francs, taking as a basis the average daily costs of
upkeep per troop unit during the Allied occupation of the Rhineland
in 1919, namely the sum of seventeen francs or twenty-one
francs with billeting, which was at that time provided by the
German Government. According to the report on the average cost
of living (coefficient -3.14) the sum of 21 francs should correspond
to 66 francs at the 1939 value when applying the coefficient of
depreciation of the franc during the occupation, that is 2.10 percent,
or a daily average cost of 139 francs per day.

Granting that the real costs of the occupation army were half
of those calculated by Hemmen, that is to say, 27,032,279,120 marks,
this sum is still lower than the 74,531,800,000 calculated by the
Institut de Conjoncture.

Even accepting the calculation most favorable to the accused,
one can estimate that the indemnity imposed without justification

amounted to 631,866 million less 74,531,800,000, that is, 557,334,200,000
francs.

In his final report, Page 10, and Page 22 of the French translation,
Hemmen writes:

In the second part of this chapter we shall examine briefly the
question of clearing. The Tribunal is acquainted with the functioning
of clearing, and I shall not revert to this. I shall indicate
under what conditions the French Government at the time was
made to sign agreements which were imposed upon it.

Parallel to the discussions relative to the indemnity for the
maintenance of occupation troops, discussions were entered into
concerning a Clearing Agreement.

On the 24 July 1940 the German Delegation announced that it
would shortly submit a project. On 8 August 1940 Hemmen
submitted to the French Delegation a project of a Franco-German
arrangement for payment by compensation. This project, which
I submit as Document Number RF-231(bis) of the French documentation,
shows arbitrary provisions, which could not be voluntarily
accepted.

It provided for financial transfers from France to Germany
without any equivalent in financial transfers from Germany to
France. It fixed the rate of exchange at 20 francs for 1 Reichsmark
by a unilateral and purely arbitrary decision, whereas the rate on
the Berlin Exchange was approximately 17.65 and the real parity
of the two currencies, taking into account their respective
purchasing power on both markets, was approximately ten francs
for one Reichsmark.

I pass to Page 34. The French Delegation of the Armistice Commission
submitted unsuccessfully a counter project, on 20 August
1940, and attempted to obtain a modification of the most unfavorable
clauses. I submit this project as Document Number RF-232.

On 29 August 1940, the French delegation at the Armistice Commission
brought up in detail the question of the parity of the franc
and the Reichsmark. It called attention to the fact that the prohibition
of the financial transfers from Germany to France would
create gross inequality, whereas the transfers in the other direction

were organized, and this meant the French Government giving its
agreement to a veritable expropriation of French creditors. An
extract from this report is submitted as Document Number RF-233.

In a letter of 31 August, General Huntziger again took up in
vain the argument concerning the Franc-Reichsmark rate of
exchange. I submit this letter as Document Number RF-234.

On 6 September 1940 the French delegation made a new attempt
to obtain a modification of the most unfavorable clauses in the draft
of the Clearing Agreement, but it encountered an absolute refusal.
The German delegation meant to impose under the cloak of a
bilateral agreement a project elaborated by it alone.

I quote a passage from the minutes of the Armistice Delegation
(Document Number RF-235). Herr Schone, the German delegate,
stated: “I cannot reopen the discussion on this question. I can make
no concession.”

Concerning the Franc-Reichsmark rate of exchange, on 4 October
1940 Hemmen notified the French delegation that the rate of
20 francs must be considered as definite and according to his own
words “this is no longer to be discussed.” He added that if the
French for their part refused to conclude the payment agreement,
that is to say, the arbitrary contract imposed by Germany, he
would advise the Führer of this and that all facilities with regard
to the demarcation line would be stopped. I submit as Document
Number RF-236 this passage of the minutes.

Finally, in the course of the negotiations which followed on
10 October 1940, the French delegation attempted for the last time
to obtain an alleviation of the drastic conditions which were
imposed upon it, but the Germans remained intransigent and
Hemmen declared in particular . . .

THE PRESIDENT: M. Gerthoffer, do these negotiations lead up
to a conclusion, because if they do, would it not be sufficient for
your purpose to give us the conclusion without giving all the
negotiations which lead up to it?

M. GERTHOFFER: Mr. President, I am just finishing the statement
with the last quotation, in which the Tribunal will see what
pressure, what threats, were made upon the French, who were then
in contact with the Germans. I shall have concluded the discussion
on clearing with this quotation, if the Tribunal will allow it, it
will be a short one and it will then be finished:

This is the end of the quotation.

Perhaps the Tribunal will allow me a very brief comment. At
the Armistice Commission all kinds of economic questions were
discussed; and the French delegates resisted, for Germany wanted
to seize immediately the bauxite beds which were in the unoccupied
zone. This last sentence is the threat: if you do not accept our
Clearing Agreement, we shall seize the bauxite. That is to say, we
shall occupy by force of arms the free zone.

The so-called compensation agreement worked only to Germany’s
advantage. The results of the agreement are the following:

At the moment of liberation the total transfer from France to
Germany amounted to 221,114 million francs, while the total
transfer from Germany to France amounted to 50,474 million francs.
The difference—that is, 170,640 million francs credit balance on the
French account—represents the means of payment which Germany
improperly obtained through the functioning of the clearing which
she had imposed.

I now come to the third part of this chapter, which will be very
brief. This is the seizure of goods and collective fines.

Besides the transactions which were outwardly legal, the Germans
proceeded to make seizures and impose collective fines in
violation of the principles of international law.

First, a contribution of 1,000 million francs was imposed upon
the French Jews on 17 December 1941 without any pretext. This
is shown in the documents submitted as Document Number RF-239
and cannot be contested.

Secondly, a certain number of collective fines were imposed.
The amount actually known to the Finance Ministry amounts to
412,636,550 francs.

Thirdly, the Germans proceeded to make immediate seizure of
gold. Even Hemmen admits in his last secret report, on Pages 33
and 34, Page 72 of the French translation, that on 24 September
1940 the Germans seized 257 kilograms of gold from the port of
Bayonne, which represents at the 1939 rate 12,336,000 francs; and
in July 1940 they seized a certain number of silver coins amounting
to 55 millions.

Still following the secret report of Hemmen, for the period
between 1 January to 30 June 1942 Germany had seized in France
221,730 kilograms of gold belonging to the Belgian National Bank,
which represents at the 1939 rate the sum of 9,500 million francs.

It is not possible for me to present in detail the conditions under
which the Belgian gold was delivered to the Germans. This
question in itself would involve me in an explanation which would
take up several sessions. The fact is undeniable since it is admitted
by Hemmen. I shall simply indicate that as early as the month of
September 1940, in violation of international law, Hemmen had
insisted on the delivery of this gold, which had, in May 1940, been
entrusted by the National Bank of Belgium to the Bank of France.
Moreover, these facts are part of the accusations made against the
ex-ministers of the Vichy Government before the High Court of
Justice in Paris.

The results of this procedure were long, and frequent discussions
took place at the Armistice Commission, and an agreement was
concluded on 29 October 1940, but was in fact not carried out
because of difficulties raised by the French and Belgians.

According to the former Assistant Director of the Bank of
France, the German pressure became stronger and stronger. Laval,
who was then determined to pay any price for the authorization
to go to Berlin, where he boasted that he would be able to achieve
a large scale liberation of prisoners, the reduction of the occupation
costs, as well as the elimination of the demarcation line, yielded
to the German demands.

Thus, this gold was delivered to the Reichsbank and was requisitioned
by order of the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan. The
documents relative to this question are submitted as Document
Number RF-240.

I shall simply add that after the liberation the Provisional
Government of the French Republic transferred to the National
Bank of Belgium a quantity of gold equal to that which the Belgian
Bank had entrusted to the Bank of France in the month of May 1940.

To conclude the gold question I shall indicate to the Tribunal
that Germany was unable to obtain the gold reserve of the Bank
of France, for it had been put in safekeeping in good time. Finally,
still according to the last secret report of Hemmen, Pages 29 and 49
of the French translation, at the moment of their retreat the
Germans seized without any right the sum of 6,899 million francs
from branches of the Bank of France in Nancy, Belfort, and Epinal.
Document 1741-PS (24). (Exhibit Number RF-241.)

I note for the Record that during the occupation the Germans
seized great quantities of gold which they arranged to be bought
from private citizens by intermediaries. I cannot give figures for
this. I simply touch on the question for the Record.

If we summarize the question of the means of payment which
Germany unduly requisitioned in France, we shall reach—still

taking the calculation most favorable to the defendants and taking
the maximum amount for the cost of maintaining occupation
troops—a minimum total of 745,833,392,550 francs, in round figures
750,000 million francs.

I now come to Page 50, that is to say the use which the Germans
made of these considerable sums; and first of all, the black market
organized by the occupying power. Here again I don’t want to take
advantage of your kind attention. I have had the honor of
presenting to you the mechanism of the black market in all the
occupied countries. I have indicated how it arose, how the Germans
utilized it, how, under the orders of the Defendant Göring, it was
organized and exploited. I do not wish to revert to this, and I shall
pass over the whole section of my written exposé which was
devoted to the black market in France.

I come to Page 69 of my written exposé. Chapter 3: Ostensibly
legal acquisitions.

Under the pressure of the Germans, the Vichy Government had
to consent to reserve for them a very high quota of products of
all kinds. In exchange the Germans undertook to furnish raw
materials, the quantities of which were determined by them alone.
But these raw materials, when they were delivered, which was
not always the case, were for the most part absorbed by the
industry which was forced to supply them with finished products.
In fact, there was no compensation, since the occupiers got back in
the form of finished products the raw materials delivered and did
not in reality give anything in return.

In the report of the Economic Control which has already been
quoted, submitted as Document Number RF-107, the following
example may be noted which I shall read to the Tribunal:

It is appropriate to call attention to the fact that a considerable
part of the levies in kind were the object of no regulation whatever,
either because the Germans remained debtors in these transactions,
or that they considered without justification that these levies
constituted war booty.

In regard to this there are no documents available; however, the
United States Army has discovered a secret report of one called
Kraney, the representative of Roges, an organization which was
charged with collecting both war booty and purchases on the black
market. It appears from this report that in September 1944, the
Roges had resold to Germany for 10,858,499 marks, or 217,169,980
francs, objects seized in the southern zone as war booty. I submit
this document as Exhibit Number RF-244.

As a result of the means of payment exacted by Germany and
of requisitions regulated by her, or not, France was literally
despoiled. Enormous quantities of articles of all kinds were removed
by the occupiers. According to information given by the French
statistical services, preliminary estimates of the minimum of these
levies have been made. These estimates do not include damages
resulting from military operations, but solely the German spoliations,
computed in cases of doubt at a minimum figure. They will
be summarized in the eight following sections.

1. Levies of agricultural produce.

I submit as Document Number RF-245, the report of the Ministry
of Agriculture and a statistical table drawn up by the Institut de
Conjoncture, summarizing the official German levies which included
neither individual purchases nor black market purchases which
were both considerable. It is not possible for me to read to the
Tribunal a table as long as this; I shall confine myself to giving
a brief résumé of this statistical table.

Here are some of the chief agricultural products which were
seized and their estimate in thousands of francs (I am indicating
the totals in round figures): Cereals, 8,900,000 tons, estimate 22 million
francs; meat, 900,000 tons, estimate 30 million; fish, 51,000 tons,
estimate 1 million; wines, liquors, 13,413,000 hectoliters, estimate
18,500,000; colonial products, 47,000 tons, estimate 805,900; horses
and mules, 690,000 head; wood, 36 million cubic meters; sugar,
11,600,000 tons.

I shall pass over the details. The Germans settled through
clearing and by means of occupation costs 113,620,376,000 francs; the
balance, that is 13,000 million, was not settled in any way.

Naturally, these estimates do not include considerable damage
caused to forests as a result of abnormal cutting and the reduction
of areas under cultivation. There is no mention, either, of the
reduction in livestock and damage caused by soil exhaustion. This
is a brief summary of the percentage of official German levies on
agriculture in relation to the total French production: Wheat,
13 percent; oats, 75 percent; hay and straw, 80 percent; meat,
21 percent; poultry, 35 percent; eggs, 60 percent; butter, 20 percent;
preserved fish, 30 percent; champagne, 56 percent; wood for

industrial uses, 50 percent; forest fuels, 50 percent; alcohol, 25 percent.
These percentages, I repeat, do not include quantities of produce
which the Germans bought up either by individual purchases or on
the black market.

I have had the privilege of presenting to you the fact that these
operations were of a considerable scope and amounted for France
approximately to several hundred thousand millions of francs. The
quantities of agricultural produce thus taken from French
consumers are incalculable. I shall simply indicate that wines,
champagne, liquors, meat, poultry, eggs, butter were the object of
a very considerable clandestine traffic to the benefit of the Germans
and that the French population, except for certain privileged
persons, was almost entirely deprived of these products.

In Section 2 of this chapter I shall discuss the important question
concerning levies of raw materials.

THE PRESIDENT: That would be a good time for us to adjourn
for ten minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

M. GERTHOFFER: The summary of the levies in raw materials
from the statistical point of view is contained in charts which I shall
not take the time to read to the Tribunal. I shall submit them as
Document Number RF-246 and point out that the total amount of
these supplies reaches the sum of 83,804,145,000 francs.

On Pages 77 to 80 of my written statement I had thought it
necessary to make a summary of these charts, but I consider it is
not possible to read even the summary because the figures are
too numerous.

According to information provided by the French administration,
of that sum the Germans settled, by way of occupation costs and
clearing, only 59,254,639,000 francs, leaving the difference of
19,506,109,000 francs charged to the French Treasury.

The percentage of the German levies in relation to the whole
French production can be summarized in a chart which I have
given in my brief and I ask the Tribunal for permission to read it:

This enumeration permits us to consider that officially about
three-quarters of the raw materials were seized by the occupying
power, but these statistics must be qualified in two ways: A large
part of the quota of raw materials theoretically left to the French
economy was in fact reserved for priority industries, that is to say,
those industries whose production was reserved for the occupying
power. Secondly, these requisitions and percentages include only
the figures of official deliveries; but we have seen that the Germans
acquired considerable quantities of raw materials from the black
market, especially precious metals: gold, platinum, silver, radium,
or rare metals, such as mercury, nickel, tin and copper.

In fact, one can say in general that the raw materials which
were left for the needs of the population were insignificant.

Now, I come to Section 3: Levies of manufactured goods and
products of the mining industry.

As I had the honor to point out to you in my general remarks,
the Germans, using divers means of pressure, succeeded in utilizing
directly or indirectly the greater part of the French industrial
production. I shall not go over these facts again and I shall
immediately pass to a summary of the products which were
delivered. I submit as Document Number RF-248 a chart which
contains statistical data, according to industries, of levies by the
occupying power of manufactured goods during the course of the
occupation.

I do not want to tax the patience of the Tribunal by reading
this; I shall simply cite the summary of this chart, which is as
follows: Orders for products finished and invoiced from 25 June
1940 until the liberation—Mechanical and electrical industries,
59,455 million; chemical industry, 11,744 million; textiles and
leather, 15,802 million; building and construction material, 56,256
million; mines (coal, aluminum, and phosphates), 4,160 million; iron
industry, 4,474 million; motor fuel, 568 million; naval construction,
6,104 million; aeronautical construction, 23,620 million; miscellaneous
industries, 2,457 million; making a total of 184,640 million.

These statistics should be commented upon as follows:

1) The information which is contained here does not include
the production of the very industrialized departments of Nord and
of Pas de Calais, attached to the German administration of Brussels,
nor does it include the manufactures of the Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin,
and Moselle departments, actually incorporated into the Reich.

2) Out of the total sum of 184,640 million francs worth of
supplies, the information which we have to date does not as yet
permit us to fix the amount regulated by the Germans by way of
either occupation costs or clearing, or the balance which was not
made the subject of any settlement.

3) If, on the basis of contracts, one made an estimate of the
industrial production levied by Germany in the departments of
Nord and Pas de Calais, one would obtain a figure for those two
departments of 18,500 million, which would bring the approximate
total up to more than 200,000 million francs.

The extent of the German levies on manufactured products is
summarized in the following chart which I submit to the Tribunal,
and which I have summarized on Page 87 of my written statement.
I shall take the liberty of reading it once more to the Tribunal.
It will show the proportion of the manufactured goods which
the French population was deprived of: Automobile construction,
70 percent; electrical and radio construction, 45 percent; industrial
precision parts, 100 percent; heavy castings, 100 percent; foundries,
46 percent; chemical industries, 34 percent; rubber industry,
60 percent; paint and varnish, 60 percent; perfume, 33 percent;
wool industry, 28 percent; cotton weaving, 15 percent; flax and
cotton weaving, 12 percent; industrial hides, 20 percent; buildings
and public works, 75 percent; woodwork and furniture, 50 percent;
lime and cement, 68 percent; naval construction, 79 percent;
aeronautic construction, 90 percent.

The scrutiny of this chart leads to the following remarks:

The proportion of entirely finished products is very large, for
instance: automobiles, 70 percent; precision instruments, 100 percent;
heavy castings, 100 percent; whereas, the proportion of the products
in the process of manufacture is not as great, for example: foundry,
46 percent; chemical industry, 34 percent; et cetera.

This state of affairs results from the fact that the Germans
directed the products in the process of manufacture—in theory
reserved for the French population—into finishing industries which
had priority, that is to say, whose production was reserved for them.

Finally, through their purchases on the black market, the
Germans procured an enormous quantity of textiles, machine tools,
leather, perfumes, and so forth. The French population was almost
completely deprived of textiles, in particular, during the occupation.
That is also the case as regards leather.

Now, I reach Section 4: the removal of industrial tools.

I shall not impose on your time. This question has already been
treated as far as the other occupied countries are concerned. I
would merely point out that in France it was the subject of

statistical estimates which I submit to you as Document Number
RF-251. These statistical estimates show that the value of the
material which was removed from the various French factories,
either private or public enterprise, exceeds the sum of 9,000 million
francs.

It was observed that for many of the machines which were
removed, the Germans merely indicated the inventory values after
reduction for depreciation and not the replacement value of the
machines.

I now come to Section 5: Securities and Foreign Investments.
In Document EC-57, which I submitted as Exhibit Number RF-105
at the beginning of my presentation, I had indicated that the
Defendant Göring himself had informed you of the aims of the
German economic policy and he ventured to say that the extension
of German influence over foreign enterprises was one of the
purposes of German economic policy.

These directives were to be expressed much more precisely in
the document of the 12th of August 1940, which I submit as Exhibit
Number RF-252 (Document Number EC-40), from which I shall
read a short extract:

Further on it says:

Then the document indicates all the means to be employed to
achieve this, in particular this passage concerning international law:

Further on:

We will briefly consider the three categories of seizure of
financial investments, which were the purpose of German spoliation
during the occupation, and first of all the seizure of financial investments
in companies whose interests were abroad.

On the 14th of August 1940 an ordinance was published in
VOBIF, Page 67 (Document Number RF-253), forbidding any
negotiations regarding credits or foreign securities. But mere
freezing of securities did not satisfy the occupying power; it was
necessary for them to become outwardly the owners of the
securities in order to be able, if necessary, to negotiate them in
neutral countries.

They had agents who purchased foreign securities from private
citizens who needed money, but above all, they put pressure on
the Vichy Government in order to obtain the handing over of the
principal French investments in foreign countries. That is why, in
particular, after long discussions in the course of which the German
pressure was very great, considerable surrenders of securities were
made to the Germans.

It is not possible for me to submit to the Tribunal the
numerous documents concerning the surrender of these securities:
minutes, correspondence, valuations. There would be without
exaggeration, several cubic meters of them. I shall merely quote
several passages as examples.

Concerning the Bor Mines Company, the copper mines in Yugoslavia
of which the greater part of the capital was in French hands,
the Germans appointed, on 26 July 1940, an administrative commissioner
for the branches of the company situated in Yugoslavia.
This is found in Document Number RF-254 which I submit to the
Tribunal. The administrative commissioner was Herr Neuhausen,
the German Consul General for Yugoslavia and Bulgaria.

In the course of the discussions of the Armistice Commission
Hemmen declared (extract from the minutes of 27 September 1940
at 10:30, which I submit to the Tribunal as Document Number
RF-255):

Faced with the refusal of the French delegates, Hemmen
declared at the meeting of 4 October 1940 (I submit to the Tribunal
an extract from the minutes of this meeting as Document Number
RF-256):

M. de Boisanger, the French Delegate, replied:

And Hemmen replied:

Then, in the course of the meeting on 9 January 1941, Hemmen
stated—I submit again an extract from the minutes, Document
Number RF-257:

As far as French investments in petroleum companies in Romania
are concerned, the pressure was no less. In the course of the meeting
of 10 October 1940, of the Armistice Commission, the same Hemmen
stated (I submit as Document Number RF-258, an extract from the
minutes of the meeting):

On the 22 November 1940, Hemmen stated again (I submit this
extract of the minutes of the Armistice Commission meeting
as Document Number RF-259):

When the French delegates asked that the surrender should at
least be made in exchange for a material compensation, Hemmen
replied in the course of the same meeting:

We might present indefinitely quotations of this kind, and many
even much more serious from the point of view of violation of the
provisions of the Hague Convention.

All these surrenders, apparently agreed to by the French, were
accepted only under German pressure. Scrutiny of the contracts
agreed upon shows great losses to those who handed over their
property and enormous profits for those who acquired it, without the
latter having furnished any real compensation.

The Germans thus obtained French shares in the Romanian
petroleum companies, in the enterprises of Central Europe, Norway,
and the Balkans, and especially those of the Bor Mines Company
which I mentioned. These surrenders paid by francs coming from
occupation costs, rose to a little more than two thousand million
francs. The others were paid by the floating of French loans abroad,
notably in Holland, and through clearing.

Having given you a brief summary of the seizure of French
business investments abroad, I shall also examine rapidly the German
seizure of registered capitals of French industrial companies.

Shortly after the Armistice, in conformity with the directives of
the Defendant Göring, a great number of French industries were
the object of proposals on the part of German groups anxious to
acquire all or part of the assets of these companies.

This operation was facilitated by the fact that the Germans, as I
have had the honor of pointing out to you, were in reality in control
of industry and had taken over the direction of production, particularly
by the system of “Paten Firmen.” Long discussions took
place between the occupying power and the French Ministry of
Finance, whose officials strove, sometimes without success, to limit
to 30 percent the maximum of German shares. It is not possible for
me to enter into details of the seizure of these shares. I shall point
out, however, that the Finance Minister handed to us a list of the
most important ones, which are reproduced in a chart appended to
the French Document Book under Document RF-260 (Exhibit
Number RF-260).

The result was that the seizure of shares, fictitiously paid through
clearing, reached the sum of 307,436,000 francs; through occupation
costs accounts, 160 millions; through foreign stocks a sum which
we have not been able to determine; and finally, through various
or unknown means, 28,718,000 francs.

We shall conclude the paragraph of this fifth section by quoting
part of the Hemmen report relative to these questions (Page 63 of
the original and 142 of the French translation). Here is what Hemmen
writes, in Salzburg in January 1944, concerning this subject:

Further on, Page 63 in the third paragraph:

There is reason to emphasize that the profit derived by Germany
merely from the financial point of view is not 7 million Reichsmark,
or 140 million francs according to Hemmen, but much greater. In
fact, Germany paid principally for these acquisitions with the
occupation indemnity, clearing, and French loans issued in Holland
or in Belgium, the appropriation of which by Germany amounted to
spoliation of these countries and could not constitute a real compensation
for France.

These surrenders of holdings, carried out under the cloak of
legality, moved the United Nations in their declarations made in
London on 5 January 1943 to lay down the principle that such
surrenders should be declared null and void, even when carried
out with the apparent consent of those who made them.

I submit as Document Number RF-261, the solemn statement
signed in London on 5 January 1943, which was published in the
French Journal Officiel on 15 August 1944, at the time of the
liberation. I might add that all these surrenders are the subject of
indictments before the French Courts of high treason against Frenchmen
who surrendered their holdings to the Germans, even though
undeniable pressure was brought to bear upon them.

I shall conclude this chapter with one last observation: The
German seizure of real estate in France. It is still difficult to give
at this time a precise account of this subject, for these operations
were made most often through an intermediary with an assumed
name. The most striking is that of a certain Skolnikoff, who during
the occupation was able to invest nearly 2,000 million francs in
the purchase of real estate.

This individual of indeterminate nationality, who lived in
poverty before the war, enriched himself in a scandalous fashion,
thanks to his connection with the Gestapo and his operations on
the black market with the occupying power. But whatever may
have been the profits he derived from his dishonest activities, he
could not personally have acquired real estate to the value of almost
2,000 million in France.

I submit, as Document Number RF-262, a copy of a police report
concerning this individual. It is not possible for me to read this to
the Tribunal in its entirety, but this report contains the list of the
buildings and real estate companies acquired by this individual.
These are without question choice buildings of great value. It is
evident that Skolnikoff, an agent for the Gestapo, was an assumed
name for German personalities whose identity has not been discovered
up to the present.

Now I shall take up Section 6; the requisition of transport and
communication material.

A report from the French administration gives us statistics which
are reproduced in very complete charts, which I shall not read to
the Tribunal. I shall merely point out that most of the locomotives
and rolling stock in good shape were removed, and that the total
sum of the requisitions of transport material reaches the sum of
198,450 million francs.

I shall now deal with requisitions in the departments of Haut-Rhin,
Bas-Rhin, and Moselle. From the beginning of the invasion
the Germans incorporated these departments into the Reich. This
question will be presented by the French Prosecution when they
discuss the question of Germanization. From the point of view of
economic spoliation it must be stressed that the Germans sought to
derive a maximum from these three departments. If they paid in
marks for a certain number of products, they made no settlement
whatever for the principal products, especially coal, iron, crude oil,
potash, industrial material, furniture, and agricultural machinery.

The information relating to this is given by the French administration
in a chart which I shall summarize briefly and which I
submit as Document Number RF-264. The value of requisitions
made in the three French departments of the east—requisitions not
paid for by the Germans—reaches the sum of 27,315 million francs.

To conclude the question of the departments in the east, I should
like to point out to the Tribunal that my colleague, who will
discuss the question of Germanization, will show how the firm,
Hermann Göring Werke, in which the Defendant Göring had considerable
interests, appropriated equipment from mines of the
large French company called the “Petits-Fils de François de Wendel
et Cie.” (See Document RF-1300.)

I now come to the Section 8, concerning miscellaneous levies.

1) Spoliations in Tunisia. The Germans went into Tunisia on
10 November 1942 and were driven out by the Allied Armies in
May 1943. During this period they indulged in numerous acts of
spoliation.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you think that it is necessary to go into
details of the seizures in this part of the country if they are of the
same sort as those in other parts of the country?

M. GERTHOFFER: Mr. President, it is similar; there is only
one difference, and that concerns the amount. I believe the principle
cannot be contested by anyone; therefore I shall go on.

Gentlemen, I shall also pass over the question of compulsory
labor. I shall conclude my summary, however, by pointing out to
the Tribunal that French economy suffered enormous losses from
the deportation of workers, a subject which was discussed by my
colleague. We have calculated the losses in working hours and we
estimate—and this will be my only remark—that French economy
lost 12,550 million working hours through the deportation of workers,
a figure which does not include the number of workers who
were more or less forced to work for the Germans in enterprises in
France.

If you will permit me, gentlemen, I shall conclude this presentation
concerning France by giving you a general review of the
situation; and I shall refer once more to Hemmen, the economic
dictator who actually ruined my country upon the orders of his
masters, the defendants. While in the first five reports submitted,
despite their apparently technical nature, the author shows the
assurance of the victor who can allow himself to do anything, in
the last report of 15 December 1944 at Salzburg, the only one I
shall refer to, Hemmen sought visibly, while giving his work a
technical quality, to plead the case of Germany—that of his Nazi
masters and his own case. He only succeeded, however, in bringing
forth unwittingly an implacable accusation against the nefarious
work with which he was entrusted. Here are some short extracts,
gentlemen, of Hemmen’s final report.

On Page 1 of his report, Page 2 of the French text, he implied
the co-responsibility of the German leaders, and Göring particularly.
He writes as follows:

A little farther on he admits blackmail with regard; to the
demarcation line with these words (Page 3 of the translation):

Then Hemmen adds:

Farther on, concerning pressure, on Page 4, and Page 7 of the
translation, Hemmen wrote:

I pass over the passage in which Hemmen speaks of French
resistance. However, I should like to point out to the Tribunal that,
on Page 13—Page 29 of the translation—Hemmen tries to show
through financial evaluations and most questionable arguments that
the cost of the war per head was heavier for the Germans than
for the French. He himself destroys with one word the whole
system of defense which he had built up by writing at the end of
his bold calculations that from autumn 1940 to February 1944 the
cost of living increased 166 percent in France, while in Germany it
increased only 7 percent. Now, gentlemen, it is, I am quite sure,
through the increase in the cost of living that one measures the
impoverishment of a country.

Last of all, on Page 4, and this is my last quotation from the
Hemmen report, he admits the German crime in these terms:

These material losses, we may say, can be repaired. Through
work and saving we can re-establish, in a more or less distant
future, the economic situation of the country. That is true, but
there is one thing which can never be repaired—the results of
privations upon the physical state of the population.

If the other German crimes, such as deportations, murders,
massacres, make one shudder with horror, the crime which consisted
of deliberately starving whole populations is no less odious.

In the occupied countries, in France particularly, many persons
died solely because of undernourishment and because of lack of
heat. It was estimated that people require from 3,000 to 3,500
calories a day and heavy laborers about 4,000. From the beginning
of the rationing in September 1940 only 1,800 calories per day per
person were distributed. Successively the ration decreased to
1,700 calories in 1942, then to 1,500, and finally fell to 1,220 and
900 calories a day for adults and to 1,380 and 1,300 for heavy
laborers; old persons were given only 850 calories a day. But the
true situation was still worse than the ration theoretically allotted
through ration cards; in fact, frequently a certain number of coupons
were not honored.

The Germans could not fail to recognize the disastrous situation
as far as public health was concerned, since they themselves estimated
in the course of the war of 1914-1918 that the distribution
of 1,700 calories a day was a “regime of slow starvation, leading to
death.”

What aggravated the situation still more was the quality of the
rations which were distributed. Bread was of the poorest quality;
milk, when there was any, was skimmed to the point where the fat
content amounted to only 3 percent. The small amount of meat
given to the population was of bad quality. Fish had disappeared
from the market. If we add to that an almost total lack of clothing,
shoes, and fuel, and the fact that frequently neither schools nor
hospitals were heated, one may easily understand what the physical
condition of the population was.

Incurable sicknesses such as tuberculosis developed and will continue
to extend their ravages for many years. The growth of children
and adolescents is seriously impaired. The future of the race is a
cause for the greatest concern. The results of economic spoliation
will be felt for an indefinite period.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell me what evidence you have
for your figures of calories?

M. GERTHOFFER: I am going to show you this at the end of
my presentation. It is a report of a professor at the Medical School
of Paris who has been specially commissioned by the Dean of the
University to make a report on the results of undernourishment.
I will quote it at the end of my statement. I am almost there.

The results of this economic spoliation will be felt for an indefinite
length of time. The exhaustion is such that, despite the
generous aid brought by the United Nations, the situation of the
occupied countries, taken as a whole, is still alarming. In fact, the
complete absence of stocks, the insufficiency of the means of
production and of transport, the reduction of livestock and the
economic disorganization, do not permit the allotting of sufficient
rations at this time. This poverty, which strikes all occupied
countries, can disappear only gradually over a long period of time,
the length of which no one can yet determine.

If in certain rich agricultural regions the producers were able
during the occupation to have and still do have a privileged
situation from the point of view of food supply, the same is not true
in the poorer regions nor in urban districts. If we consider that
in France the urban population is somewhat more numerous than
the rural population, we can state clearly that the great majority
of the French population was subject to and still remains subject to
a food regime definitely insufficient.

Professor Guy Laroche, delegated by the Dean of the Faculty of
Medicine of Paris to study the consequences of undernourishment
in France as a result of German requisitions, has just sent a report
on this question.

I do not wish to prolong my explanation by reading the entire
report. I shall ask the Tribunal’s permission to quote the conclusion,
which I submit as Document Number RF-264(bis). I received the
whole report only a few days ago. It is submitted in its entirety,
but I have not been able to have 50 copies made of it. Two copies
have been made and are being submitted. Here are Dr. Laroche’s
conclusions:

The report is signed by Professor Guy Laroche.

This report, gentlemen, has attached to it a photograph, which
you will find at the end of the document book. I beg to hand it
to you. The unfortunate beings that you see in that picture are not
the victims of a concentration or reprisal camp. They are simply
the patients of an asylum in the outskirts of Paris who fell into
this state of physical weakness as a result of undernourishment. If
these men had had the diet of the asylum prior to rationing, they
would have been as strong as normal people. Unfortunately for
them they were reduced to the official rationing and were unable
to obtain the slightest supplement.

Do not let adversaries say: “But the German people are just as
badly off!”

I should reply that, in the first place, this is not true. The German
did not suffer cold for four years; he was not undernourished. On
the contrary, he was well-fed, warmly clothed, warmly housed, with
products stolen from the occupied countries, leaving only the minimum
necessary for existence for the peoples of these countries.

Remember, gentlemen, the words of Göring when he said: “If
famine is to reign, it will not reign in Germany.”

Secondly I should say to my adversaries if they made such an
objection: The Germans and their Nazi leaders wanted the war which
they launched, but they had no right to starve other peoples in
order to carry out their attempt at world domination. If today they
are in a difficult situation, it is the result of their own behavior;

and they seem to me to have no right to take recourse to the
famous sentence: “I did not want that.”

I am coming to the end of my statement. If you will permit me,
gentlemen, I will conclude in two minutes the whole of this presentation
by reminding the Tribunal in a few words what the
premeditated crime was, of which the German leaders have been
accused, from the economic point of view.

The application of racial and living space theories was bound
to engender an economic situation which could not be solved and
force the Nazi leaders to war.

In a modern society because of the division of labor, of its
concentration, and of its scientific organization, the concept of
national capital takes on more and more a primary importance,
whatever may be the social principles of its distribution between
nationals, or its possession in all or in part by states.

Now, a national capital, public or private, is constituted by the
joint effort of the labor and the savings of successive generations.

Saving, or the putting into reserve of the products of labor as a
result of deprivations freely consented to, must exist in proportion
to the needs of the concentration of the industrial enterprises of
the country.

In Germany, a country highly-industrialized, this equilibrium did
not exist. In fact, the expenditures, private or public, of that
country surpassed its means; saving was insufficient. The establishment
of a system of obligatory savings was formulated only through
the creation of new taxes and has never replaced true savings.

As a result of the war of 1914-1918, after having freed herself
of the burden of reparations (and I must point out that two-thirds
of the sum remained charged to France as far as this country is
concerned), Germany, who had established her gold reserve in 1926,
began a policy of foreign loans and spent without counting the
cost. Finding it impossible to keep her agreements, she found no
more creditors.

After Hitler’s accession to power her policy became more definite.
She isolated herself in a closed economic system, utilizing all her
resources for the preparation of a war which would permit her,
or at least that is what she hoped, to take through force the
property of her western neighbors and then to turn against the
Soviet Union in the hope of exploiting, for her profit, the immense
wealth of that great country. It is the application of the theories
formulated in Mein Kampf, which had as a corollary the enslavement
and then the extermination of the populations of conquered
countries.

In the course of the occupation the invaded nations were
systematically pillaged and brutally enslaved; and this would have
permitted Germany to obtain her war aims, that is to say, to take
the patrimony of the invaded countries and to exterminate their
populations gradually, if the valor of the United Nations had not
delivered them. Instead of becoming enriched from the looted
property, Germany had to sink it into a war which she had provoked,
right up to the very moment of her collapse.

Such actions, knowingly perpetrated and executed by the German
leaders contrary to international law and particularly contrary to
the Hague Convention, as well as the general principles of penal
law in force in all civilized nations, constitute War Crimes for
which they must answer before your high jurisdiction.

Mr. President, I should like to add that the French Prosecution had
intended to present a statement on the pillage of works of art in
the occupied countries of western Europe. But this question has
already been discussed in two briefs of our American colleagues,
briefs which seem to us to establish beyond any question the
responsibility of the defendants. In order not to prolong the hearing,
the French Prosecution feels that it is its duty to refrain from
presenting this question again; but we remain respectfully at the
disposal of the Tribunal in case, in the course of the trial, they feel
they need further information on this question.

The presentation of the French Prosecution is concluded. I shall
give the floor to Captain Sprecher of the American Delegation,
who will make a statement on the responsibility of the Defendant
Fritzsche.

CAPTAIN DREXEL A. SPRECHER (Assistant Trial Counsel for
the United States): May it please the Tribunal, I notice that Dr.
Fritz, the defendant’s attorney, is not here; and in view of the late
hour, it would be agreeable if we hold it over until tomorrow.

THE PRESIDENT: It is 5 o’clock now, so we shall adjourn in
any event now.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 23 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]

Morning Session

CAPT. SPRECHER: May it please the Tribunal, it is my responsibility
and my privilege to present today the case on the individual
responsibility of the Defendant Hans Fritzsche for Crimes against
Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity as they relate
directly to the Common Plan or Conspiracy.

With the permission of the Tribunal, it is planned to make this
presentation in three principal divisions:

First, a short listing of the various positions held by the Defendant
Fritzsche in the Nazi State.

Second, a discussion of Fritzsche’s conspiratorial activities within
the Propaganda Ministry from 1933 through the attack on the Soviet
Union.

Third, a discussion of Fritzsche’s connection, as a Nazi propagandist,
to the atrocities and the ruthless occupation policy which
formed a part of the Common Plan or Conspiracy.

In listing Fritzsche’s positions, it is not intended at first to
describe the functions of these positions. Later on, in describing
some of Fritzsche’s conspiratorial acts, I shall take up a discussion
of some of these positions which he held.

Fritzsche’s Party membership and his various positions in the
propaganda apparatus of the Nazi State are shown by two affidavits
by Fritzsche himself: Document Number 2976-PS, which is already
in evidence as Exhibit USA-20; and Document Number 3469-PS,
which I offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-721. Both of these affidavits
have been put into the four working languages of this Tribunal.

Fritzsche became a member of the Nazi Party on the 1st of May
1933, and he continued to be a member until the collapse in 1945.
Fritzsche began his services with the staff of the Reich Ministry
for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, hereinafter referred to as
the Propaganda Ministry, on the 1st of May 1933; and he remained
within the Propaganda Ministry until the Nazi downfall.

Before the Nazis seized political power in Germany and beginning
in September 1932, Fritzsche was head of the Wireless News Service
(Drahtloser Dienst), an agency of the Reich Government at that
time under the Defendant Von Papen. After the Wireless News

Service was incorporated into the Propaganda Ministry of Dr.
Goebbels in May 1933, Fritzsche continued as its head until the year
1938. Upon entering the Propaganda Ministry in May 1933, Fritzsche
also became head of the news section of the Press Division of the
Propaganda Ministry. He continued in this position until 1937. In
the summer of 1938, Fritzsche was appointed deputy to one Alfred
Ingemar Berndt, who was then head of the German Press Division.

The German Press Division, in the Indictment, is called the Home
Press Division. Since “German Press Division” seems to be a more
literal translation, we have called it the German Press Division
throughout this presentation. It is sometimes otherwise known as the
Domestic Press Division. We shall show later that this division was
the major section of the Press Division of the Reich Cabinet.

Now in December 1938 Fritzsche succeeded Berndt as the head
of the German Press Division. Between 1938 and November 1942
Fritzsche was promoted three times. He advanced in title from
Superior Government Counsel to Ministerial Counsel, then to
Ministerialdirigent, and finally to Ministerialdirektor.

In November 1942 Fritzsche was relieved of his position as head
of the German Press Division by Dr. Goebbels and accepted from
Dr. Goebbels a newly created position in the Propaganda Ministry,
that of Plenipotentiary for the Political Organization of the Greater
German Radio. At the same time he also became head of the Radio
Division of the Propaganda Ministry. He held both these positions
in radio until the Nazi downfall.

There are two allegations of the Indictment concerning Fritzsche’s
positions for which we are unable to offer proof. These allegations
appear at Page 34 of the English translation.

The first unsupported allegation states that Fritzsche was “Editor-in-Chief
of the official German News Agency (Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro).”
The second unsupported allegation states that
Fritzsche was “head of the Radio Division of the Propaganda
Department of the Nazi Party.” Fritzsche denies having held either
of these positions, in his affidavit, and therefore these two allegations
must fall for want of proof.

Before discussing the documentation of the case I wish, in
passing, to state my appreciation for the assistance of Mr. Norbert
Halpern, Mr. Alfred Booth, and Lieutenant Niebergall, who sits at
my right, for their assistance in research, analysis, and translation.

The Tribunal will note the relative shortness of this document
book. It has been marked as Document Book MM. It contains only
32 pages, which have been numbered consecutively in red pencil
for your convenience. The shortness of the documentation on this
particular case is possible only because of a long affidavit made by

the Defendant Fritzsche, which was signed by him on the 7th of
January 1946.

It seems appropriate to comment on this significant document
before proceeding. It is before Your Honors as Document Number
3469-PS, beginning at document book Page 19. As I said, it has
been translated into the four working languages of this proceeding.

This affidavit contains materials which have been extracted from
interrogations of Fritzsche and many materials which Fritzsche
volunteered to give himself, upon request made by me, through his
Defense Counsel, Dr. Fritz. Some of the portions of the final affidavit
were originally typed or handwritten by the Defendant Fritzsche
himself during this Trial or during the holiday recess. All these
materials were finally incorporated into one single affidavit.

This affidavit contains Fritzsche’s account of the events which
led to his entering the Propaganda Ministry and his account of his
later connections with that Ministry. Before Fritzsche made some
of the statements in the affidavit concerning the role of propaganda
in relation to important foreign political events, he was shown
illustrative headlines and articles from the German press at that
time, so that he could refresh his recollection and make more
accurate statements.

It is believed that the Tribunal will desire to consider many
portions of this affidavit independent of this presentation, along with
the proof on the conspirators’ use of propaganda as a principal
weapon in the conspiracy. Some of this proof, you will recall, was
submitted by Major Wallis in the first days of this Trial in connection
with Brief E, entitled “Propaganda, Censorship, and Supervision
of the Cultural Activities,” and the corresponding document
book, to which I call the Tribunal’s attention.

In the Fritzsche affidavit there are a number of statements which
I would say were in the nature of self-serving declarations. With
respect to these, the Prosecution requests only that the Tribunal
consider them in the light of the whole conspiracy and the indisputable
facts which appear throughout the Record. The Prosecution did
not feel, either as a matter of expediency or of fairness, that it
should request Fritzsche, through his defense lawyer, Dr. Fritz, to
remove some of these self-serving declarations at this time and
submit them later in connection with his defense.

Since I shall refer to this affidavit at numerous times throughout
the presentation, perhaps the members of the Tribunal will wish to
place a special marker in their document book.

By referring to Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit, the Tribunal
will note that Fritzsche first became a successful journalist in the
service of the Hugenberg Press, the most important chain of newspaper
enterprises in pre-Nazi Germany. The Hugenberg concern

owned papers of its own, but primarily it was important because
it served newspapers which principally supported the so-called
“national” parties of the Reich, including the NSDAP.

In Paragraph 5 of his affidavit Fritzsche relates that in September
1932, when the Defendant Von Papen was Reich Chancellor, he was
made head of the Wireless News Service, replacing someone who
was politically unbearable to the Papen regime. The Wireless News
Service, I might say, was a government agency for spreading news
by radio.

Fritzsche began making radio broadcasts at about this time with
very great success, a success which Goebbels recognized and was
later to exploit very efficiently on behalf of these Nazi conspirators.

The Nazis seized power on the 30th of January 1933. From Paragraph
10 of the Fritzsche affidavit we find that that very evening, the
30th of January 1933, two emissaries from Goebbels visited
Fritzsche. One of them was Dressler-Andress, head of the Radio
Division of the NSDAP; the other was an assistant of Dressler-Andress
named Sadila-Mantau. These two emissaries notified
Fritzsche that although Goebbels was angry with Fritzsche for
writing a critical article concerning Hitler, still Goebbels recognized
Fritzsche’s public success on the radio since the previous fall.
They stated further that Goebbels desired to retain Fritzsche as
head of the Wireless News Service on certain conditions: (1) That
Fritzsche discharge all Jews; (2) that he discharge all other personnel
who would not join the NSDAP; and (3) that he employ with the
Wireless News Service the second Goebbels’ emissary, Sadila-Mantau.

Fritzsche refused all these conditions except the hiring of Sadila-Mantau.
This was one of the first ostensible compromises after the
seizure of power which Fritzsche made on his road to the Nazi camp.

Fritzsche continued to make radio broadcasts during this period
in which he supported the National Socialist coalition government
then still existing.

In early 1933 SA troops several times called at the Wireless
News Service and Fritzsche prevented them, with some difficulty,
from making news broadcasts.

In April 1933 Goebbels called the young Fritzsche to him for a
personal audience. At Paragraph 9 of his affidavit, Document
Number 3469-PS, Fritzsche has volunteered the following concerning
his prior relationships with Dr. Goebbels:

At the first Goebbels-Fritzsche discussion in early April 1933,
Goebbels informed Fritzsche of his decision to place the Wireless
News Service within the Propaganda Ministry as of 1 May 1933. He
suggested that Fritzsche make certain rearrangements in the
personnel which would remove Jews and other persons who did not
support the NSDAP. Fritzsche debated with Goebbels concerning
some of these steps. It must be said that during this period Fritzsche
made some effort to place Jews in other jobs.

In a second conference with Goebbels, shortly thereafter,
Fritzsche informed Goebbels about the steps he had taken in
reorganizing the Wireless News Service. Goebbels thereupon informed
Fritzsche that he would like to have him reorganize and
modernize the entire news services of Germany within the control
of the Propaganda Ministry.

It will be recalled by the Tribunal that on the 17th of March
1933, approximately two months before this time, the Propaganda
Ministry had been formed by decree, 1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I,
Page 104, our Document Number 2029-PS.

Fritzsche was intrigued by the Goebbels offer. He proceeded to
conclude the Goebbels-inspired reorganization of the Wireless News
Service; and on the 1st of May 1933, together with the remaining
members of his staff, he joined the Propaganda Ministry. On this
same day he joined the NSDAP and took the customary oath of
unconditional loyalty to the Führer. From this time on, whatever
reservations Fritzsche may have had, either then or later, to the
course of events under the Nazis, Fritzsche was completely within
the Nazi camp. For the next 13 years he assisted in creating and
in using the principal propaganda devices which the conspirators
employed with such telling effect in each of the principal phases of
this conspiracy.

From 1933 until 1942 Fritzsche held one or more positions within
the German Press Division. For 4 years indeed he headed this
Division, during those crucial years 1938 to 1942. That covers the
period when the Nazis undertook actual military invasions of
neighboring countries. It is, therefore, believed appropriate to spell
out in some detail, before this Tribunal, the functions of this German
Press Division. These functions will show the important and unique
position of the German Press Division as an instrument of the Nazi
conspirators not only in dominating the minds and the psychology

of Germans through the German Press Division and through the
radio but also as an instrument of foreign policy and psychological
warfare against other nations.

The already broad jurisdiction of the Propaganda Ministry was
extended by a Hitler decree of the 30th of June 1933, found in 1933
Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 449. From that decree I wish to
quote only one sentence. It is found in Document 2030-PS, your
document book Page 3:

It is important to underline the stated propaganda objective of
“enlightenment at home and abroad.”

For a clear exposition of the general functions of the German
Press Division of the Propaganda Ministry, the Tribunal is referred
to Document Number 2434-PS, document book Page 5. It is offered
in evidence as Exhibit USA-722. This document is an appropriate
excerpt from a book by Georg Wilhelm Müller, a Ministerial
Director in the Propaganda Ministry, of which the Tribunal is asked
to take judicial notice.

Fritzsche’s affidavit, Paragraphs 14, 15, and 16, beginning at
Page 22 of your document book, contains an exposition of the
functions of the German Press Division, a description which confirms
and adds to the exposition in Müller’s book. Concerning the German
Press Division, Fritzsche’s affidavit states:

This description of Fritzsche establishes clearly and in his own
words that the German Press Division was the instrument for
subordinating the entire German press to the political aims of the
government.

We now pass to Fritzsche’s first activities on behalf of the conspirators
within the German Press Division. It is appropriate to
read again from his affidavit, Paragraph 17, your document book
Page 23. Fritzsche begins by describing a conference with Goebbels
in late April or early May 1933:

An obvious reason why the DNB was excepted from Fritzsche’s
field at this time is that the DNB did not come into existence until
the year 1934 as we shall later see. Later on, in Paragraph 17 of the
Fritzsche affidavit, the Tribunal will note the tremendous funds put
at the disposal of Fritzsche in building up the Nazi news services.
Altogether the German news agencies received a 10-fold increase
in their budget from the Reich, an increase from 400,000 to 4 million
marks. Fritzsche himself selected and employed the chief editor for
the Transocean News Agency and also for the Europa Press.
Fritzsche states that some of the “directions of the Propaganda
Ministry which I had to follow were,” and then skipping, “. . . increase
of German news copy abroad at any cost,” and then skipping
again, “. . . spreading of favorable news on the internal construction
and peaceful intentions of the National Socialist system.”

About the summer of 1934 the Defendant Funk, then Reich
Press Chief, achieved the fusion of the two most important domestic
news agencies, the Wolff Telegraph Agency and the Telegraph
Union, and thus formed the official German news agency, ordinarily
known as DNB. It has already been pointed out to the Tribunal
that the Indictment is in error in alleging that Fritzsche himself
was Editor-in-Chief of the DNB. Fritzsche held no position whatsoever
with the DNB at any time. However, as head of the news
section of the German Press Division, Fritzsche’s duties gave him

official jurisdiction over the DNB, which was the official domestic
news agency of the German Reich after 1934. In the last part of
Paragraph 17 of this affidavit, Fritzsche states that he coordinated
the work of the various foreign news agencies “at home and
within European and overseas foreign countries with one another
and in relationship to DNB.”

The Wireless News Service was headed by Fritzsche from 1932
to 1937. After January 1933, the Wireless News Service was the
official instrument of the Nazi Government in spreading news over
the radio. During the same time that Fritzsche headed the Wireless
News Service, he personally made radio broadcasts to the German
people. These broadcasts were naturally subject to the controls of
the Propaganda Ministry and reflected its purposes. The influence
of Fritzsche’s broadcasts upon the German people, during this period
of consolidation of control by the Nazi conspirators, is all the more
important since Fritzsche was concurrently head of the Wireless
News Services, which controlled for the government the spreading
of all news by radio.

It is by now well known to the world that the Nazi conspirators
attempted to be, and often were, very adept in psychological
warfare. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions
based on the strategy of expediency, they initiated a press campaign
calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German
people psychologically for the impending Nazi madness. They
used the press after their earlier conquests as a means for further
influencing foreign politics and in maneuvering for the next following
aggression.

By the time of the occupation of the Sudetenland on the 1st of
October 1938, Fritzsche had become deputy head of the entire German
Press Division. Fritzsche states that the role of German propaganda
before the Munich Agreement on the Sudetenland was
directed by his immediate chief, Berndt, then head of the German
Press Division. In Paragraph 27 of the Fritzsche affidavit, Page 26
of your document book, Fritzsche describes this propaganda which
was directed by Berndt. Speaking of Berndt, Fritzsche states:

Now, what happened at this time? Fritzsche was made head of
the German Press Division in place of Berndt. Between December
1938 and 1942, Fritzsche, as head of the German Press Division,
personally gave to the representatives of the principal German
newspapers the “daily parole of the Reich Press Chief.” During
this history-making period he was the principal conspirator directly
concerned with the manipulations of the press. The first important
foreign aggression after Fritzsche became head of the German Press
Division was the incorporation of Bohemia and Moravia. In Paragraph
28 of the affidavit, your document book, Page 26, Fritzsche
gives his account of the propaganda action surrounding the incorporation
of Bohemia and Moravia as follows:

The propaganda campaign of the press preceding the invasion of
Poland on the 1st of September 1939—and thus the propaganda
action just preceding the precipitation of World War II—bears again
the handiwork of Fritzsche and his German Press Division. In
Paragraph 30 of Fritzsche’s affidavit, document book Page 27,
Fritzsche speaks of the conspirators’ treatment of this episode as
follows:

The press campaign preceding the invasion of Yugoslavia followed
the conventional pattern. You will find the customary defamations,
the lies, the incitement and the threats, and the usual
attempt to divide and to weaken the victim. Paragraph 32 of the
Fritzsche affidavit, your document book Page 28, outlines this
propaganda action as follows:

Since Germany had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union
and because these conspirators wanted the advantage of surprise,
there was no special propaganda campaign immediately preceding
the attack on the U.S.S.R. Fritzsche in Paragraph 33 of his affidavit
discussed the propaganda line, however, for the justification of this
aggressive war to the German people:

Fritzsche, throughout his affidavit, constantly refers to his technical
and expert assistance to the colossal apparatus of the Propaganda
Ministry. In 1939 he apparently became dissatisfied with the
efficiency of the existing facilities of the German Press Division
in furnishing grist for the propaganda mill and for its intrigues.
He established a new instrument for improving the effectiveness
of Nazi propaganda. In Paragraph 19 of his affidavit, Page 24 of
your document book, Fritzsche describes this new propaganda
instrument as follows:

And then skipping and quoting again:

Throughout this entire period preceding and including the
launching of aggressive war, Fritzsche made regular radio broadcasts
to the German people under the following titles: “Political
Newspaper Review,” “Political and Radio Show,” and later “Hans
Fritzsche Speaks.” His broadcasts naturally reflected the polemics
and the control of his Ministry and thus of the Common Plan or
Conspiracy.

We of the Prosecution contend that Fritzsche, one of the most
eminent of Goebbels’ propaganda team, helped substantially to
bathe the world in the blood bath of aggressive war.

With the Tribunal’s consent I will now pass to proof bearing
on Fritzsche’s incitement of atrocities and his encouragement of a
ruthless occupation policy. The results of propaganda as a weapon
of the Nazi conspirators reach into every aspect of this conspiracy,
including the abnormal and inhuman conduct involved in the atrocities
and the ruthless exploitation of occupied countries. Most of
the ordinary members of the German nation would never have
participated in or tolerated the atrocities committed throughout

Europe if they had not been conditioned and goaded to barbarous
convictions and misconceptions by the constant grinding of the Nazi
propaganda machine. Indeed, the propagandists who lent themselves
to this evil mission of instigation and incitement are more
guilty than the credulous and callous minions who headed the
firing squads or operated the gas chambers, of which we have heard
so much in this proceeding. For the very credulity and callousness
of those minions was in large part due to the constant and evil
propaganda of Fritzsche and his official associates.

With respect to Jews, the Department of Propaganda within the
Propaganda Ministry had a special branch for the “Enlightenment
of the German people and of the world as to the Jewish question,
fighting with propagandistic weapons against enemies of the State
and hostile ideologies.” This quotation is taken from a book written
in 1940 by Ministerial Director Müller, entitled The Propaganda
Ministry. It is found in Document Number 2434(a)-PS, your document
book Page 10, offered in evidence as Exhibit USA-722. It is
another excerpt from Ministerial Director Müller’s book and I
merely ask that you take judicial notice of it for that one sentence
that I have read.

Fritzsche took a particularly active part in this “enlightenment”
concerning the Jewish question in his radio broadcasts. These
broadcasts literally teemed with provocative libels against Jews,
the only logical result of which was to inflame Germany to further
atrocities against the helpless Jews who came within its physical
power. Document Number 3064-PS contains a number of complete
broadcasts by Fritzsche which were monitored by the British Broadcasting
Corporation and translated by BBC officials. For the convenience
of the Tribunal, I have had those excerpts upon which the
Prosecution relies to show illustrative types of Fritzsche’s broadcasts
mimeographed and made into one document, which I offer in
evidence as Exhibit USA-723. Even the Defendant Streicher, the
master Jew-baiter of all time, could scarcely outdo Fritzsche in
some of his slanders against the Jews. All the excerpts in Document
Number 3064-PS are from speeches by Fritzsche given on the radio
between 1941 and 1945, which we have already proven was a period
of intensified anti-Jewish measures. With the permission of the
Tribunal, I would like to read some of these excerpts.

Page 14 of our document book, Item 1, from a broadcast of
18 December 1941—it is found on Page 2122 of the translations from
BBC:

From a radio broadcast of 18 March 1941, found at Page 2032
of the BBC translations:

In passing, I would merely like to note that it seems to us that
that is not only applause for past acts concerning persecution of
Jews but an announcement that more is coming and an encouragement
of what was coming.

I would like to read another excerpt from the 9th of October
1941 broadcast, translated at Page 2101 of the BBC translation:

Another broadcast of the 8th January 1944—Your Honors, I
have tried to pick out illustrative broadcasts from different periods
here:

Concerning Jews, I had one last quotation from the year 1945.
It is from a broadcast of the 13th of January 1945, found on Pages
2258 and 2259 of the BBC translations:

And then skipping a few lines in that quotation:

And then skipping several sentences and going to the last sentence
on that page.

Your Honors, we suggest that that is an invitation to further
persecution of the Jews and, indeed, to their elimination.

Fritzsche also incited and encouraged ruthless measures against
the peoples of the U.S.S.R. In his regular broadcasts Fritzsche’s
incitements against the peoples of the U.S.S.R. were often linked
to, and were certainly as inflammatory as, his slanders against the
Jews. If these slanders were not so tragic in their relation to the
murder of millions of people, they would be comical, indeed ludicrous.
It is ironic that the propaganda libels against the peoples of
the U.S.S.R. concerning atrocities actually described some of the
many atrocities committed by the German invaders, as we now well
know. The following quotations are again taken from the BBC
intercepted broadcasts and their translations, beginning shortly after
the invasion of the U.S.S.R. in June 1941. The first one is taken
again from Page 16 of our document book. I will read only the last
half of Item 7, beginning with the third paragraph:

And then another quote in the next paragraph:

In the next broadcast I want to quote from, 10th of July 1941,
in the first paragraph Fritzsche speaks of the inhuman deeds committed
in areas controlled by the Soviet Union, and he states that
one, upon seeing the evidence of those deeds committed, comes—and
here I quote:

And then quoting again, the last paragraph:

Evidence already in the Record, or shortly to be offered in this
case by our Soviet colleagues, will prove that representatives of
these Nazi conspirators did not hesitate to exterminate Soviet soldiers
and civilians by scientific mass methods. These inciting
remarks by Fritzsche made him an accomplice in these crimes
because his labeling of the Soviet peoples as members of a “subhuman
world” seeking to “exterminate” the German people and
similar desperate talk helped, by these propaganda diatribes, to
fashion the psychological atmosphere of utter and complete unreason
and the hatred which instigated and made possible these atrocities
in the East.

Although we cannot say that Fritzsche directed that 10,000 or
100,000 persons be exterminated, it is enough to pause on this question:
Without these incitements of Fritzsche, how much harder it

would have been for these conspirators to have effected the conditions
which made possible the extermination of millions of people
in the East.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?

[A recess was taken.]

CAPT. SPRECHER: Fritzsche encouraged, affirmed, and glorified
the policy of the Nazi conspirators in ruthlessly exploiting the occupied
countries. Again I read an excerpt from his radio broadcast of
the 9th of October 1941, found at Pages 2102 and 2103 of the BBC
translation. I would like to cut it down, but it is one of those long
German sentences that just cannot be broken down:

Concerning the exploitation of foreign countries, Fritzsche
states himself, at Paragraph 39 of his affidavit:

Fritzsche was a credulous propagandist indeed if he gloriously
praised the exploitation policy of the German Reich, chiefly or
especially because the competent authorities gave him a sales talk
on the voluntary placement of manpower.

I come now to Fritzsche as the high commander of the entire
German radio system. Fritzsche continued as the head of the German
Press Division until after the conspirators had begun the last
of their aggressions. In November 1942, Goebbels created a new
position, that of Plenipotentiary for the Political Organization of
the Greater German Radio, a position which Fritzsche was the first
and the last to hold. In Paragraph 36, Document Number 3469-PS,
the Fritzsche affidavit, Fritzsche narrates how the entire German
radio and television system was organized under his supervision.
That is at Page 29 of your document book. He states:

As special Plenipotentiary for the Political Organization of the
Greater German Radio, Fritzsche issued orders to all the Reich
propaganda offices by teletype. These were used first in conforming
the entire radio apparatus of Germany to the desires of the conspirators.

Goebbels customarily held an 11 o’clock conference with his
closest collaborators within the Propaganda Ministry. When both
Goebbels and his undersecretary, Dr. Naumann, were absent, Goebbels,
after 1943, entrusted Fritzsche with the holding of this 11 o’clock
press conference.

In Document Number 3255-PS the Court will find Goebbels’
praise of Fritzsche’s broadcasts. This praise was given in Goebbels’
introduction to a book by Fritzsche called, War to the War Mongers.
I would like to offer the quotation in evidence as Exhibit Number
USA-724, from the Rundfunk Archiv, at Page 18 of Your Honors’
document book. This is Goebbels speaking:

So we have it from Goebbels himself that the entire German nation
was prepared to lend willing ears to Fritzsche, after he had made
his reputation on the radio.

The rumor passed that Fritzsche was “His Master’s Voice” (Die
Stimme seines Herrn). This is certainly borne out by Fritzsche’s
functions. When Fritzsche spoke on the radio it was indeed plain
to the German people that they were listening to the high command
of the conspirators in this field.

Fritzsche is not being presented by the Prosecution as the type
of conspirator who signed decrees or as the type of conspirator who
sat in the inner councils planning all of the over-all grand strategy
of these conspirators. The function of propaganda is, for the most

part, apart from the field of such planning. The function of a
propaganda agency is somewhat more analogous to an advertising
agency or public relations department, the job of which is to sell
the product and to win the market for the enterprise in question.
Here the enterprise, we submit, was the Nazi conspiracy. In a
conspiracy to commit fraud, the gifted salesman of the conspiratorial
group is quite as essential and quite as culpable as the master
planners, even though he may not have contributed substantially to
the formulation of all the basic strategy, but rather contributed
to the artful execution of this strategy.

In this case the Prosecution most emphatically contends that
propaganda was a weapon of tremendous importance to this conspiracy.
We further contend that the leading propagandists were
major accomplices in this conspiracy, and further, that Fritzsche
was a major propagandist.

When Fritzsche entered the Propaganda Ministry, the most
fabulous “lie factory” of all time, and thus attached himself to this
conspiracy, he did this with a more open mind than most of these
conspirators who had committed themselves at an earlier date,
before the seizure of power. He was in a particularly strategic
position to observe the frauds committed upon the German people
and upon the world by these conspirators.

The Tribunal will recall that in 1933, before Fritzsche took his
party oath of unconditional obedience and subservience to the
Führer and thus abdicated his moral responsibility to these conspirators,
he had observed at first-hand the operations of the storm
troopers and the Nazi race pattern in action. When, notwithstanding
this, Fritzsche undertook to bring the German news agencies
in their entirety within fascist control, he learned from the inside,
from Goebbels’ own lips, much of the cynical intrigue and many of
the bold lies against opposition groups within and without Germany.
He observed, for example, the opposition journalists, a profession
to which he had previously been attached, being forced out
of existence, crushed to the ground, either absorbed or eliminated.
He continued to support the conspiracy. He learned from day to
day the art of intrigue and quackery in the process of perverting
the German nation, and he grew in prestige and influence as he
practiced this art.

The Tribunal will also recall that Fritzsche had said that his
predecessor Berndt fell from the leadership of the German Press
Division partly because he overplayed his hand by the successful
but blunt and overdone manipulation of the Sudetenland propaganda.
Fritzsche stepped into the gap which had been caused by
the loss of confidence of both the editors and the German people,
and Fritzsche did his job well.

No doubt Fritzsche was not as blunt as the man he succeeded;
but Fritzsche’s relative shrewdness and subtlety, his very ability to
be more assuring and “to find,” as Goebbels said, “the willing ears
of the whole nation,” these things made him the more useful
accomplice of these conspirators.

Nazi Germany and its press went into the actual phase of war
operations with Fritzsche at the head of the particular propaganda
instrument controlling the German press and German news, whether
by the press or by radio. In 1942 when Fritzsche transferred from
the field of the press to the field of radio, he was not removed for
bungling but only because Goebbels then needed him most in the
field of radio. Fritzsche is not in the dock as a free journalist, but
as an efficient, controlled Nazi propagandist, a propagandist who
helped substantially to tighten the Nazi stranglehold over the German
people, a propagandist who made the excesses of these conspirators
more palatable to the consciences of the German people
themselves, a propagandist who cynically proclaimed the barbarous
racialism which is at the very heart of this conspiracy, a propagandist
who coldly goaded humble Germans to blind fury against people
they were told by him were subhuman and guilty of all the suffering
of Germany, suffering which indeed these Nazis themselves, had
invited.

In conclusion, I wish to say only this. Without the propaganda
apparatus of the Nazi State it is clear that the world, including
Germany, would not have suffered the catastrophe of these years;
and it is because of Fritzsche’s able role on behalf of the Nazi
conspirators and their deceitful and barbarous practices in connection
with the conspiracy that he is called to account before this
International Tribunal.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the
United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, it was intended that
the next presentation would be by Colonel Griffith-Jones in the
case of the Defendant Hess. I understand that the Tribunal has in
mind that it might be better if that were left for the moment; if so,
Major Harcourt Barrington is prepared to make the presentation
with regard to the Defendant Von Papen.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. We understood that the Defendant
Hess’s counsel could not be present today, and therefore it was
better to go on with one of the others.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, then
Major Harcourt Barrington will deal with the presentation against
the Defendant Von Papen.

MAJOR J. HARCOURT BARRINGTON (Junior Counsel for the
United Kingdom): My Lord, I understand that the court interpreters
have not got the proper papers and document books up

here yet, but they can get them in a very few minutes. Would your
Lordship prefer that I should go on or wait until they have got
them?

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Go on then.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: May it please the Tribunal, it is my
duty to present the case against the Defendant Von Papen. Before
I begin I would like to say that the documents in the document
books are arranged numerically and not in the order of presentation,
and that the English document books are paged in red chalk at
the bottom of the page.

THE PRESIDENT: Does that mean that the French and the
Soviet are not?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, we did not prepare French
and Soviet document books.

THE PRESIDENT: Major Barrington, the French members of
the Tribunal have no document books at all.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, there should be a German
document book for the French member. I understand it is now
being fetched. Should I wait until it arrives?

THE PRESIDENT: I think you can go on.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: The Defendant Papen is charged primarily
with the guilt of conspiracy, and the proof of this charge
of conspiracy will emerge automatically from the proof of the four
allegations specified in Appendix A of the Indictment. These are
as follows:

(1) He promoted the accession of the Nazi conspirators to power.

(2) He participated in the consolidation of their control over
Germany.

(3) He promoted the preparations for war.

(4) He participated in the political planning and preparation of
the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression, et cetera.

Broadly speaking, the case against Von Papen covers the period
from the 1st of June 1932 to the conclusion of the Anschluss in
March 1938.

So far in this Trial, almost the only evidence specifically
implicating Von Papen has been evidence in regard to his activities
in Austria. This evidence need only be summarized now. But if
the case against Von Papen rested on Austria alone, the Prosecution
would be in the position of relying on a period during which the
essence of his task was studied plausibility and in which his whole
purpose was to clothe his operations with a cloak of sincerity and
innocent respectability. It is therefore desirable to put the evidence

already given in its true perspective by showing in addition the
active and prominent part he played for the Nazis before he went
to Austria.

Papen himself claims to have rejected many times Hitler’s
request that he should actually join the Nazi Party. Until 1938
this may indeed have been true, for he was shrewd enough to see
the advantage of maintaining, at least outwardly, his personal
independence. It will be my object to show that, despite his facade
of independence, Papen was an ardent member of this conspiracy
and, in spite of warnings and rebuffs, was unable to resist its
fascination.

In the submission of the Prosecution, the key to Von Papen’s
activities is that, although perhaps not a typical Nazi, he was an
unscrupulous political opportunist and ready to fall in with the
Nazis when it suited him. He was not unpracticed in duplicity and
viewed with an apparent indifference the contradictions and
betrayals which his duplicity inevitably involved. One of his chief
weapons was fraudulent assurance.

Before dealing with the specific charges, I will refer to Document
2902-PS, which is on Page 38 of the English document book,
and I put it in as Exhibit GB-233. This is Von Papen’s own signed
statement showing his appointments. It is not in chronological
order, but I will read the relevant parts as they come. I need not
read the whole of it. The Tribunal will note that this statement
is written by Dr. Kubuschok, Counsel for Von Papen, although it
is signed by Von Papen himself. Paragraph 1:

Interposing there, My Lord, the fact that he was officially regarded
as having become a member in 1938 will be shown by a document
which I shall refer to later.

Going on to Paragraph 2:

Paragraph 3:

Paragraph 4:

The rest of that paragraph I need not read. It is an argument
which concerns the authenticity or otherwise of his signature as it
appears in the Reichsgesetzblatt to certain decrees in August 1934.
I am prepared to agree with his contention that his signature on
those decrees may not have been correct and may have been a
mistake. He admits holding office only to the 3rd of July 1934.

He was, as the Tribunal will also remember, in virtue of being
Reich Chancellor, a member of the Reich Cabinet.

Going on to Paragraph 5:

The rest of the document I need not read. It concerns his
appointments to Vienna and Ankara, which are matters of history.
He was appointed Minister to Vienna on the 26th of July 1934,
and recalled on the 4th of February 1938, and he was Ambassador
in Ankara from April 1939 until August 1944.

The first allegation against the Defendant Von Papen is that he
used his personal influence to promote the accession of the Nazi
conspirators to power. From the outset Von Papen was well aware
of the Nazi program and Nazi methods. There can be no question
of his having encouraged the Nazis through ignorance of these
facts. The official NSDAP program was open and notorious; it had
been published in Mein Kampf for many years; it had been
published and republished in the Yearbook of the NSDAP and
elsewhere. The Nazis made no secret of their intention to make it
a fundamental law of the State. This has been dealt with in full
at an earlier stage of the Trial.

During 1932 Von Papen as Reich Chancellor was in a particularly
good position to understand the Nazi purpose and methods;
and in fact, he publicly acknowledged the Nazi menace. Take, for
instance, his Münster speech on the 28th of August 1932. This is
Document 3314-PS, on Page 49 of the English document book, and
I now put it in as Exhibit GB-234, and I quote two extracts at the
top of the page:

Take also his Munich speech of the 13th of October 1932. That
is on Page 50 of the English document book, Document Number
3317-PS, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-235, and I will simply
read the last extract on the page:

I do not rely on these random extracts to show anything more
than that he had, in 1932, clearly addressed his mind to the inherent
lawlessness of the Nazi philosophy. Nevertheless, in his letter to
Hitler of the 13 of November 1932, which I shall quote more fully
later, he wrote of the Nazi movement as, I quote:

So variable and so seemingly contradictory were Von Papen’s
acts and utterances regarding the Nazis that it is not possible to
present the picture of Papen’s part in this infamous enterprise
unless one first reviews the steps by which he entered upon it. It
then becomes clear that he threw himself, if not wholeheartedly,
yet with cool and deliberate calculation, into the Nazi conspiracy.

I shall enumerate some of the principal steps by which Papen
fell in with the Nazi conspiracy.

As a result of his first personal contact with Hitler, Von Papen
as Chancellor rescinded, on the 14th of June 1932, the decree passed
on the 13th of April 1932 for the dissolution of the Nazi para-military
organizations, the SA and the SS. He thereby rendered
the greatest possible service to the Nazi Party, inasmuch as it relied
upon its para-military organizations to beat the German people
into submission. The decree rescinding the dissolution of the SA
and the SS is shown in Document D-631, on Page 64 of the document
book; and I now put it in as Exhibit GB-236. It is an extract
from the Reichsgesetzblatt, which was an omnibus decree. The
relevant passage is in Paragraph 20:

THE PRESIDENT: Which page of the document book is it?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: I am sorry, My Lord; it is Page 64.
And the date shown there should not be the 3rd of May 1932, it
should be the 13th of April 1932. That was the decree which had
previously dissolved the Nazi para-military organizations under the

Government of Chancellor Brüning. At the bottom of the page the
Tribunal will see the relevant parts of the decree of the 13th of
April reproduced. At the beginning of Paragraph 1 of that decree
it said:

This rescission by Von Papen was done in pursuance of a bargain
made with Hitler which is mentioned in a book called Dates from
the History of the NSDAP by Dr. Hans Volz, a book published with
the authority of the NSDAP. It is already an exhibit, Exhibit
USA-592. The extract I want to quote is on Page 59 of the document
book, and it is Document Number 3463-PS. I quote an extract
from Page 41 of this little book:

It is difficult to imagine a less astute opening gambit for a man
who was about to become Chancellor than to reinstate this sinister
organization which had been suppressed by his predecessor. This
action emphasizes the characteristic duplicity and insincerity of his
public condemnations of the Nazis which I quoted a few minutes
ago.

Eighteen months later he publicly boasted that at the time of
taking over the chancellorship he had advocated paving the way
to power for what he called the “young fighting liberation movement.”
That will be shown in Document 3375-PS, which I shall
introduce in a few minutes.

Another important step was when, on the 20th of July 1932,
he accomplished his famous coup d’état in Prussia which removed
the Braun-Severing Prussian Government and united the ruling
power of the Reich and Prussia in his own hands as Reichskommissar
for Prussia. This is now a matter of history. It is
mentioned in Document D-632, which I now introduce as Exhibit
GB-237. It is on Page 65 of the document book. This document is,
I think, a semi-official biography in a series of public men.

Papen regarded this step, his coup d’état in Prussia, as a first
step in the policy later pursued by Hitler of coordinating the states
with the Reich, which will be shown in Document 3357-PS, which
I shall come to later.

The next step, if the Tribunal will look at Document D-632, on
Page 65 of the document book, the last four or five lines at the
bottom of the page:

My Lord, I shall wish to quote a few more extracts from that
biography, but as it is a mere catalogue of events, perhaps Your
Lordship would allow me to return to it at the appropriate time.

So far as those negotiations mentioned just now in the biography
concern Hitler, they involved an exchange of letters in which
Von Papen wrote to Hitler on the 13th of November 1932. That
letter is Document D-633, on Page 68 of the English document book,
and I now put it in as Exhibit GB-238. I propose to read a part
of this letter, because it shows the positive efforts made by Papen
to ally himself with the Nazis, even in face of further rebuffs from
Hitler. I read the third paragraph. I should tell the Tribunal that
there is some underlining in the English translation of that paragraph
which does not occur in the German text:

Hitler replied on 16 November 1932 in a long letter, laying
down terms which were evidently unacceptable to Von Papen,
since he resigned the next day and was succeeded by Von Schleicher.
That document is D-634, put in as part of Exhibit GB-238 as it
is part of the same correspondence. I need not read from the
letter itself.

Then came the meetings between Papen and Hitler in January
1933, in the houses of Von Schröder and of Ribbentrop, culminating
in Von Schleicher being succeeded by Hitler as Reich Chancellor
on 30 January 1933. Referring back again to the biography on
Page 66 of the document book, there is an account of the meeting
at Schröder’s house, the second paragraph on the page:

The meetings at Ribbentrop’s house, at which Papen was also
present, have been mentioned by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe
(Document D-472, which was Exhibit GB-130).

I now wish to introduce into evidence an affidavit by
Von Schröder, but I understand that Dr. Kubuschok wishes to take
an objection to this. Perhaps before Dr. Kubuschok takes his
objection it might help if I said, quite openly, that Schröder is
now in custody, and according to my information he is at

Frankfurt; so that physically he undoubtedly could be called.
Perhaps I might also say at this moment that there would be no
objection from the Prosecution’s point of view to interrogatories
being administered to Von Schröder on the subject matter of this
affidavit.

DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen):
I object to the reading of the affidavit of Schröder. I know that
in individual cases the Tribunal has permitted the reading of
affidavits. This occurred under Article 19 of the Charter, which is
based on the proposition that the Trial should be conducted as
speedily as possible and that for this reason the Tribunal should
order the rules of ordinary court procedure in that respect. Of
decisive importance, therefore, is the speediness of the Trial. But
in our case the reading of the affidavit cannot be approved for
that reason.

Our case is quite analogous to the case that was decided on
the 14th of December with regard to Kurt Von Schuschnigg’s
affidavit. Schröder is in the vicinity. Schröder was apparently
brought to the neighborhood of Nuremberg for the purposes of
this Trial. The affidavit was taken down on 5 December. He
could be brought here at any time. The reading of the affidavit
would have the consequence that I would have to refer not only
to him but also to several other witnesses, because Schröder
describes a series of facts in his affidavit which in their entirety
are not needed for the finding of a decision. However, once
introduced into the Trial, they must also be discussed by the
Defense in the pursuance of its duty.

The affidavit discusses internal political matters, using improper
terms. For this reason misunderstandings would be brought into
the Trial which could be obviated by the hearing of a witness
I believe, therefore, that the oral testimony of a witness should
be the only way in which Schröder’s testimony should be submitted
to the Tribunal, since otherwise a large number of witnesses will
have to be called along with the reading of Schröder’s affidavit and
his personal interrogation.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to make any observation?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes, I do, My Lord. The Tribunal
has been asked to exclude this affidavit, using as a precedent the
decision on Von Schuschnigg’s affidavit. I think I am correct in
saying that Von Schuschnigg’s affidavit was excluded as an
exception to the general rule on affidavits which the Tribunal laid
down earlier the same day when Mr. Messersmith’s affidavit was

accepted. Perhaps Your Lordship will allow me to read from the
transcript the Tribunal’s decision on the affidavit of Messersmith.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Messersmith was in Mexico, was he not?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is so, My Lord; yes.

THE PRESIDENT: So that the difference between him and
Schuschnigg in that regard was very considerable.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: In that regard, but what I was going
to say was this, My Lord: In ruling on Messersmith’s affidavit
Your Lordship said:

And Your Lordship added:

Now in the afternoon of that day, when Schuschnigg’s
affidavit came up . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Which day was this?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: This was the 28th of November, My
Lord. It is on Page 473 (Volume II, Page 352) of the transcript,
the Messersmith affidavit; and Page 523 (Volume II, Page 384) is
the Schuschnigg affidavit.

Now, when the objection was taken to the Schuschnigg affidavit,
the objection was put in these words:

THE PRESIDENT: Have you a reference to a subsequent
occasion on which we heard Mr. Justice Jackson upon this subject,
when Mr. Justice Jackson submitted to us that on the strict
interpretation of Article 19 we were bound to admit any evidence
which we deemed to have probative value?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, I haven’t got that reference.

THE PRESIDENT: Why don’t you call this witness?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: I say, quite frankly—and I was coming
on to that—this witness is in a position of being an alleged co-conspirator,
and I do not make any secret of the fact that for
obvious reasons the Prosecution would not desire to call him as a
witness, and I put this affidavit forward as an admission by a co-conspirator.
I admit that it is not an admission made in pursuance
of the conspiracy, but I submit that by technical rules of evidence,
this affidavit may be accepted in evidence as an admission by a
co-conspirator; and as I said before, there will be no objection to
administering interrogatories on the subject matter of this affidavit,
and indeed, the witness would be available to be called as a
defense witness if required.

That is all I have to say on that, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: There would be no objection to bringing
the witness here for the purpose of cross-examination upon the
affidavit?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: I don’t think there could be any
objection if it were confined to the subject matter of the affidavit.
I would not like . . .

THE PRESIDENT: How could you object, for instance, to the
defendant himself applying to call the witness?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: As I said, I don’t think there could
be any objection to that, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: The result would be the same, wouldn’t it?
If the witness were called for the purpose of cross-examination,
then he could be asked other questions which were not arising
out of the matter in the affidavit. If the defendant can call him
as his own witness, there can be no objection to the cross-examination
going outside the matter of the affidavit.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: Of course he couldn’t be cross-examined
by the Prosecution in that event, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean you would ask his questions in re-examination,
but they would not take the form of cross-examination?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is what I mean, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you would prefer that he
should be called for the defendants rather than be cross-examined
outside the subject matter of the affidavit?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything you wish to add or not?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: There is nothing I wish to add.

THE PRESIDENT: It is time for us to adjourn. We will
consider the matter.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop):
In the place of Dr. Von Rohrscheidt, counsel for Defendant Hess,
I would like to make the following declaration.

Dr. Von Rohrscheidt has been the victim of an accident. He
has broken his ankle. The Defendant Hess has asked me to notify
the Tribunal that from now on until the end of the Trial, he
desires to make use of his right under the Charter to defend
himself. The reason that he wants to do that for the whole length
of the Trial is to be found in the fact that due to his absence his
counsel will not be informed of the proceedings of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the oral
application which has just been made to it on behalf of the
Defendant Hess.

As to the objection to the affidavit of Von Schröder which was
made this morning by counsel for the Defendant Von Papen, the
Tribunal does not propose to lay down any general rule about the
admission of affidavit evidence. But in the particular circumstances
of this case, the Tribunal will admit the affidavit in question but
will direct that if the affidavit is put in evidence, the man who
made the affidavit, Von Schröder, must be presented, brought here
immediately for cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel.
When I say immediately I mean as soon as possible.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, I will not introduce this
affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Major Barrington.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, before coming on to that
affidavit, I last read a passage from the biography about the
meeting at Von Schröder’s house, and I ask the Tribunal to deduce
from that extract from the biography that it was at that meeting
that a discussion took place between Von Papen and Hitler, which
led up to the government of Hitler in which Von Papen served
as Vice Chancellor. So that now at the point the Defendant
Von Papen was completely committed to going along with the
Nazi Party, and with his eyes open and on his own initiative he
had helped materially to bring them into power.

The second allegation against the Defendant Von Papen is that
he participated in the consolidation of Nazi control over Germany.

In the first critical year and a half of the Nazi consolidation
Von Papen, as Vice Chancellor, was second only to Hitler in the
Cabinet which carried out the Nazi program.

The process of consolidating the Nazi control of Germany by
legislation has been fully dealt with earlier in this Trial. The high

position of Von Papen must have associated him closely with such
legislation. In July 1934 Hitler expressly thanked him for all that
he had done for the co-ordination of the government of the
National Revolution. That will appear in Document 2799-PS. In
fact, although I shall read from that document in a minute, the
document has been introduced to the Court by Mr. Alderman.

Two important decrees may be mentioned specially, as actually
bearing the signature of Von Papen. First, the decree relating to
the formation of special courts, dated the 21st of March 1933, for
the trial of all cases involving political matters. The Tribunal has
already taken judicial notice of this decree. The reference to the
transcript is Page 30 (Volume II, Page 197) of the 22d of November,
afternoon session.

This decree was the first step in the Nazification of the German
judiciary. In all political cases it abolished fundamental rights,
including the right of appeal, which had previously characterized
the administration of German criminal justice.

On the same date, the 21st of March 1933, Von Papen personally
signed the amnesty decree liberating all persons who had
committed murder or any other crime between the 30th of January
and the 21st of March 1933 in the National Revolution of the
German people. That document is 2059-PS, and is on Page 30 of
the English document book. I read Section 1.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think you need read the decrees if
you will summarize them.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: If Your Lordship pleases, I will ask
you to take judicial notice of that decree.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: As a member of the Reich Cabinet,
Von Papen was, in my submission, responsible for the legislation
carried through even when the decrees did not actually bear his
signature. But I shall mention as examples two categories of
legislation in particular in order to show by reference to his own
previous and contemporaneous statements that they were not
matters of which he could say that as a respectable politician he
took no interest in them.

First, the civil service. As a public servant himself, Von Papen
must have had a hard but apparently successful struggle with his
conscience when associating himself with the sweeping series of
decrees for attaining Nazi control of the civil service. This has
been dealt with on Page 30 (Volume II, Page 197) of the transcript
of the 22d of November in the afternoon session, and Page 257
(Volume II, Page 207). In this connection I refer the Tribunal to
Document 351-PS, which is on Page 1 of the document book. It is

Exhibit USA-389, and it is the minutes of Hitler’s first Cabinet
meeting on the 30th of January 1933. I read from the last
paragraph of the minutes, on Page 5 of the document book in the
middle of the paragraph:

Even if this was not meant to suggest to Hitler the giving of a
fraudulent assurance, at the best it emphasizes the indifference
with which Von Papen later saw the civil servants betrayed.

Secondly, the decrees for the integration of the federal states
with the Reich. These again have been dealt with earlier in the
Trial, Page 29 (Volume II, Page 196) of the transcript of
22 November, afternoon session. The substantial effect of these
decrees was to abolish the states and to put an end to federalism
and any possible retarding influence which it might have upon the
centralization of power in the Reich Cabinet. The importance of
this step, as well as the role played by Papen, is reflected in the
exchange of letters between Hindenburg, Von Papen—in his
capacity as Reich Commissioner for Prussia—and Hitler, in
connection with the recall of the Reich Commissioner and the
appointment of Göring to the post of Prime Minister of Prussia.
I refer to Document 3357-PS, which is on Page 52 of the English
document book, and I now put it in as Exhibit GB-239.

In tendering his resignation on the 7th of April 1933,
Von Papen wrote to Hitler, and I read from the document:

I would like to read also the letter which Hitler wrote to
Hindenburg in transmitting this resignation. Hitler wrote:

Yet it was only 5 weeks before this that on the 3rd of March
1933, Von Papen had warned the electorate at Stuttgart against
abolishing federalism. I will now read from Document 3313-PS,
which is on Page 48 of the English document book, and which I
now introduce as Exhibit GB-240—about the middle of the third
paragraph. This is an extract from Von Papen’s speech at Stuttgart.
He said:

Earlier, at the time of the elections in the autumn of 1932, Von
Papen as Chancellor had visited Munich. The Frankfurter Zeitung
of the 12th of October 1932 commented on his policy. I refer to
Document 3318-PS on Page 51 of the English document book, which
I introduce as Exhibit GB-241. The Frankfurter Zeitung commented:

That was in October 1932. All that was now thrown overboard in
deference to his new master.

I now come to the Jews. In March 1933 the entire Cabinet
approved a systematic state policy of persecution of the Jews. This
has already been described to the Tribunal. The reference to the
transcript is Pages 1442 (Volume III, Page 525) and 2490 (Volume V,
Page 93).

Only 4 days before the boycott was timed to begin “with all
ferocity”—to borrow the words of Dr. Goebbels—Von Papen wrote
a radiogram of reassurance to the Board of Trade for German-American
Commerce in New York which had expressed its anxiety
to the German Government about the situation. His assurance—which
I now put in as Document D-635, and it will be Exhibit
GB-242 on Page 73 of the English document book—his assurance
was published in the New York Times on the 28th of March 1933,
and it contained the following sentence which I read from about the
middle of the page. This document is the last but one in the
German document book:

This is a characteristic . . .

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The article in the New York Times goes back
to a telegram of the Defendant Von Papen, which is contained in
the document book one page ahead. The English translation has
a date of the 27th of March. This date is an error. The German text
which I received shows that it is a question of a weekend letter,
which, according to the figures on the German document, was sent
on the 25th of March. This difference in time is of particular
importance for the following reason:

In effect, on the 25th of March nothing was yet known concerning
the Jewish boycott, which Goebbels then announced for the
1st of April. The Defendant Von Papen could, therefore, on the
25th of March, point to these then comparatively few smaller
incidents as he does in the telegram. In any case, the conclusion
of the indictment that the contents of the telegram were a lie
thereby falls.

THE PRESIDENT: Major Barrington, have you the original
of that?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: The original is here, My Lord; yes. It
is quite correct that there are some figures at the top, which, though

I had not recognized it, might indicate that it was dispatched on
the 25th.

THE PRESIDENT: And when was the meeting of the Cabinet
which approved the policy of persecution of the Jews?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, My Lord, I can’t say. It was some
time within the last few days of March, but it might have been on
the 26th. I can have that checked up.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I clarify that matter by saying that the
Cabinet meeting in which the Jewish question was discussed took
place at a much later date and that in this Cabinet meeting Cabinet
members, among others the Defendant Von Papen, condemned the
Jewish boycott. I shall submit the minutes of the meeting as soon
as my motion has been granted.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know what you mean by your motion
being granted. Does Counsel for the Prosecution say whether he
persists in his allegation or whether he withdraws it?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: I will say this. Subject to checking the
date when the Cabinet meeting took place . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can do that at the adjournment
and let us know in the morning.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: If Your Lordship pleases. At this point
I will just say this: That it was, as the Tribunal has already heard,
common knowledge at the time that the Nazi policy was anti-Jewish,
and Jews were already in concentration camps, so I will
leave it to the Tribunal to infer that at the time when that radiogram
was sent, which I am prepared to accept as being the 25th of
March, that Von Papen did know of this policy of boycotting.

I will go further now that I am on this point, and I will say
that Von Papen was indeed himself a supporter of the anti-Jewish
policy, and as evidence of this I will put in Document 2830-PS,
which is on Page 37A of the document book, and which I now
introduce as Exhibit GB-243.

This is a letter, My Lord, written by Von Papen from Vienna
on the 12th of May 1936 to Hitler on the subject of the Freiheitsbund.
Paragraph 4 of the English text is as follows:

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I must point out here a difficulty which has
apparently been caused by the translation. In the original German
text the word “mit Bezug” is used in regard to the transmittal in
the following way: “. . . referring to the continuation of its fight
against Jewry.” This word “mit Bezug” means here that under this
heading the money must be transmitted, although this was not the
real purpose, for the Austrian Freiheitsbund (Freedom Union) was
not an anti-Semitic movement but a legal trade union to which
Chancellor Dollfuss also belonged. This expression “mit Bezug”
means only that the transmittal of the money demanded a covering
designation because it was not permissible to transmit money from
abroad to a party recognized by the state for any party purposes,
as is shown by the rejected offer of the Czechoslovaks. I only
wanted to point out here that the words “in reference” perhaps give
a wrong impression and should rather be translated “referring.”
In any case, I should like to point out that this “in reference” was
a kind of camouflage for the transmittal of the money.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know to which word you are referring,
but as I understand it the only purpose of referring to this letter
was to prove that in it Von Papen was suggesting that a certain
organization should be financially assisted in its fight against Jewry.
That is the only purpose of referring to the letter. I don’t know
what you mean about some word being wrongly translated.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is exactly how the error originated.
The money was not transmitted to fight Jewry for that was not at
all the purpose of this Christian Trade Union in Austria, but a
certain designation for the transmittal of the money had to be
devised. So this continuation of its fight against Jewry was used.
The purpose therefore was not the fight against Jewry but the
elimination through financial support of another foreign influence,
namely that of Czechoslovakia.

THE PRESIDENT: I should have thought myself that the point
which might have been taken against the Prosecution was that the
letter was dated nearly 3 years after the time with which you were
then dealing.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is so, My Lord; it was not at the
time of the previous one.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the previous one was marked 1933, and
this was 1936.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: Oh yes. I put it in, My Lord, only to
show what Von Papen’s position was by then, at any rate. If Your
Lordship has any doubt as to the translation I would suggest that
it might now be translated by the interpreter. We have the German
text, a photostat.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you can have it translated again
tomorrow; if necessary, you can have it gone into again then.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes, My Lord.

I come now to the Catholic Church. The Nazi treatment of the
Church has been fully dealt with by the United States Prosecution.
In this particular field Von Papen, a prominent lay Catholic, helped
to consolidate the Nazi position both at home and abroad as perhaps
no one else could have done.

In dealing with the persecution of the Church, Colonel Wheeler
read to the Tribunal Hitler’s assurance given to the Church on the
23rd of March 1933 in Hitler’s speech on the Enabling Act, an
assurance which resulted in the well-known Fulda Declaration of the
German bishops, also quoted by Colonel Wheeler. That was
Document 3387-PS, which was Exhibit USA-566. This deceitful
assurance of Hitler’s appears to have been made at the suggestion
of Von Papen 8 days earlier at the Reich Cabinet meeting at which
the Enabling Act was discussed, on the 15th of March 1933. I refer
to Document 2962-PS, which is Exhibit USA-578, and it is on Page 40
of the English document book. I read from Page 44, that is at the
bottom of Page 6 of the German text. The minutes say:

That was a statement made by Von Papen at the meeting at
which the Enabling Act was discussed prior to Hitler’s speech on the
Enabling Act in which he gave his assurance to the Church.

On the 20th of July 1933 Papen signed the Reich Concordat
negotiated by him with the Vatican. The Tribunal has already
taken judicial notice of this as Document 3280(a)-PS. The signing
of the Concordat, like Hitler’s Papen-inspired speech on the Enabling
Act, was only an interlude in the church policy of the Nazi
conspirators. Their policy of assurances was followed by a long
series of violations which eventually resulted in Papal denunciation
in the Encyclical “Mit brennender Sorge,” which is 3476-PS,
Exhibit USA-567.

Papen maintains that his actions regarding the Church were
sincere, and he has asserted during interrogations that it was Hitler

who sabotaged the Concordat. If Von Papen really believed in the
very solemn undertakings given by him on behalf of the Reich to
the Vatican, I submit it is strange that he, himself a Catholic,
should have continued to serve Hitler after all those violations and
even after the Papal Encyclical itself. I will go further. I will say
that Papen was himself involved in what was virtually, if not
technically, a violation of the Concordat. The Tribunal will recollect
the allocution of the Pope, dated the 2d of June 1945, which is
Document 3268-PS, Exhibit USA-356, from which on Page 1647
(Volume IV, Page 64) of the transcript Colonel Storey read the
Pope’s own summary of the Nazis’ bitter struggle against the
Church. The very first item the Pope mentioned is the dissolution
of Catholic organizations and if the Tribunal will look at Document
3376-PS on Page 56 of the English document book, which I now put
in as Exhibit GB-244 and which is an extract from Das Archiv,
they will see that in September 1934 Von Papen ordered—and I say
“ordered” advisedly—the dissolution of the Union of Catholic Germans,
of which he was at the time the leader. The text of Das Archiv
reads as follows:

I said that Von Papen “ordered” the dissolutions, although the
announcement said it was self-dissolution on his suggestion; but I
submit that such a suggestion from one in Papen’s position was
equivalent to an order, since by that date it was common knowledge
that the Nazis were dropping all pretense that rival organizations
might be permitted to exist.

After 9 months’ service under Hitler, spent in consolidating the
Nazi control, Von Papen was evidently well content with his choice.
I refer to Document 3375-PS, Page 54 of the English document
book, which I put in as Exhibit GB-245. On the 2d of November

1933, speaking at Essen from the same platform as Hitler and Gauleiter
Terboven, in the course of the campaign for the Reichstag
election and the referendum concerning Germany’s leaving the
League of Nations, Von Papen declared:

And then the last sentence of the whole text on Page 55:

By this time the Cabinet, of which Von Papen was a member
and to which he had given all his strength, had abolished the civil
liberties, had sanctioned political murder committed in aid of
Nazism’s seizure of power, had destroyed all rival political parties,
had enacted the basic laws for abolition of the political influence of
the federal states, had provided the legislative basis for purging the
civil service and judiciary of anti-Nazi elements, and had embarked
upon a State policy of persecution of the Jews.

Papen’s words are words of hollow mockery: “The good Lord
has blessed Germany . . . .”

The third allegation against the Defendant Papen is that he
promoted preparations for war. Knowing as he did the basic program
of the Nazi Party, it is inconceivable that as Vice Chancellor
for a year and a half he could have been dissociated from the
conspirators’ warlike preparations; he, of whom Hitler wrote to
Hindenburg on the 10th of April 1933 that, “His collaboration in the
Reich Cabinet, to which he is now lending all his energy, is infinitely
valuable.”

The fourth allegation against Papen is that he participated in the
political planning and preparations for wars of aggression and wars
in violation of international treaties. In Papen’s case this allegation
is really the story of the Anschluss. His part in that was a

preparation for wars of aggression in two senses: First, that the
Anschluss was the necessary preliminary step to all the subsequent
armed aggressions; second, that, even if it can be contended that the
Anschluss was in fact achieved without aggression, it was planned
in such a way that it would have been achieved by aggression if
that had been necessary.

I need do no more than summarize Papen’s Austrian activities
since the whole story of the Anschluss has been described to the
Tribunal already, though with the Tribunal’s permission I would
like to read again two short passages of a particularly personal
nature regarding Papen. But before I deal with Papen’s activities
in Austria there is one matter that I feel I ought not to omit to
mention to the Tribunal.

On the 18th of June 1934 Papen made his remarkable speech at
Marburg University. I do not propose to put it in evidence, nor is
it in the document book, because it is a matter of history and in
what I say I do not intend to commit myself in regard to the
motives and consequences of his speech which are not free from
mystery; but I will say this: That as far as concerns the subject
matter of Papen’s Marburg speech, it was an outspoken criticism of
the Nazis. One must imagine that the Nazis were furiously angry;
and although he escaped death in the Blood Purge 12 days later, he
was put under arrest for 3 days. Whether this arrest was originally
intended to end in execution or whether it was to protect him from
the purge as one too valuable to be lost, I do not now inquire.
After his release from arrest he not unnaturally resigned the Vice
Chancellorship. Now the question that arises—and this is why I
mention the matter at this point—is why, after these barbaric
events, did he ever go back into the service of the Nazis again?
What an opportunity missed! If he had stopped then he might have
saved the world much suffering. Suppose that Hitler’s own Vice
Chancellor, just released from arrest, had defied the Nazis and told
the world the truth. There might never have been a reoccupation
of the Rhineland; there might never have been a war. But I must
not speculate. The lamentable fact is that he slipped back, he
succumbed again to the fascination of Hitler.

After the murder of Chancellor Dollfuss only 3 weeks later, on
25 July 1934, the situation was such as to call for the removal of
the German Minister Rieth and for the prompt substitution of a
man who was an enthusiast for the Anschluss with Germany, who
could be tolerant of Nazi objectives and methods but who could
lend an aura of respectability to official German representation in
Vienna. This situation is described in the transcript at Pages 478
and 479 (Volume II, Pages 355, 356). Hitler’s reaction to the murder
of Dollfuss was immediate. He chose his man as soon as he heard
the news. The very next day, the 26th of July, he sent Von Papen

a letter of appointment. This is on Page 37 of the English document
book; it is document 2799-PS and it has already been judicially
noticed by the Tribunal. Mr. Alderman read the letter, and I only
wish to refer to the personal remarks toward the end. Hitler in this
letter, after reciting his version of the Dollfuss affair and expressing
his desire that Austrian-German relations should be brought again
into normal and friendly channels, says in the third paragraph:

And the last paragraph of the letter:

THE PRESIDENT: This might be a good time to break off for
10 minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, I had just read from the
letter of appointment as Minister in Vienna which Hitler sent to
Von Papen on the 26th of July 1934. This letter, which, of course,
was made public, naturally did not disclose the real intention of
Von Papen’s appointment. The actual mission of Von Papen was
frankly stated shortly after his arrival in Vienna in the course of
a private conversation he had with the American Minister, Mr.
Messersmith. I quote from Mr. Messersmith’s affidavit, which is
Document 1760-PS, Exhibit USA-57, and it is on Page 22 of the
document book, just about half way through the second paragraph.
Mr. Messersmith said:

Throughout the earlier period of his mission to Austria, Von
Papen’s activity was characterized by the assiduous avoidance of
any appearance of intervention. His true mission was re-affirmed
with clarity several months after its commencement when he was
instructed by Berlin that “during the next 2 years nothing can be
undertaken which will give Germany external political difficulties,”
and that every appearance of German intervention in Austrian
affairs must be avoided; and Von Papen himself stated to Berger-Waldenegg,
an Austrian Foreign Minister, “Yes, you have your
French and English friends now, and you can have your independence
a little longer.” All of that was told in detail by Mr. Alderman,
again quoting from Mr. Messersmith’s affidavit, which is in the
transcript at Pages 492 (Volume II, Page 354), 506, and 507 (Volume II,
Pages 362-364).

Throughout this earlier period, the Nazi movement was gaining
strength in Austria without openly admitted German intervention;
and Germany needed more time to consolidate its diplomatic position.
These reasons for German policy were frankly expressed by the
German Foreign Minister Von Neurath in conversation with the
American Ambassador to France; this was read into the transcript
at Page 520 (Volume II, Page 381) by Mr. Alderman from Document
L-150, Exhibit USA-65.

The Defendant Von Papen accordingly restricted his activities to
the normal ambassadorial function of cultivating all respectable
elements in Austria, and ingratiating himself in these circles. Despite
his facade of strict nonintervention, Von Papen remained in contact
with subversive elements in Austria. Thus in his report to Hitler,
dated 17 May 1935, he advised concerning Austrian-Nazi strategy as
proposed by Captain Leopold, leader of the illegal Austrian Nazis,
the object of which was to trick Dr. Schuschnigg into establishing
an Austrian coalition government with the Nazi Party. This is
Document 2247-PS, Exhibit USA-64, and it is in the transcript at
Pages 516 to 518 (Volume II, Pages 379, 380). It is on Page 34 of the
English document book. I don’t want to read this letter again, but
I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the first line of
what appears as the second paragraph in the English text, where
Von Papen, talking about this strategy of Captain Leopold, says,
“I suggest that we take an active part in this game.”

I mention also in connection with the illegal organizations in
Austria, Document 812-PS, Exhibit USA-61, which the Tribunal
will remember was a report from Rainer to Bürckel, and which is
dealt with in the transcript at Pages 498 to 505 (Volume II,
Pages 367 to 376).

Eventually the agreement of 11 July 1936 between Germany and
Austria was negotiated by Von Papen. This is already in evidence

as Document TC-22, Exhibit GB-20. The public form of this
agreement provides that while Austria in her policy should regard
herself as a German state, yet Germany would recognize the full
sovereignty of Austria and would not exercise direct or indirect
influence on the inner political order of Austria. More interesting
was the secret part of the agreement, revealed by Mr. Messersmith,
which ensured the Nazis an influence in the Austrian Cabinet and
participation in the political life of Austria. This has already been
read into the transcript at Page 522 (Volume II, Page 383) by
Mr. Alderman.

After the agreement the Defendant Von Papen continued to
pursue his policy by maintaining contact with the illegal Nazis, by
trying to influence appointments to strategic Cabinet positions, and
by attempting to secure official recognition of Nazi front organizations.
Reporting to Hitler on 1 September 1936, he summarized
his program for normalizing Austrian-German relations in pursuance
of the agreement of 11 July. This is Document 2246-PS,
Exhibit USA-67, on Page 33 of the English document book.

The Tribunal will recall that he recommended “as a guiding
principle, continued, patient, psychological manipulations with
slowly intensified pressure directed at changing the regime.” Then
he mentions his discussion with the illegal party and says that he is
aiming at “cooperative representation of the movement in the
Fatherland Front, but nevertheless is refraining from putting National
Socialists in important positions for the time being.”

There is no need to go over again the events that led up to the
meeting of Schuschnigg with Hitler in February 1938, which Von
Papen arranged and which he attended, and to the final invasion of
Austria in March 1938. It is enough if I quote from the biography
again on Page 66 of the document book. It is about two-thirds of
the way down the page:

And the biography continues:

Thus the fascination of serving Hitler triumphed once again, and
this time it was at a date when the seizure of Czechoslovakia could

have left no shadow of doubt in Papen’s mind that Hitler was
determined to pursue his program of aggression.

One further quotation from the biography on Page 66, the last
sentence of the last paragraph but one:

In conclusion, I draw the Tribunal’s attention again to the
fulsome praises which Hitler publicly bestowed upon Von Papen for
his services, especially in the earlier days. I have given two instances
where Hitler said “His collaboration is infinitely valuable,”
and again “You possess my most complete and unlimited confidence.”

Papen, the ex-Chancellor, the soldier, the respected Catholic,
Papen the diplomat, Papen the man of breeding and culture—there
was the man who could overcome the hostility and antipathy of
those respectable elements who barred Hitler’s way. Papen was—to
repeat the words of Sir Hartley Shawcross in his opening speech—“one
of the men whose co-operation and support made the Nazi
Government of Germany possible.”

That concludes my case. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe will now
follow with the case of Von Neurath.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the
presentation against the Defendant Von Neurath falls into five
parts, and the first of these is concerned with the following positions
and honors which he held.

He was a member of the Nazi Party from 30 January 1937 until
1945, and he was awarded the Golden Party Badge on 30 January
1937. He was general in the SS. He was personally appointed
Gruppenführer by Hitler in September 1937 and promoted to Obergruppenführer
on 21 June 1943. He was Reich Minister of Foreign
Affairs under the Chancellorship of the Defendant Von Papen from
2 June 1932 and under the Chancellorship of Hitler from 30 January
1933 until he was replaced by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop on
4 February 1938. He was Reich Minister from 4 February 1938 until
May 1945. He was President of the Secret Cabinet Council, to which
he was appointed on 4 February 1938, and he was a member of the
Reich Defense Council. He was appointed Reich Protector for
Bohemia and Moravia from 18 March 1939 until he was replaced by
the Defendant Frick on 25 August 1943.

He was awarded the Adler Order by Hitler at the time of his
appointment as Reich Protector. The Defendant Ribbentrop was the
only other German to receive this decoration.

If the Tribunal please, these facts are collected in Document
2973-PS, which is Exhibit USA-19, and in that document, which is

signed by the defendant and his counsel, the defendant makes
comments on certain of these matters with which I should like to deal.

He says that the award of the Golden Party Badge was made on
30 January 1937 against his will and without his being asked.

I point out that this defendant not only refrained from
repudiating the allegedly unwanted honor, but after receiving it,
attended meetings at which wars of aggression were planned,
actively participated in the rape of Austria, and tyrannized Bohemia
and Moravia.

The second point is that his appointment as Gruppenführer was
also against his will and without his being asked. On that point,
the Prosecution submits that the wearing of the uniform, the receipt
of the further promotion to Obergruppenführer and the actions
against Bohemia and Moravia must be considered when the defendant’s
submission is examined.

He then says that his appointment as Foreign Minister was by
Reich President Von Hindenburg. We submit we need not do more
than draw attention to the personalities of the Defendant Von Papen
and Hitler and to the fact that President Von Hindenburg died in
1934. This defendant continued as Foreign Minister until 1938.

He then says that he was an inactive Minister from the 4th of
February 1938 until May 1945. At that moment attention is drawn
to the activities which will be mentioned below and to the terrible
evidence as to Bohemia and Moravia which will be forthcoming
from our friend the Soviet prosecutor.

This defendant’s next point is that the Secret Cabinet Council
never sat nor conferred.

I point out to the Tribunal that that was described as a select
committee of the Cabinet for the deliberation of foreign affairs; and
the Tribunal will find that description in Document 1774-PS, which
I now put in as Exhibit GB-246. This is an extract from a book by
a well-known author, and on Page 2 of the document book, the first
page of that document, in about the seventh line from the bottom
of the page, they will see that among the bureaus subordinated to
the Führer for direct counsel and assistance, number four is the
Secret Cabinet Council; President: Reich Minister Baron Von Neurath.

And if the Tribunal will be kind enough to turn over to Page 3,
about ten lines from the top, they will see the paragraph beginning:

In order to have the formal composition of the body, that is
shown in Document 2031-PS, which is Exhibit GB-217. I believe that
has been put in. I need not read it again.

The next point that the defendant makes as to his offices is that
he was not a member of the Reich Defense Council.

If I may very shortly take that point by stages, I remind the
Tribunal that the Reich Defense Council was set up soon after
Hitler’s accession to power on 4 April 1933; and the Tribunal will
find a note of that point in Document 2261-PS, Exhibit USA-24; and
they will find that on the top of Page 12 of the document book there
is a reference to the date of the establishment of the Reich Defense
Council.

The Reich Defense Council is also dealt with in Document
2986-PS, Exhibit USA-409, which is the affidavit of the Defendant
Frick, which the Tribunal will find on Page 14. In the middle of that
short affidavit, Defendant Frick says:

Now, that the membership of this Council included the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, who was then the Defendant Von Neurath, is
shown by Document EC-177, Exhibit USA-390. If the Tribunal will
turn to Page 16 of the document book, they will find that document
and, at the foot of the page, the composition of the Reich Defense
Council, the permanent members including the Minister for Foreign
Affairs. That document is dated “Berlin, 22 May 1933” which was
during this defendant’s tenure of that office. That is the first stage.

The functioning of this council, with a representative of this
defendant’s department, Von Bülow, present, is shown by the minutes
of the 12th meeting on 14 May 1936. That is Document EC-407,
which I put in as Exhibit GB-247. The Tribunal will find at Page
21 that the minutes are for the 14th of May 1936, and the actual
reference to an intervention of Von Bülow is in the middle of Page 22.

Then, the next period was after the secret law of 4 September
1938. This defendant was, under the terms of that law, a member
of the Reich Defense Council by virtue of his office as president of

the Secret Cabinet Council. That is shown by the Document 2194-PS,
Exhibit USA-36, which the Tribunal will find at Page 24, and if you
will look at Page 24, you will see that the actual copy which was
put in evidence was enclosed in a letter addressed to the Reich
Protector in Bohemia and Moravia on the 4th of September 1939.
It is rather curious that the Reich Protector for Bohemia and
Moravia is now denying his membership in the council when the
letter enclosing the law is addressed to him.

But if the Tribunal will be good enough to turn on to Page 28,
which is still that document, the last words on that page describe
the tasks of that council and say:

If the Tribunal will turn to the next page, they will see that the
permanent members of the Council are listed, and that the seventh
one is the President of the Secret Cabinet Council, who was, again,
this defendant.

I submit that that deals, for every relevant period, with this
defendant’s statement that he was not a member of the Reich
Defense Council.

The second broad point that the Prosecution makes against this
defendant is that in assuming the position of Minister of Foreign
Affairs in Hitler’s Cabinet, this defendant assumed charge of a
foreign policy committed to breach of treaties.

We say first that the Nazi Party had repeatedly and for many
years made known its intention to overthrow Germany’s international
commitments, even at the risk of war. We refer to Sections
1 and 2 of the Party program, which, as the Tribunal has heard,
was published year after year. That is on Page 32 of the document
book. It is Document 1708-PS, Exhibit USA-255.

I just remind the Tribunal of these Points 1 and 2:

But probably clearer than that is the statement contained in
Hitler’s speech at Munich on the 15th of March 1939; and the Tribunal

will find one of the references to that on Page 40 at the middle of
the page. It begins:

It is futile nonsense for foreigners to raise that point. It would
be still more futile for Hitler’s Foreign Minister to suggest that he
was ignorant of the aggressive designs of the policy. But I remind
the Tribunal that the acceptance of force as a means of solving
international problems and achieving the objectives of Hitler’s
foreign policy must have been known to anyone as closely in touch
with Hitler as the Defendant Von Neurath; and I remind the
Tribunal simply by reference to the passages from Mein Kampf,
which were quoted by my friend Major Elwyn Jones, especially
those toward the end of the book, Pages 552, 553, and 554.

So that the Prosecution say that by the acceptance of this foreign
policy the Defendant Von Neurath assisted and promoted the
accession to power of the Nazi Party.

The third broad point is that in his capacity as Minister of
Foreign Affairs this defendant directed the international aspects
of the first phase of the Nazi conspiracy, the consolidation of control
in preparation for war.

As I have already indicated, from his close connection with
Hitler this defendant must have known the cardinal points of
Hitler’s policy leading up to the outbreak of the World War, as
outlined in retrospect by Hitler in his speech to his military leaders
on the 23rd of November 1939.

This policy had two facets: internally, the establishment of rigid
control; externally, the program to release Germany from its international
ties. The external program had four points: 1) Secession
from the Disarmament Conference; 2) the order to re-arm Germany;
3) the introduction of compulsory military services; and 4) the
remilitarization of the Rhineland.

If the Tribunal will look at Page 35 in the document book, at
the end of the first paragraph they will find these points very briefly
set out, and perhaps I might just read that passage. It is Document
789-PS, Exhibit USA-23—about 10 lines before the break:

Now, these are summarized in four points. The Defendant Von
Neurath participated directly and personally in accomplishing each
of these four aspects of Hitler’s foreign policy, at the same time
officially proclaiming that these measures did not constitute steps
toward aggression.

The first is a matter of history. When Germany left the Disarmament
Conference this defendant sent telegrams dated the 14th of
October 1933, to the President of the conference—and that will be
found in Dokumente Der Deutschen Politik, on Page 94 of the first
volume for that year. Similarly this defendant made the announcement
of Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations on the
21st of October 1933. That again will be found in the official
documents. These are referred to in the transcript of the proceedings
of the Trial, and I remind the Tribunal of the complementary
documents of military preparation, which of course were read and
which are Documents C-140, Exhibit USA-51, the 25th of October
1933, and C-153, Exhibit USA-43, the 12th of May 1934. These have
already been read and I merely collect them for the memory and
assistance of the Tribunal.

The second point—the rearmament of Germany: When this
defendant was Foreign Minister, on the 9th of March 1935, the
German Government officially announced the establishment of the
German Air Force. That is Document TC-44, Exhibit GB-11, already
referred to. On the 21st of May 1935 Hitler announced a purported
unilateral repudiation of the Naval, Military, and Air clauses of
the Treaty of Versailles which, of course, involved a similar purported
unilateral repudiation of the same clauses of the Treaty for
the Restoration of Friendly Relations with the United States, and

that will be found in Document 2288-PS, Exhibit USA-38, which
again has already been read. On the same day the Reich Cabinet,
of which this defendant was a member, enacted the secret Reich
Defense Law creating the office of Plenipotentiary General for War
Economy, afterwards designated by the Wehrmacht armament
expert as “the cornerstone of German rearmament.” The reference
to the law is Document 2261-PS, Exhibit USA-24, a letter of Von
Blomberg dated the 24th of June 1935, enclosing this law, which is
already before the Tribunal; and the reference to the comment on
the importance of the law is Document 2353-PS, Exhibit USA-35.
Some of that has already been read, but if the Tribunal will be
good enough to turn to Page 52 where that appears, they will find
an extract and I might just give the Tribunal the last sentence:

The third point is the introduction of compulsory military service.
On the 16th of March 1935 this defendant signed the law for
the organization of the Armed Forces which provided for universal
military service and anticipated a vastly expanded German army.
This was described by the Defendant Keitel as the real start of the
large scale rearmament program which followed. I will give the
official reference in the Reichsgesetzblatt, year 1935, Volume I,
Part 1, Page 369; and the references in the transcript are 411
(Volume II, Page 305), 454, and 455 (Volume II, Page 340).

The fourth point was the remilitarization of the Rhineland. The
Rhineland was reoccupied on the 7th of March 1936. I remind the
Tribunal of the two complementary documents: 2289-PS, Exhibit
USA-56, the announcement of this action by Hitler; and C-139,
Exhibit USA-53, which is the “Operation Schulung,” giving the
military action which was to be given if necessary. Again the
reference to the transcript is Page 458 to Page 464 (Volume II,
Pages 342 to 347). These were the acts for which the defendant
shared responsibility because of his position and because of
the steps which he took; but a little later he summed up his
views on the actions detailed above in a speech before Germans
abroad made on the 29th of August 1937, of which I ask the Tribunal
to take judicial notice, as it appears in Das Archiv, 1937, at
Page 650. But I quote a short portion of it that appears on Page 72
of the document book:

The world, of course, had not the advantage of seeing these
various complementary documents of military preparation which
I have had the opportunity of putting before the Tribunal.

The next section—and the next point against this defendant—is
that both as Minister of Foreign Affairs and as one of the inner
circle of the Führer’s advisers on foreign political matters, this
defendant participated in the political planning and preparation for
acts of aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and other nations.

If I might first put the defendant’s policy in a sentence, I would
say that it can be summarized as breaking one treaty only at a
time. He himself put it—if I may say so—slightly more pompously
but to the same effect in a speech before the Academy of German
Law on the 30th of October 1937, which appears in Das Archiv,
October 1937, Page 921, and which the Tribunal will find in the
document book on Page 73. The underlining (italics) is mine:

The only country whose interests are not mentioned are the
other parties to the various treaties that were dealt with in that
way; and the working out of that policy can readily be shown by
looking at the tabulated form of the actions of this defendant when
he was Foreign Minister or during the term of his immediate successor
when the defendant still was purported to have influence.

In 1935 the action was directed against the Western Powers.
That action was the rearmament of Germany. When that was going
on another country had to be reassured. At that time it was Austria,
with the support of Italy—which Austria still had up to 1935. And
so you get the fraudulent assurance, the essence of the technique,

in that case given by Hitler, on the 21st of May 1935. And that is
shown clearly to be false, by the documents which Mr. Alderman
put in—I give the general reference to the transcript on Pages 534
to 545 (Volume II, Pages 388 to 398). Then, in 1936, you still have
the action necessary against the Western Powers in the occupation
of the Rhineland. You still have a fraudulent assurance to Austria
in the treaty of the 11th of July of that year; and that is shown
to be fraudulent by the letters from the Defendant Von Papen,
Exhibits USA-64 (Document 2247-PS) and 67 (Document 2246-PS),
to one of which my friend Major Barrington has just referred.

Then in 1937 and 1938 you move on a step and the action is
directed against Austria. We know what that action was. It was
absorption, planned, at any rate finally, at the meeting on the
5th of November 1937; and action taken on the 11th of March 1938.

Reassurance had to be given to the Western Powers, so you have
the assurance to Belgium on the 13th of October 1937, which was
dealt with by my friend Mr. Roberts. The Tribunal will find the
references in Pages 1100 to 1126 (Volume III, Pages 289 to 307) of
the transcript.

We move forward a year and the object of the aggressive action
becomes Czechoslovakia. Or I should say we move forward 6 months
to a year. There you have the Sudetenland obtained in September;
the absorption of the whole of Bohemia and Moravia on the 15th of
March 1939.

Then it was necessary to reassure Poland; so an assurance to
Poland is given by Hitler on the 20th of February 1938, and repeated
up to the 26th of September 1938. The falsity of that assurance
was shown over and over again in Colonel Griffith-Jones’ speech on
Poland, which the Tribunal will find in the transcript at Pages 966
to 1060 (Volume II, Pages 195 to 261).

Then finally, when they want the action as directed against
Poland in the next year for its conquest, assurance must be given
to Russia, and so a non-aggression pact is entered into on the
23rd of August 1939, as shown by Mr. Alderman, at Pages 1160 to
1216 (Volume III, Pages 328 to 366).

With regard to that tabular presentation, one might say, in the
Latin tag, res ipsa oquitur. But quite a frank statement from this
defendant with regard to the earlier part of that can be found in
the account of his conversation with the United States Ambassador,
Mr. Bullitt, on the 18th of May 1936, which is on Page 74 of the
document book, Document L-150, Exhibit USA-65; and if I might
read the first paragraph after the introduction which says that he
called on this defendant, Mr. Bullitt remarks:

I remind the Tribunal, without citing it, of the conversation
referred to by my friend, Major Barrington, a short time ago,
between the Defendant Von Papen, as Ambassador, and Mr. Messersmith,
which is very much to the same effect.

Then I come to the actual aggression against Austria, and I
remind the Tribunal that this defendant was Foreign Minister:

First, during the early Nazi plottings against Austria in 1934.
The Tribunal will find these in the transcript at Pages 475 to 489
(Volume II, Pages 352-364), and I remind them generally that that
was the murder of Chancellor Dollfuss and the ancillary acts which
were afterwards so strongly approved.

Secondly, when the false assurance was given to Austria on the
21st of May 1935, and the fraudulent treaty made on the 11th of
July 1936. References to these are Document TC-26, which is
Exhibit GB-19, and Document TC-22, which is Exhibit GB-20. The
reference in the transcript is at Pages 544 and 545 (Volume II,
Page 383).

Third, when the Defendant Von Papen was carrying on his
subterranean intrigues in the period from 1935 to 1937. I again give
the references so the Tribunal will have it in mind: Document
2247-PS, Exhibit USA-64, letter dated 17 May 1935; and Exhibit
USA-67, Document 2246-PS, 1 September 1936. The references in
the transcript are Pages 492 (Volume II, Pages 363, 364), 516-518
(Volume II, Pages 372-374), 526-545 (Volume II, Pages 378 to 391),
and 553-554 (Volume II, Pages 394, 395).

This Defendant Von Neurath was present when Hitler declared,
at the Hossbach interview on the 5th of November 1937, that the
German question could only be solved by force and that his plans
were to conquer Austria and Czechoslovakia. That is Document
386-PS, Exhibit USA-25, which the Tribunal will find at Page 82.
If you will look at the sixth line of Page 82, after the heading,
you will see that one of the persons in attendance at this highly

confidential meeting was the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs,
Freiherr von Neurath.

Without reading a document which the Tribunal have had
referred to them more than once, may I remind the Tribunal that
it is on Page 86 that the passage about the conquest of Austria
occurs, and if the Tribunal will look after “2:” and “3:” the next
sentence is:

That is developed on the succeeding page. The important point
is that this defendant was present at that meeting; and it is
impossible for him after that meeting to say that he was not
acting except with his eyes completely open and with complete
comprehension as to what was intended.

Then the next point. During the actual Anschluss he received
a note from the British Ambassador dated the 11th of March 1938.
That is Document 3045-PS, Exhibit USA-127. He sent the reply
contained in Document 3287-PS, Exhibit USA-128. If I might very
briefly remind the Tribunal of the reply, I think all that is necessary—and
of course the Tribunal have had this document referred
to them before—is at the top of Page 93. I wish to call attention
to two obvious untruths.

The Defendant Von Neurath states in the sixth line:

According to the ultimatum, he had to appoint a proposed candidate
as Chancellor to form a Cabinet conforming to the proposals
of the German Government. Otherwise the invasion of Austria by
German troops was held in prospect.

Well, as I said, My Lord, these are the two most obvious untruths,
and all one can say is that it must have, at any rate, given
this defendant a certain macabre sort of humor to write that, when
the truth was, as the Tribunal know it from the report of Gauleiter
Rainer to Bürckel, which has been put in before the Tribunal
as Document 812-PS, Exhibit USA-61, and when they have heard,
as they have at length, the transcripts of the Defendant Göring’s
telephone conversation with Austria on that day, which is Document
2949-PS, Exhibit USA-76, and the entries of the Defendant
Jodl’s diary for the 11th, 13th, and 14th of February, which is
Document 1780-PS, Exhibit USA-72.

In this abundance of proof of the untruthfulness of these statements
the Tribunal may probably think that the most clear and
obvious correction is in the transcription of the Defendant Göring’s
telephone conversations, which are so amply corroborated by the
other documents.

The Prosecution submits that it is inconceivable that this defendant
who, according to the Defendant Jodl’s diary—may I ask the
Tribunal just to look at Page 116 of the document book, the entry
in the Defendant Jodl’s diary for the 10th of March, so that they
have this point quite clear? It is the third paragraph, and it says:

I submit that it is inconceivable when this defendant had taken
over the Foreign Office, was dealing with the matter, and as I shall
show the Tribunal in a moment, co-operating with the Defendant
Göring to suit the susceptibilities of the Czechs, that he should have
been so ignorant of the truth of events and what really was happening
as to write that letter in honor and good faith.

His position can be shown equally clearly by the account which
is given of him in the affidavit of Mr. Messersmith, Document
2385-PS, Exhibit USA-68. If the Tribunal will look at Page 107
of the document book, I remind them of that entry which exactly
describes the action and style of activity of this defendant at this
crisis. Two-thirds of the way down the page the paragraph begins:

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

[The Tribunal adjourned, until 24 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]

Morning Session

MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): If it please Your Honor,
the Defendant Streicher and the Defendant Kaltenbrunner are
absent this morning due to illness.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal,
before the Tribunal adjourned, I was dealing with the share of
the Defendant Neurath in the aggression against Austria. Before
I proceed to the next stage, I should like the Tribunal, if it be so
kind, to look at the original exhibit to which I am referred, Document
3287-PS, Exhibit USA-128, which is the letter from this
defendant to Sir Nevile Henderson, who was then the British
Ambassador. The only point in which I would be grateful is if the
Tribunal would note Page 92 of the document book. When I say
original, that is a certified copy certified by the British Foreign
Office, but the Tribunal will see that the heading is from the
President of the Secret Cabinet Council. That is the point that the
Tribunal will remember. The question was raised as to the
existence or activity of that body and the letterhead is from the
defendant in that capacity.

The next stage in the Austrian aggression is that at the time
of the occupation of Austria, this defendant gave the assurance
to M. Mastny, the Ambassador of Czechoslovakia to Berlin, regarding
the continued independence of Czechoslovakia. That is one
document at Page 123, TC-27, which I have already put in as
Exhibit GB-21. It was to Lord Halifax, who was then Foreign
Secretary; and if I may read the second paragraph just to remind
the Tribunal of the circumstances in which it was written,
M. Masaryk says:

And then there are the particulars of the way it was put to
Defendant Göring, which have been brought to the Tribunal’s
attention several times, and I shall not do it again. The 6th paragraph
begins: “M. Mastny was in a position to give him definite
and binding assurances on this subject”—that is, to give the Defendant
Göring on the Czech mobilization—and then it goes on:

In view of the fact that the Defendant Von Neurath had been
present at the meeting on the 5th of November, 4 months previously,
when he had heard Hitler’s views on Czechoslovakia—and that it
was only 6 months before that really negotiated treaty was
disregarded at once—that paragraph, in my submission, is an
excellent example on the technique of which this defendant was
the first professor.

I now come to the aggression against Czechoslovakia. On 28 May
1938 Hitler held a conference of important leaders including Beck,
Von Brauchitsch, Raeder, Keitel, Göring, and Ribbentrop at which
Hitler affirmed that preparations should be made for military action
against Czechoslovakia by October; and it is believed, though not—I
say frankly—confirmed, that the Defendant Von Neurath attended.
The reference of that meeting is in the transcript of Pages 742 and
743 (Volume III, Page 42).

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, is there any evidence?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. Your Lordship will remember
the documents, a long series of them, and it does not state who
was present; therefore, I express that and put it with reserve.

On the 4th of September 1938 the government of which
Von Neurath was a member enacted a new Secret Reich Defense
Law which defined various official responsibilities in clear anticipation
of war. This law provided, as did the previous Secret Reich
Defense Law, for a Reich Defense Council as a supreme policy board
for war preparations. The Tribunal will remember that I have
already referred them to Document 2194-PS, Exhibit USA-36,
showing these facts. Then there came the Munich Agreement of
29 September 1938, but in spite of that, on the 14th of March 1939
German troops marched into Czechoslovakia; and the proclamation
to the German people and the order to the Wehrmacht is Document
TC-50, Exhibit GB-7, which the Tribunal will find at

Page 124, which has already been referred to and I shall not read
it again.

On the 16th of March 1939 the German Government, of which
Von Neurath was still a member, promulgated the “Decree of the
Führer and Reich Chancellor on the Establishment of the Protectorate
‘Bohemia and Moravia.’ ” That date is the 16th of March.
That is at Page 126 of the document book, TC-51, Exhibit GB-8.

If I may leave that for the moment, I will come back to it in
dealing with the setting up of the Protectorate. I will come back
in a moment and read Article 5. But taking the events in the order
of time, the following week the Defendant Von Ribbentrop signed
a treaty with Slovakia, which is at Page 129 (Document 1439-PS,
Exhibit GB-135); and the Tribunal may remember Article 2 of that
treaty, which is:

The Tribunal will appreciate that the ultimate objective of
Hitler’s policy disclosed at the meeting at which this defendant
was present on the 5th of November 1937, that is the resumption
of the “Drang nach Osten” and the acquisition of Lebensraum in
the East, was obvious from the terms of this treaty as it has been
explicit in Hitler’s statement.

Then we come to the pith of this criminality. By accepting
and occupying the position of Reich Protector of Bohemia and
Moravia, the Defendant Von Neurath personally adhered to the
aggression against Czechoslovakia and the world. He further
actively participated in the conspiracy of world aggression and he
assumed a position of leadership in the execution of policies
involving violating the laws of war and the commission of crimes
against humanity.

The Tribunal will appreciate that I am not going to trespass on
the ground covered by my colleagues and go into the crimes. I want

to show quite clearly to the Tribunal the basis for these crimes
which was laid by the legal position which this defendant assumed.

The first point. The Defendant Von Neurath assumed the position
of Protector under a sweeping grant of powers. The act creating
the Protectorate provided—if the Tribunal would be good enough
to turn back on Page 126 in the document book (TC-51, Exhibit
GB-8) and look at Article V of the Act, it reads as follows:

At the very outset of the Protectorate the Defendant Von Neurath’s
supreme authority was implemented by a series of basic
decrees of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice. They
established the alleged legal foundation for the policy and program
which resulted, all aimed towards the systematic destruction of the
national integrity of the Czechs:

1. By granting the “racial Germans” in Czechoslovakia a
supreme order of citizenship—and I give the official reference to
the Decree of the Führer and Reich Chancellor concerning the
Protectorate to which I just referred—and then;

2. An act concerning the representation in the Reichstag of
Greater Germany by German nationals resident in the Protectorate,
13 April 1939;

3. An order concerning the acquisition of German citizenship
by former Czechoslovakian citizens of German stock, 20 April 1939.

Then there was a series of decrees that granted “racial Germans”
in Czechoslovakia a preferred status at law and in the courts:

1. An order concerning the Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction
in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, 14 April 1939;

2. An order concerning the Exercise of Jurisdiction in Civil
Proceedings, 14 April 1939;

3. An order concerning the Exercise of Military Jurisdiction,
on 8 May 1939.

Then the orders also granted to the Protector broad powers to
change by decree the autonomous law of the Protectorate. That is
contained in the Ordinance on Legislation in the Protectorate,
7 June 1939.

And finally the Protector was authorized to go with the Reich
Leader SS and the Chief of the German Police to take, if necessary,
such police measures which go beyond the limits usually valid for
police measures.

In view of the form of the order itself the Tribunal, if it cares
to listen and to take judicial notice of this, in the Reichsgesetzblatt
we have found inserted that one in the document book at Page 131,
which rather staggers the imagination to know what can be police
measures even beyond the limits usually valid for police measures
when one has seen police measures in Germany between 1933 and
1939. But if such increase was possible, and presumably it was
believed to be possible, then an increase was given by the Defendant
Von Neurath and used by him for coercion of the Czechs.

The declared basic policy of the Protectorate was concentrated
upon the central objective of destroying the identity of the Czechs
as a nation and absorbing their territory into the Reich; and if the
Tribunal will be good enough to turn to Page 132, they will find
Document Number 862-PS, Exhibit USA-313, and I think that has
been read to the Tribunal. Still, the Tribunal might bear with me
so that I might indicate the nature of the document to them.

This memorandum is signed by Lieutenant General of Infantry
Friderici. It is headed “The Deputy General of the Armed Forces
with the Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia.” It is marked
“Top Secret,” dated 15 October 1940. That is practically a year
before this Defendant Von Neurath went on leave, as he puts it,
on 27 September 1941; and it is called the “Basic Political Principles
in the Protectorate,” and there are four copies. It also had
gone to the Defendant Keitel and the Defendant Jodl, and it begins:
“On 9 October of this year”—that is 1940:

And that is signed, as I said, by the Deputy Lieutenant General
of the Armed Forces.

That view of the Reich Protector was accepted and formed a
basis of his policy. The result was a program of consolidating
German control over Bohemia and Moravia by the systematic
oppression of the Czechs through the abolition of civil liberties and
the systematic undermining of the native political, economic, and
cultural structure by a regime of terror, which will be dealt with
by my Soviet Union colleagues. They will show clearly, I submit,
that the only protection given by this defendant was a protection
to the perpetrators of innumerable crimes.

I have already drawn the attention of the Tribunal to the many
honors and rewards which this defendant received as his worth,
and it might well be said that Hitler showered more honors on
Von Neurath than on some of the leading Nazis who had been with
the Party since the very beginning. His appointment as President
of the newly created Secret Cabinet Council in 1938 was in itself
a new and singular distinction. On 22 September 1940 Hitler
awarded him the War Merit Cross 1st Class as Reich Protector for
Bohemia and Moravia. That is in the Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro,
22 September 1940.

He was also awarded the Golden Badge of the Party and was
promoted by Hitler, personally, from the rank of Gruppenführer
to Obergruppenführer in the SS on 21 June 1943. And I also inform
the Tribunal that he and Ribbentrop were the only two Germans
to be awarded the Adlerorden, a distinction normally reserved for
foreigners. On his seventieth birthday, 2 February 1943, it was
made the occasion for most of the German newspapers to praise
his many years of service to the Nazi regime. This service, as
submitted by the Prosecution, may be summed up in two ways:

1) He was an internal Fifth Columnist among the Conservative
political circles in Germany. They had been anti-Nazi but were
converted in part by seeing one of themselves, in the person of
this defendant, wholeheartedly with the Nazis;

2) His previous reputation as a diplomat made public opinion
abroad slow to believe that he would be a member of a cabinet
which did not stand by its words and assurances. It was most
important for Hitler that his own readiness to break every treaty
or commitment should be concealed as long as possible, and for
this purpose he found in the Defendant Von Neurath his handiest
tool.

That concludes the presentation against the Defendant Von Neurath.

THE PRESIDENT: In view of the motion which was made
yesterday by Counsel for the Defendant Hess, the Tribunal will
postpone the presentation of the individual case against Hess, and
will proceed with the presentation of the case by counsel for
France.

M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French
Republic): When stating the charges which now weigh upon the
defendants, my British and American colleagues showed evidence
that these men conceived and executed a plan and plot for the
domination of Europe. They have shown you of what crimes against
peace these men became guilty by launching unjust wars. They
have shown you that, as leaders of Nazi Germany, they had all
premeditated unjust wars, and had participated in the conspiracy
against peace.

Then my friends and colleagues of the French Delegation,
M. Herzog, M. Faure and M. Gerthoffer, submitted documents
establishing that the defendants, who all in various positions
counted among the leaders of Nazi Germany, are responsible for
the repeated violations of the laws and customs of war committed
by men of the Reich in the course of military operations. However,
it still remains for us to expose the atrocities of which men, women,
and children of the occupied countries of the west were victims.

We intend at this point to prove that the defendants, in their
capacity as leaders of Hitlerite Germany, systematically pursued a
policy of extermination, the cruelty of which increased from day to
day until the final defeat of Germany; that the defendants planned,
conceived, willed, and prescribed these atrocities as part of a
system which was to enable them to accomplish a political aim. It
is this political aim which closely binds all the facts we intend to
present to you. The crimes perpetrated against people and property,
as presented so far by my colleagues of the French Prosecution,
were in close connection with the war. They had the distinct
character of war crimes stricto sensu. Those which I shall present
to you surpass them both in meaning and extent. They form part
of the plans of a policy of domination, of expansion, beyond war
itself.

It is Hitler himself who gave the best definition of this policy
in one of his speeches in Munich on 16 May 1927. He was deceiving
his listeners about the danger that France, an agricultural country
of only 40 million inhabitants, might represent for Germany, which
was already a highly-industrialized country with a population of
nearly 70 million. That day Hitler said:

During the first months that followed their victory, the Germans
seemed to have abandoned their plan of annihilation; but this was
only a tactical pretense. They hoped to draw into their war against
England and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics the western
nations they had enslaved. By doses of treachery and violence,
they attempted to make these western nations take the road of
collaboration. The latter resisted; and the defendants then
abandoned their tactics and came back to their big scheme, the
annihilation of conquered peoples in order to secure in Europe the
space necessary for the 250 million Germans whom they hoped
to settle there in generations to come.

This destruction, this annihilation—I repeat the very words
used by Hitler in his speech—was undertaken under various
pretenses; the elimination of inferior, or negroid races; the extermination
of bolshevism; the destruction of Jewish-Masonic influences
hostile to the founding of the pseudo “New European Order.”

In fact, this destruction, this elimination, conduced to the
assassination of the elite and vital forces opposed to the Nazis; it
also led to the reduction of the means of livelihood of the enslaved
nations.

All of this was done, as I shall prove to you, in execution of a
deliberate plan, the existence of which is confirmed, among other
things, by the repetition and the immutability of the same facts in
all the occupied countries.

Faced with this repetition and this immutability, it is no longer
possible to claim that only the one who performed the crime was
guilty. This repetition and this immutability prove that the same
criminal will united all the members of the German Government,
all the leaders of the German Reich.

It is from this common will that the official policy of terrorism
and extermination, which directed the strokes of the executioners,
was born; and it is for having participated in the creation of this
common will that each of the defendants here present has been
placed in the ranks of major war criminals.

I shall come back to this point when, having finished my presentation
of the facts, I shall have to qualify the crime, in accordance
with the legal tradition of my country.

Allow me to give you some indications as to how, with your
kind permission, I intend to make my presentation.

The facts I am to prove here are the results of many testimonies.
We could have called innumerable witnesses to this stand. Their

statements have been collected by the French Office for Inquiry into
War Crimes. It seemed to us that it would simplify and shorten the
procedure if we were to give you extracts only from the testimony
that we have received in writing.

With your authorization, therefore, I shall limit myself to reading
excerpts from the written testimonies collected in France by official
organizations qualified to investigate War Crimes. However, if in
the course of this presentation it appears necessary to call certain
witnesses, we shall proceed to do so but with constant care not to
slow down the sessions in any way and to bring them with all
speed to the only possible conclusion, the one our peoples expect.

The whole question of atrocities is dominated by the German
terrorist policy. Under this aspect it is not without precedent in the
Germanic practice of war. We all remember the execution of hostages
at Dinant during the war of 1914, the execution of hostages in the
citadel of Laon, or the hostages of Senlis. But Nazism perfected this
terrorist policy; for Nazism, terror is a means of subjugation. We
all remember the propaganda picture about the war in Poland,
shown in Oslo in particular on the eve of the invasion of Norway.
For Nazism, terror is a means of subjugating all enslaved people in
order to submit them to the aims of its policy.

The first signs of this terrorist policy during the occupation are
fresh in the memory of all Frenchmen. Only a few months after
the signing of the armistice they saw red posters edged with black
appear on the walls of Paris, as well as in the smallest villages of
France, proclaiming the first execution of hostages. We know
mothers who were informed of the execution of their sons in this
way. These executions were carried out by the occupiers after
anti-German incidents. These incidents were the answer of the
French people to the official policy of collaboration. Resistance to
this policy stiffened, became organized, and with it the repressive
measures increased in intensity until 1944—the climax of German
terrorism in France and in the countries of the West. At that time
the Army and the SS Police no longer spoke of the execution of
hostages; they organized real reprisal expeditions during which
whole villages were set on fire, and thousands of civilians killed, or
arrested and deported. But before reaching this stage, the Germans
attempted to justify their criminal exactions in the eyes of a
susceptible public opinion. They promulgated, as we shall prove,
a real code of hostages, and pretended they were merely complying
with law every time they proceeded to carry out reprisal executions.

The taking of hostages, as you know, is prohibited by Article 50
of the Hague Convention. I shall read this text to you. It is to be
found in the Fourth Convention, Article 50:

And yet, supreme perfidy! The German General Staff, the German
Government, will endeavor to turn this regulation into a dead
letter and to set up as law the systematic violation of the Hague
Convention.

I shall describe to you how the General Staff formed its pseudo-law
on hostages, a pseudo-law which in France found its final
expression in what Stülpnagel and the German administration
called the “hostages code.” I shall show you, in passing, which of
these defendants are the most guilty of this crime.

On the 15th of February 1940 in a secret report addressed to the
Defendant Göring, the OKW justifies the taking of hostages, as
proved by the excerpt from Document Number 1585-PS which I
propose to read to you. This document is dated Berlin, 15 February
1940. It bears the heading: “Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.
Secret. To the Reich Minister for Aviation and Supreme Commander
of the Air Force.”

This document is filed by the French Delegation as Exhibit Number
RF-267.

To my knowledge, Göring never raised any objection to this
thesis. Here is one more paragraph from an order, Document
Number F-508 (Exhibit Number RF-268), from the Commander-in-Chief
of the Army in France, administrative section, signed
“Stroccius,” 12 September 1940. Three months after the beginning
of the occupation, the hostages are defined therein as follows:

This ordinance cancels 5 directives prior to 12 September 1940.
This question was the subject of numerous texts, and two General
Staff ordinances, dated, as indicated at the head of the Document
Number F-510 (Exhibit Number RF-269), 2 November 1940 and
13 February 1941:

I submit these two documents as Exhibit Number RF-268 and 269
(Documents Number F-508 and F-510).

Until now we have not found any trace in these German texts
of an affirmation which might lead one to think that the taking of
hostages and their execution constitute a right for the occupying
power; but here is a German text which explicitly formulates this
idea. It is quoted in your book of documents as Document Number
F-507 (Exhibit Number RF-270), dated Brussels, 18 April 1944. It is
issued by the Chief Judge to the military Commander-in-Chief in
Belgium and the North of France; and it is addressed to the German
Armistice Commission in Wiesbaden. It reads in the margin: “Most

Secret. Subject: Execution of 8 terrorists in Lille on 22 December
1943. Reference: Your letter of 16 March 1944 Lille document.”
You will read in the middle of Paragraph 2 of the text:

It is, therefore, quite obviously a state doctrine which is involved.
Innocent people become forfeit. They answer with their lives for
the attitude of their fellow-citizens towards the German Army. If
an offense is committed of which they are completely ignorant, they
are the object of a collective penalty possibly entailing death. This
is the official German thesis imposed by the German High Command,
in spite of the protests of the German Armistice Commission in
Wiesbaden. I say: A thesis imposed by the German High Command,
and I will produce the evidence. Keitel, on the 16th of September
1941, signed a general order which has already been read and filed
by my American colleagues under Document Number 389-PS
(Exhibit Number RF-271) and which I shall begin to explain. This
order concerns all the occupied territories of the East and the
West, as established by the list of addresses which includes all the
military commanders of the countries then occupied by Germany:
France, Belgium, Norway, Holland, Denmark, eastern territories,
Ukraine, Serbia, Salonika, southern Greece, Crete. This order was
in effect for the duration of the war. We have a text of 1944 which
refers to it. This order of Keitel, Chief of the OKW, is dictated by
a violent spirit of anti-Communist repression. It aims at all kinds
of repression of the civilian population.

This order, which concerns even the commanders whose troops
are stationed in the West, points out to them that in all cases in
which attacks are made against the German Army:

Consequently Keitel orders, among other things, that 50 to
100 Communists are to be put to death for each German soldier
killed. This is a political conception which we constantly meet in

all manifestations of German terrorism. As far as Hitlerite propaganda
is concerned, all resistance to Germany is of Communist
inspiration, if not in essence Communist. The Germans thereby
hoped to eliminate from among the resistance the nationalists
whom they thought hostile to Communism. But the Nazis also
pursued another aim: They still hoped above all to divide France
and the other conquered countries of the West into two hostile
factions and to put one of these factions at their service under the
pretext of anti-Communism.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off
for 10 minutes?

[A recess was taken.]

M. DUBOST: Keitel confirmed this order concerning hostages on
24 September 1941. We submit it as Exhibit Number RF-272, and
you will find it in your document book as F-554. I shall read you
the first paragraph:

The choice of hostages is also indicated thus in Document Number
877-PS, which has already been read to you and which is previous
to the aggression of Germany against Russia. It is necessary
to remind the Tribunal of this document because it shows the
premeditation of the German Command and the Nazi Government
to divide the occupied countries, to take away from the partisan
resistance all its patriotic character, in order to substitute for it
a political character which it never had. We submit this document
under Exhibit Number RF-273:

This document is an official document issued by the headquarters
of the High Command of the Army. It expresses the general
doctrine of all the German Staff. It is Keitel who presides over the
formation of this doctrine. He is therefore not only a soldier under
the orders of his government; but at the same time that he is a
general, he is also a Nazi politician whose acts are those of a war
leader and also those of a politician serving the Hitlerite policy.
You have proof of it in the document which I have just read to
you: A general who is also a politician, in whom both politics and
the conduct of war are combined in one single preoccupation. This
is not surprising for those who know the German line of thought,
which had never separated war and politics. Was it not Clausewitz
who said that war was only the continuation of politics by other
means?

This is doubly important. This constitutes a direct and crushing
charge against Keitel; but Keitel is the German General Staff.
Now this organization is indicted, and we see by this document that
this indictment is justified as the German General Staff dabbled in
the criminal policy of the German Cabinet.

In the case of France, the general orders of Keitel were adapted
by Stülpnagel in his order of 30 September 1941, better known in
France under the name of “hostages code,” which repeats and
specifies in detail the previous order, namely that of 23 August 1941.
This order of 30 September 1941 is of major importance to anyone
who wishes to prove under what circumstances French hostages
were shot. This is why I shall be obliged to read large extracts. It
defines, in Paragraph 3, the categories of Frenchmen who will be
considered as hostages. I shall read this document 1588-PS, which
I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-274. Paragraph I
concerns the seizure of hostages. I read:

Allow me to make a comment, gentlemen. There never were
any anarchist organizations represented in parliament, in either of
our Chambers; and this paragraph (a) could only refer to former
deputies and officials of the Communist organizations, of whom
we know, moreover, that some were executed by the Germans as
hostages.

One idea is dominant in this selection: “We must punish the
elite.” In conformity with paragraph (b) of this article, we shall
see that the Germans shot a great number of intellectuals, including
Solomon and Politzer, in 1941 and 1942, in Paris and in the provincial
towns.

I shall come back to these executions later when I give you
examples of German atrocities committed in relation to the policy
of hostages in France.

I skip a paragraph.

And, at the very end of Paragraph VIII, we read:

Parallel to this document, concerning France, there exists in
Belgium an order of Falkenhausen of 19 September 1941, which you
will find on Page 6 of the official report on Belgium, Document
Number F-683, which I shall submit as Exhibit Number RF-275.

THE PRESIDENT: Is the Belgian document worded in substantially
the same terms as the document you have just read?

M. DUBOST: Exactly.

THE PRESIDENT: Then I do not think you need to read that.

M. DUBOST: As you wish. Then it will not be necessary either
to read in entirety the warning of Seyss-Inquart concerning Holland.

I think that by referring to these exhibits in your document
book, you will be able to obtain items of evidence which will only
confirm what I read to you of Stülpnagel’s order.

For Norway and Denmark there is a teletyped letter from Keitel
to the Supreme Command of the Navy, dated 30 November 1944,
which you will find in the document book, as Document C-48 (Exhibit
Number RF-280). I read the end of Paragraph 1:

Page 2 of Document Number 870-PS (Exhibit Number RF-281):

And Terboven, who wrote this sentence, added (and it is he
who condemns Marshal Keitel):

All these documents will be submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, do I understand that in Belgium,
Holland, in Norway, and in Denmark, there were similar orders or
decrees with reference to hostages?

M. DUBOST: Yes, Your Honor, I mean to read those concerning
Belgium, Holland, and Norway. For Belgium, for instance, you will
find at Page 6, Document Number F-683, which is the official document
of the Belgian Ministry of Justice:

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, I did not want you to read these
documents if they are substantially in the same form as the document
you have already read.

M. DUBOST: They are more or less in the same form, Your
Honor. I shall submit them because they constitute the proof of the
systematic repetition of the same methods to obtain the same
results, that is, to cause terror to reign in all the occupied countries
of the West. But, if the Tribunal considers it constant and established
that these methods were systematically used in all the
western regions, naturally I shall spare you the reading of documents
which are monotonous and which repeat in substance what
was said in the document relating to France.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you had better give us references
to the documents which concern Belgium, Holland, Norway, and
Denmark.

M. DUBOST: Yes, Your Honor, for Belgium, Document F-683,
Page 6, decree of Falkenhausen of 19 September 1941, submitted as
Exhibit Number RF-275, as constituting the official report of the
Kingdom of Belgium against the principal war criminals.

The second document is C-46, corresponding to UK-42 (24 November
1942), submitted as Exhibit Number RF-276.

For Holland, a warning by Seyss-Inquart, Document Number
F-224, which you may feel it necessary for me to read, since Seyss-Inquart
is one of the defendants. I submit this document under
Exhibit Number RF-279, and I quote:

THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I don’t know where you are
reading. Which paragraph are you reading?

M. DUBOST: I am told, Mr. President, that this document has
not been bound with the Dutch report; I shall file it at the end of
the hearing, if I may.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

M. DUBOST: I quote now another document, the warning of
Seyss-Inquart to Holland.

THE PRESIDENT: And that is what number?

M. DUBOST: Number 152 in your document book, concerning
German justice, which will be submitted at the hearing tomorrow.

For Norway and Denmark we have several documents which
establish that the same policy of execution of hostages was followed.
We have, in particular, Document C-48 (Exhibit Number
RF-280) from which I read a short time ago.

All those special orders for each of the occupied regions of the
West are the result of the general order of Keitel, which my American
colleagues have already read and on which I merely gave a
comment this morning. The responsibility of Keitel in the development
of the policy of execution of hostages is total. He was given
warning; German generals even told him that this policy went
beyond the aim pursued and might become dangerous.

On 16 September 1942, General Falkenhausen addressed a letter
to him, from which I extract the following passage—it is Document
Number 1594-PS, which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-283:

I shall now present Document Number 1587-PS from the same
German general and he seems to be lucid:

THE PRESIDENT: Is it known what the date of that document
was?

M. DUBOST: It is after the 16th of September 1941. We do not
have the exact date. The document is appended to another document,
the date of which is illegible; but it is after Keitel’s order
since it gives an account of the executions of hostages, carried out
in compliance with that order. It points out that after the execution
of the hostages the culprits were found; that the effect was deplorable
and aroused the resentment of some of the population.

You will find also in this Document Number 1587-PS—but this
time an extract from the monthly report of the Commander of the
Wehrmacht in the Netherlands—the report for the month of August
1942, a new warning to Keitel:

I will pass over the enumeration of the names. I omit the next
paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you read the names and the titles?

M. DUBOST: “Ruys, Willem, Director General, Rotterdam; Count
E.O.G. Van Limburg-Stirum, Arnhem; M. Baelde, Robert, Doctor
of Law, Rotterdam; Bennenkers, Christoffel, former Inspector General
of the Police at Rotterdam; Baron Alexander Schimmelpennink
Van der Oye, Noordgouwe (Seeland).” One paragraph further on:

Despite these warnings proffered by conscientious subordinates,
neither the General Staff nor Keitel ever gave any order to the
contrary. The order of 16 September 1941 always remained in
force. When I have shown you examples of executions of hostages
in France, you will see that a number of facts which I shall utilize
are dated 1942, 1943 and even 1944.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

MARSHAL: If Your Honor please, the Defendants Kaltenbrunner
and Streicher will continue to be absent during this afternoon’s
session.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dubost, the Tribunal had some difficulty
this morning in following the documents that you were citing; and
also, the Tribunal understands the interpreters had some difficulty
because the document books, except the one that is before me, have
no indications of the “PS” or other numbers; and the documents
themselves are not numbered in order. Therefore it is extremely
difficult for members of the Tribunal to find documents, and it is
also extremely difficult for the interpreters to find any document
which may be before them.

So, this afternoon, it will be appreciated if you will be so kind
as to indicate what the document is, and then give both the interpreters
and the Tribunal enough time in which they may find the
document, and then indicate exactly which part of the document
you are going to read, that is to say, whether it is the beginning
of the document, or the first paragraph, or the second, and so on.
But you must bear with us if we find some difficulty in following
you in the documents.

M. DUBOST: Very well, Your Honor.

I had finished this morning presenting the general rules which
prevailed during the five years of occupation in the matter of the
execution of numerous hostages in the occupied countries of the
West. I brought you the evidence, by reading a series of official
German documents, that the highest authorities of the Army, of the
Party, and of the Nazi Government had deliberately chosen to practice
a terroristic policy through the seizure of hostages.

Before passing to the examination of a few particular cases, it
seems to me to be necessary to say exactly wherein this policy consisted,
in the light of the texts which I have quoted.

According to the circumstances, people belonging by choice or
ethnically to the vanquished nations were apprehended and held
as a guarantee for the maintenance of order in a given sector; or
after a given incident of which the enemy army had been the
victim. They were apprehended and held with a view to obtaining
the execution by the vanquished population of acts determined by
the occupying authority, such as denunciation, payment of collective
fines, the handing over of perpetrators of assaults committed
against the German Army, and the handing over of political adversaries;
and these persons thus arrested were often massacred subsequently
by way of reprisal.

An idea emerges from methods of this kind, namely, that the
hostage, who is a human being, becomes a special security subjected
to seizure as determined by the enemy. How contrary this is
to the rule of individual liberty and human dignity. All the members
of the German Government are jointly responsible for this
iniquitous concept and for its application in our vanquished countries.
No member of the German Government can throw this
responsibility on to subordinates by claiming that they merely
executed clearly stated orders with an excess of zeal.

I have shown you that upon many occasions, on the contrary,
the persons who carried out the orders reported to the chiefs the
moral consequences resulting from the application of the terroristic
policy of hostages. And we know that in no case were contrary
orders given. We know that the original orders were always maintained.

I shall not endeavor to enumerate in their totality all the cases
of executions of hostages. For our country, France, alone, there
were 29,660 executed. This is proved in Document Number F-420,
dated Paris, 21 December 1945, the original of which will be submitted
under Exhibit Number RF-266 to your Tribunal. It is at the
beginning of the document book, the second document. There in
detail, region by region, the number is given of the hostages who
were executed.

I shall limit my presentation to a few typical cases of executions
which unveil the political plan of the General Staff which prescribed
these executions—plans of terror, plans that were intended to create
and accentuate the division between Frenchmen, or, more generally,
between citizens of the occupied countries. You will find in your
document book a file quoted as F-133, which I submit as Exhibit
Number RF-288. This is called “Posters Concerning Paris.” At the
head of the page you will read, Pariser Zeitung supplement. This
document reproduces a few of the very numerous posters and bills,
some of the numerous notices inserted in the press from 1940 to
1945 announcing the arrest of hostages in Paris, in the Paris district,
and in France. I shall read only one of these documents, which you
will find on the second page, entitled Number 6, 19 September 1941.
You will see in it an appeal to informers, an appeal to traitors; you
will see in it a means of corruption, which systematically applied

to all the countries of the West for years; all tended to demoralize
them to an equal extent:

And here is the appeal to informers:

Numerous notices follow which all have to do with executions.

Under Number 8 on the following page you will find a list of
twelve names among which are three of the best known lawyers of
the Paris Bar, who are characterized as militant Communists, Messrs.
Pitard, Hajje and Rolnikas.

In file 21 submitted by my colleague, M. Gerthoffer, in the
course of his economic presentation, you will find a few notices
which are similar, published in the German official journal VOBIF.

You will observe, in connection with this notice of 16 September
announcing the execution or rather, the murder, of M. Pitard and
his companions, that the murderers had neither the courage nor
the honesty to say that they were all Parisian lawyers. Was it by
mistake? I think that it was a calculated lie, for at this time it
was necessary to handle the elite gently. The occupying power
still hoped to separate them from the people of France.

I shall describe to you in detail two cases which spread grief in
the hearts of the French in the course of the month of October 1941
and which have remained present in the memory of all my
compatriots. They are known as the “executions of Châteaubriant
and of Bordeaux.” They are related in Document Number F-415
in your document book, which I submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit
Number RF-285.

After the attack on two German officers at Nantes on 20 October
1941 and in Bordeaux a few days later, the German Army decided
to make an example. You will find, on Page 22 of Document
Number F-415, a copy of the notice in the newspaper Le Phare
of 21 October 1941.

The conditions under which these reprisals were exercised are
worth describing in detail. Stülpnagel, who was commanding the
German troops in France, ordered the Minister of the Interior to
designate prisoners. These prisoners were to be selected among the
Communists who were considered the most dangerous (these are
the terms of Stülpnagel’s order). A list of 60 Frenchmen was

furnished by the Minister of the Interior. This was Pucheu. He
has since been tried by my compatriots, sentenced to death, and
executed.

The Subprefect of Châteaubriant sent a letter to the Kommandantur
of Châteaubriant, in reply to the order which he received
from the Minister of the Interior:

On the following page is the German order:

In the following pages you will find a list of all the men who
were shot on that day. I leave out the reading of the list in order
not to lengthen the proceedings unduly.

On Page 16 you will find a list of 48 names. On Page 13 you will
find the list of those who were shot in Nantes. On Page 12 you will
find the list of those who were shot in Châteaubriant. Their bodies
were distributed for burial to all the surrounding communes.

I shall read to you the testimony of eyewitnesses as to how they
were buried after having been shot. On Page 3 of this document
you will find the note of M. Dumenil concerning the executions of
21 October 1941, which was written the day after these executions.
The second paragraph reads:

Sixteen were shot in Nantes. Twenty-seven were shot in
Châteaubriant. Five were shot outside the department. For those
who were shot in Châteaubriant, we know what their last moments
were like. The Abbé Moyon, who was present, wrote on 22 October
1941 the account of this execution. This is the third paragraph,
Page 17 of your document:

You will find on Page 19 the “departure for the execution,”
Paragraph 4:

At the bottom of the page, the last paragraph:

On Page 21 of the same document you will find the declaration
of Police Officer Roussel. It is also worth reading:

Almost at the same time, in addition to these 48 hostages who
were shot, there were others—those of Bordeaux. You will find in
your document book, under Document Number F-400, documents
which have been sent to us by the Prefecture of the Gironde, which
we submit to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-286.

One of them comes from the Bordeaux Section of Political
Affairs, and is dated 22 October 1941, Document F-400(b).

These reprisal measures you will find set forth on Page “A” of
the same document in a letter addressed by General Von Faber
Du Faur, Chief of the Regional Administration of Bordeaux, to the
Prefect of the Gironde. I quote:

And in execution of this order, 50 men were shot. There is a
famous place in the surburbs of Paris which has become a place of
pilgrimage for the French since our liberation. It is the Fort of
Romainville. During the occupation the Germans converted this
fort into a hostage depot from which they selected victims when
they wanted to take revenge after some patriotic demonstration.
It is from Romainville that Professors Jacques Solomon, Decourtemanche,
Georges Politzer, Dr. Boer and six other Frenchmen
departed. They had been arrested in March 1942, tortured by the
Gestapo, then executed without trial in the month of May 1942,
because they refused to renounce their faith.

On 19 August 1942, 96 hostages left this fort, among them M. Le
Gall, a municipal councillor of Paris. They left the fort of Romainville,
were transferred to Mont-Valérien and executed.

In September 1942 an assault had been made against some
German soldiers at the Rex cinema in Paris. General Von Stülpnagel
issued a proclamation announcing that, because of this assault,
he had caused 116 hostages to be shot and that extensive measures
of deportation were to be taken. You will find an extract from this
newspaper in Document Number F-402(b) (Exhibit Number RF-287).

The notice was worded as follows:

In actual fact, it was only on the day of 20 September that 46 of
these hostages were chosen from the list of 116. The Germans
handed newspapers of 20 September to the prisoners of Romainville,
announcing the decision of the Military High Command. It was,
therefore, through the newspapers that the prisoners of Romainville
learned that a certain number of them would be chosen at the end
of the afternoon to be led before the firing squad.

All lived through that day awaiting the call that would be made
that evening. Those who were called knew their fate beforehand.
All died innocent of the crimes for which they were being executed,
for those who were responsible for the assault in the Rex cinema
were arrested a few days later.

It was in Bordeaux that the 70 other hostages of the total of 116
announced by General Von Stülpnagel were executed. In reprisal
for the murder of Ritter, the German official of the Labor Front,
50 other hostages were shot at the end of September 1943 in Paris.
Here is a reprint of the newspaper article which announced these
executions to the French people—Document Number F-402(c).

All these facts concerning the hostages of Romainville have been
related to us by one of the rare survivors, M. Rabaté, a mechanic
living at 69 Rue de la Tombe-Issiore, Paris, whose testimony was
taken by one of our collaborators.

In this testimony—Document Number F-402(a), which has
already been submitted as Exhibit Number RF-287—we read the
following:

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, the Tribunal thinks that, unless
there is anything very special that you wish to read in any of these
documents, they have already heard the number of the hostages
who were put to death and they think that it really does not add to
it—the actual details of these documents.

M. DUBOST: I thought, Mr. President, that I had not spoken to
you of the regime to which men were subjected when they were
prisoners of the German Army. I thought that it was my duty to
enlighten the Tribunal on the condition of these men in the German
prisons.

I thought that it was also my duty to enlighten the Tribunal on
the ill-treatment inflicted by the Gestapo, who left the son-in-law
of Professor Langevin with his limbs broken. Moreover that is
found in a testimony.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, if there are matters of that sort
which you think it right to go into, you must do so; but the actual
details of individual shooting of hostages we think you might, at
any rate, summarize. But if there are particular atrocities which
you wish to draw our attention to, by all means do so.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, I have only given two examples of
executions out of the multiple executions which caused 29,660 deaths
in my country.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, M. Dubost.

M. DUBOST: In the region of the North of France, which was
administratively attached to Belgium and subjected to the authority
of General Von Falkenhausen, the same policy of execution was
practiced. You will find in Document Number F-133, submitted as
Exhibit Number RF-289, copies of a great number of posters
announcing either arrests, executions, or deportations. Certain of
these posters include, moreover, an appeal to informers, and they
are analogous to those which I read to you in connection with
France. Perhaps it would be well, nevertheless, to point out the
one that you will find on Page 3, which concerns the execution of
20 Frenchmen, ordered as the result of a theft; that on Page 4, which
concerns the execution of 15 Frenchmen, ordered as a result of an
attack against a railroad installation; and finally, especially the last,
the one that you will find on Pages 8 and 9, which announces that
executions will be carried out, and invites the civilian population
to hand over the guilty ones, if they know them, to the German
Army.

As concerns especially the countries of the West other than
France, we have a very great number of identical cases. You will
find in your document book, under Document Number F-680, Exhibit
Number RF-290, a copy of a poster by the Military Commander-in-Chief
for Belgium and the North of France, which announces the
arrest in Tournai, on 18 September 1941, of 25 inhabitants as
hostages, and specifies the condition under which certain of them
will be shot if the guilty are not discovered. But you will find
especially, under the Number F-680(a) a remarkable document; it
comes from the German authorities themselves. It is the secret
report of the German Chief of Police in Belgium dated 13 December
1944, that is to say, when Belgium was totally liberated and this
German official wished to give an account to his chiefs of his
services during the occupation of Belgium.

From the first page of this document we take the following
passage:

On the following page of this same document—Number F-680(b)—you
will find another order dated 22 April 1944, secret, and issued
by the Military Commander in Belgium and the North of France,
concerning measures of reprisal for the murder of two Walloon SS,
who had fought at Tcherkassy; five hostages were shot on that day.

On the following page nine hostages are added to these five,
and still a tenth on the next page. Then five others on the
following page.

You will find, finally, on the next to the last page of the document,
a proposed list of persons to be shot in reprisal for the murder
of SS men. Compare the dates, and judge the ferocity with which
the assassination of these two Walloon traitors, SS volunteers, was
revenged.

Finally, you will see the names of the 20 Belgian patriots who
were thus murdered.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

M. DUBOST: As far as the other western countries, Holland and
Norway, are concerned, we have received documents which we
submit as Document Number F-224(b), Exhibits RF-291, 292, and 293.

In the French text you will find a long list of civilians who were
executed. Also you will find a report of the Chief of the Criminal
Police, Munt, in connection with these executions, and you will
observe that Munt tries to prove his own innocence, in my opinion
without success. This is in Document Number RF-277, already
submitted.

On Page 6 you will find the report of an investigation concerning
mass executions carried out by the Germans in Holland. I do not
think it is necessary to read this report. It brings no new factual
element and simply illustrates the thesis that I have been presenting
since this morning: That in all the western countries the German
military authorities systematically carried out executions of hostages
as reprisals for acts of resistance. You will see that on 7 March 1945
an order was given to shoot 80 prisoners, and the authority who
gave this order said, “I don’t care where you get your prisoners”—execution
without any designation of age or profession or origin.

The Tribunal will see that a total of 2,080 executions was reached.
It will be noted that as a reprisal for the murder of an SS soldier,
a house was destroyed and 10 Dutchmen were executed; and in
addition, two other houses were destroyed. In another case
10 Dutchmen were executed. Altogether, 3,000 Dutchmen were
executed under these conditions, according to the testimony of this

document, which was drawn up by the War Crimes Commission,
signed by the Chief of the Dutch Delegation to the International
Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Colonel Baron Van Tuyll van
Serooskerken.

This document gives to the Tribunal the approximate number of
victims, region by region.

I do not wish to conclude the statement as to hostages concerning
Holland without drawing the attention of the Tribunal to Section (b)
of Document Number F-224, which gives a long list of hostages,
prisoners or dead, arrested by the Germans in Holland; for the
Tribunal will observe that most of the hostages were intellectuals
or very highly placed personages in Holland. We note, therein, the
names of members of parliament, lawyers, senators, Protestant
clergymen, judges, and amongst them we find a former Minister of
Justice. The arrests were made systematically among the intellectual
elite of the country.

As far as Norway is concerned, the Tribunal will find in Document
Number F-240, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-292, a short
report of the executions which the Germans carried out in that
country:

In the first paragraph of the French translation in the French
document book, which is Page 22 of the Norwegian original, it
states that:

This information is given by the Norwegian Government for this
Tribunal.

I draw the attention of the Tribunal to a final document, Number
R-134 (Exhibit Number RF-293), signed by Terboven, which
concerns the execution of 18 Norwegians who were taken prisoners
for having made an illegal attempt to reach England.

It is by thousands and tens of thousands that in all the western
countries citizens were executed without trial in reprisal for acts in
which they never participated. It does not seem necessary to me to
multiply these examples. Each of these examples involves individual
responsibility which is not within the competency of this Tribunal.
The examples are only of interest in so far as they show that the
orders of the defendants were carried out and notably the orders
of Keitel.

I believe that I have amply proved this. It is incontestable that
in every case the German Army was concerned with these executions,
which were not solely carried out by the police or the SS.

Moreover, they did not achieve the results expected. Far from
reducing the number of attacks, it increased them. Each attempt
was followed by an execution of hostages, and every shooting of
hostages occasioned more attacks in revenge. Generally the
announcement of new executions of hostages plunged the countries
into a stupor and forced every citizen to become conscious of the
fate of his land, despite the efforts of German propaganda. Faced
with the failure of this terroristic policy, one might have thought
that the defendants would modify their methods. Far from
modifying them, they intensified them. I shall endeavor to show
the activity of the police and the law from the time when, the
policy of hostages having failed, it was necessary to appeal to
the German police in order to keep the occupied countries in a
state of servitude. The German authorities made arbitrary arrests
at all times and from the very beginning of the occupation; but
with the failure of the policy of executing hostages, which was—as
you remember—commented upon by General Von Falkenhausen in
the case of Belgium, arbitrary arrests increased to the point of
becoming a constant practice substituted for that of killing hostages.

We submit to the Tribunal Document Number 715-PS, Exhibit
Number RF-294. This document concerns the arrest of high-ranking
officers who were to be transferred to Germany in honorable
custody:

And here are the most important passages:

The police and the army were involved in all of these arrests.
A telegram in cipher shows that the Minister of Foreign Affairs
himself was concerned in the matter. Document Number 723-PS,
which becomes Exhibit Number RF-295, will be read in this connection.
It is the third document of the document book. It is
addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and is dated Paris,
5 June 1943:

I shall not read these new names of high-ranking French officers
who were to be arrested but will go on further where the Tribunal
will see that the German authorities contemplated causing officers
already arrested by the French Government and under the surveillance
of the French authorities to undergo the same fate as
General De Lattre de Tassigny, General Laure, and General Fornel
de la Laurencie. These generals were to be literally torn away
from the French authorities to be deported.

Finally, Page 7, under Roman numeral IX, concerning reprisals
against families:

I refer to the paragraph before the last of the telegraphic report
Number 3,486 of 29 May 1943:

In this premeditation of criminal arrests we find the Defendant
Ribbentrop, the Defendant Göring, and the Defendant Keitel
involved; for it is their departments who made these proposals, and
we know that these proposals were agreed to—Document Number
720-PS, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-296, the second in your
document book.

It is a fact that these arrests were carried out. Members of the
family of General Giraud were deported. General Frère was deported
and died in a concentration camp. The orders were therefore
carried out. They were approved before being carried out, and
the approval inculpates the defendants whose names I have mentioned.
The arrests did not only affect high-ranking officers but
were much more extensive, and a great number of Frenchmen were
arrested. We have no exact statistics.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, did you produce any evidence
for your last statement?

M. DUBOST: I shall bring you the proof of the arrest of
General Frère and his death in the concentration camp when I
deal with the concentration camps. With regard to the arrest and
death of several French generals in the concentration camps in
Dachau, the Tribunal still remembers the testimony of Blaha. So
far as the family of General Giraud is concerned, I shall endeavor

to bring proofs, but I did not believe it was necessary; it is a well-known
fact that the daughter of General Giraud was deported.

THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure that we can take judicial
notice of all facts which may be public knowledge in France.

M. DUBOST: I shall submit to the Tribunal the supplementary
proof concerning the generals who died while deported when I
deal with the question of the camps.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

M. DUBOST: General Frère died in Struthof Camp and we shall
explain the circumstances under which he was assassinated. In
addition, there exists in your document book a document numbered
F-417, Exhibit Number RF-297, which was captured among the
archives of the German Armistice Commission, which establishes
that the German authorities refused to free French generals who
were prisoners of war and whose state of health and advanced age
made it imperative that they should be released. I quote:

It is signed by Warlimont, and in handwriting it is noted: “No
reply to be given to the French.”

Please retain as evidence only this last sentence: “—since the
Führer has only recently ordered the transfer to Germany of all
French generals living in France.” As I explained, however, these
arrests infinitely exceeded the relatively limited number of generals
or families of well-known persons envisaged by the document
which I have just read to the Tribunal: “Very many Frenchmen
will be arrested . . . .” We have no statistics; but we have an idea
of the number, which is considerable according to the figures given
for Frenchmen who died in French prisons alone, prisons which
had been placed under German command and were supervised by
German personnel during the occupation.

We know that 40,000 Frenchmen died in the French prisons,
alone, in France, according to the official figures given by the
Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees. In the prison registry “Schutzhaft”
(protective custody) is written. My American colleagues
explained to the Tribunal what this protective custody meant when
they read Document Number 1723-PS, submitted under Number
USA-206. It is useless to return to this document. It is sufficient

to remind the Tribunal that imprisonment and protective custody
were considered by the German authorities as the strongest measure
of forceful education for any foreigners who would deliberately
neglect their duty towards the German community or compromise
the security of the German State; they had to act in accordance
with the general interests and adapt themselves to the discipline
of the State.

This protective custody was, as the Tribunal will remember,
a purely arbitrary detention. Those who were interned in protective
custody enjoyed no rights and could not vindicate themselves.
There were no tribunals at their disposal before which they
could plead their cause. We know now through official documents
which were submitted to us, particularly by Luxembourg, that
protective custody was carried out on a very large scale.

The Tribunal will read in Document Number F-229, already
submitted as Exhibit Number USA-243, Document L-215, a list of
25 persons arrested and placed in different concentration camps
under protective custody. The Tribunal will recall that our colleagues
drew its attention to the reason for the arrest of Ludwig,
who was merely strongly suspected of having aided deserters.

Evidence of the application of protective custody in France is
given in our Document Number F-278, submitted as Exhibit
Number RF-300:

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs was still involved in this question
of protective custody.

The grounds for this custody were, as the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs admits and according to the testimony of this document,
very weak; nevertheless, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs does not
forbid it. The arrests were carried out under multiple pretexts, but
all these pretexts may be summarized under two general ideas:
Arrests were made either for motives of a political nature or for
racial reasons. The arrests were individual or collective in both
cases.

Pretexts of a political nature:

From 1941 the French observed that there was a synchronism
between the evolution of political events and the rhythm of arrests.
The French Document Number F-274(i) (Exhibit Number RF-301),
which is at the end of your document book, will show this. A
description is given by the Ministry of Prisoners and Deportees of
the conditions under which these arrests took place, beginning in
1941—a critical period in the German history of the war, since it
was from 1941 that Germany was at war with the Soviet Union:

I do not think that it is necessary to read the following paragraph,
which deals with the arrests at the University of Clermont-Ferrand,
which the Tribunal will certainly remember, and also the
arrests in Brittany in 1944, at the time of the landing.

The last paragraph, at the bottom of Page 11:

The last paragraph, at the bottom of Page 11:

We might multiply the examples of these arbitrary arrests by
delving into official documents which have been submitted by
Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Belgium. These
round-ups were never legally justified, they were never even
represented as an action taken in accordance with the pseudo-law
of hostages to which we have already referred. They were always
arbitrary and carried out without any apparent reason, or at any
rate, without its being possible for any act of a Frenchman having
motivated them even as a reprisal. Other collective arrests were
made for racial reasons. They were of the same odious nature as
the arrests made for political reasons.

On Page 5 of the official document of the Ministry of Prisoners
and Deportees, the Tribunal may read a few odious details connected
with these racial arrests.

I do not believe that these children were enemies of the German
people, nor that they represented a danger of any kind to the German
Army in France.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps, M. Dubost, we had better break
off now.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 25 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]

Morning Session

MARSHAL: Your Honors, Defendants Kaltenbrunner and
Streicher will be absent from this morning’s session.

M. DUBOST: Your Honors, yesterday I was reading from an
official French document, which appears in your document book
under the title “Report of the Ministry for Prisoners of War and
Deportees.” It concerned the seizure by the Germans of Jewish
children in France, who were taken from private houses or public
institutions where they had been placed.

With your permission I will come back to a statement which I
had previously made concerning the execution of orders, given by
the German General Staff with the approval of the German
Minister for Foreign Affairs, to arrest all French generals and, in
reprisal, to arrest, as well, all the families of these generals who
might be resistants, in other words, who were on the side of our
Allies.

In accordance with Article 21 of the Charter the Tribunal will
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 a few,
but nevertheless certain, facts which are both known and are also
of public knowledge in all countries. There is the famous case of
the deportation of the family of General Giraud, and I shall allow
myself to recall to the Tribunal the six principal points concerning
this affair. First: We all remember having learned through the
Allied radio that Madame Giraud, 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 have to ask the Tribunal, Mr. President, to
apply, as far as these facts are concerned, Article 21 of the Charter,
namely, the provision specifying that the Tribunal will not require
facts to be proved which are of public knowledge.

Secondly, I request the Tribunal to hear my statement 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
the Charter. I am interpreting according to the French translation:
“The Tribunal will not require that facts of public knowledge
(“notoriété publique”) be proved.” We interpret these words thus:
it is not necessary to bring documentary or testifying proof of
facts universally known.

THE PRESIDENT: You say “facts universally known”; but
supposing, for instance, the members of the Tribunal did not know
the facts? How could 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: It is a question of fact which will be decided by
the Tribunal. The Tribunal will say whether it does or does not
know that these six points which I shall recall to it are correct.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will retire.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of opinion that the facts
with reference to General Giraud’s deportation and the deportation
of his family, although they are 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.

Of course, if the French Prosecutors have governmental documents
or reports from France which state the facts with reference
to the deportation of General Giraud, the question 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 committed
in execution of the will of a central authority, the will of the
German Government, which permits us to charge all the defendants
one by one. I shall not be able to prove this by submitting German
documents. That you may consider it a fact, it is necessary that
you accept as valid the evidence which I am about to read. This

evidence was collected by the American and French armies and
the French Office for Inquiry into War Crimes. The Tribunal will
excuse me if I am obliged to read numerous documents.

This systematic will can only be proved by showing that
everywhere and in every case the German policy used the same
methods concerning patriots whom they interned or detained.
Internment or imprisonment in France was in civilian prisons
which the Germans had seized, or in certain sections of French
prisons which the Germans had requisitioned, which they occupied,
and which all French officials were forbidden to enter. The
prisoners in all these prisons were subject to the same regime. We
shall prove this by reading to you depositions of prisoners from
each of these German penal institutions in France or the western
occupied countries. This regime was absolutely inhuman. It just
allowed the prisoners to survive under the most precarious
conditions.

In Lyons, at Fort Montluc, the women received as their only
food a cup of herb tea at 7 o’clock in the morning and a ladle of
soup with a small piece of bread at 5 o’clock in the evening. This
is confirmed by Document Number F-555, which you will find
the eleventh in your document book, which we submit as Exhibit
Number RF-302. The first page of this document, second paragraph,
is an analysis of the depositions which were received. It is
sufficient to refer to this analysis. I shall take a few lines from
the following deposition. The witness declares:

This testimony was received at Saint Gingolph, 9 October 1944.
It refers to the arrests made at Saint Gingolph, which were carried
out in the month of September 1943. The witness relates:

DR. RUDOLF MERKEL (Counsel for the Gestapo): The French
Prosecution submits here documents which do not represent sworn
affidavits. They are statements which do not show who took them.
As a matter of principle I formally protest against these mere
testimonies of persons who were not on oath. They cannot be
admitted as proof at this Trial.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you have to say?

DR. MERKEL: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: We will hear M. Dubost answer.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, the Charter, which goes so far as
to admit evidence of public knowledge, has not fixed any rules
as to the manner in which this evidence, being submitted to you
as proof, shall be presented. The Charter leaves the Tribunal to
decide on this or that document. The Charter leaves the Tribunal
free to decide whether such or such method of investigation is
acceptable. The way in which these investigations have been
carried out is regular according to the customs and usages of my
country. As a matter of fact, it is usual for all official records of
the police and gendarmerie to be accepted without the witnesses
being under oath. Moreover, according to the stipulations of the
Charter, all investigations made to disclose war crimes should be
held as authentic proof. Article 21 says:

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, is the document that you are
reading to us either an official government 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 Sûreté
Nationale. You can verify that by examining the second sheet of
the copy which you have in your hand, at the top to the left:
Direction Générale de la Sûreté Nationale. Commissariat Special
de Saint Gingolph. Testimony of witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: May we see the original document?

M. DUBOST: This document was submitted to the Secretary of
the Tribunal. The Secretary has only to bring that document to you.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Is this a certified copy?

M. DUBOST: It is a copy certified by the Director of the
Cabinet of the Ministry of Justice.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, I am told that the French
Prosecutors have all the original documents and are not depositing
them in the way it is done by the other prosecutors. Is that so?

M. DUBOST: The French Prosecutors submitted the originals of
yesterday’s session, and they were handed over this morning to
Mr. Martin.

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 have sent for it, Mr. President. This document is
a certified copy of the original, which is preserved in the archives
of the French Office for Inquiry into War Crimes. This certification
was made, on the one hand, by the French Delegate of the
Prosecution—you will see the signature of M. de Menthon on the
document you have—on the other, by the Director of the Cabinet
of the Minister of Justice, M. Zambeaux, with the official seal of
the French Ministry of Justice.

THE PRESIDENT: It does appear to be a governmental document.
It is the 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 Office of National Security (Direction Générale de la Sûreté
Nationale), which was set up in connection with an investigation
of War Crimes as prescribed by our French Office for Inquiry into
War Crimes. The original remains in Paris at the War Crimes
office, but the certified copy which you have was signed by the
Director of the Cabinet of the Ministry of Justice in Paris.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Dubost, I was not upon the question
of whether it was a true document 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;
and I was asking whether it is, and it appears to be so. It is, is
it not?