Chapter XXI: Part 21

On the other hand, I have said just now that Germanization did not necessarily imply annexation. Inversely, we might conceive that annexation did not necessarily mean Germanization. We shall prove to the Tribunal that annexation was only a means, the most brutal one of Germanization, that is to say, nazification.

The annexation of the Belgian cantons of Eupen, Malmédy, and Moresnet was made possible by a German law of 18 May 1940 and was the subject of an executive decree of 23 May 1940. These are public regulations, which were published in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Pages 777 and 804. I should like to ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this.

As a result of this decree the three Belgian districts were attached to the province of the Rhineland, district of Aachen.

A decree dated 24 September 1940 installed local German government and German municipal laws. A decree of 28 July 1940 introduced the German judicial system in these territories. Local courts were established in Malmédy, in Eupen and St. Vith, and district courts at Aachen, which could judge cases on equality with the local courts.

The Court of Appeal of Cologne replaced the Belgian Court of Cassation for cases where the latter would have been competent. German law was introduced in these territories by the decree of 23 May 1940, signed by Hitler, Göring, Frick, and Lammers and was effective as from September 1940.

A decree of 3 September 1940 regulates the details of the transition of Belgian law into German law in the domains of private law, commercial law, and law of procedure.

By the decree of annexation German nationality was conferred upon the inhabitants of German racial origin in this Belgian territory. The details of this measure were specified and stipulated by the decree of 23 September 1941. All persons who had acquired Belgian nationality as a result of the ceding of these territories could, according to the terms of the decree, resume their German nationality, with the exception, however, of Jews and Gypsies. All the other inhabitants, on condition that they were racially German, could acquire German nationality, which might be revoked after 10 years.

I shall not take up at great length the situation which resulted from the annexation of these Belgian territories, for the developments of the situation are analogous to those which we shall examine in the other countries. I simply would like to point out a special detail of this subject: A law of 4 February 1941, signed by Hitler, Göring, Frick, and Lammers granted the citizens of Eupen, Malmédy, and Moresnet representation in the Reichstag, that is to say, the benefits of the German parliamentary regime, the democratic character of which is known.

I shall ask the Tribunal to now take up the file entitled “Alsace and Lorraine.” There is a file, “Exposé,” and a file, “Documents.”

Contrary to what took place in the Belgian cantons the Germans did not officially proclaim by law the annexation of the three French departments which constitute Alsace and Lorraine. The fact of this annexation, however, is in no way doubtful. I should like to remind the Tribunal here of extracts from a document which has already been submitted to it, which is Document Number RF-3 of the French documentation. It concerns a deposition made before the French High Court of Justice, by the French Ambassador, Léon Noël, who was a member of the Armistice Delegation. I did not put this document in your book because I shall cite only one sentence from it. The document has already been submitted to the Tribunal, as I have just said.

Ambassador Noël, in this document, pointed out the conversations which he had at the time of the signing of the Armistice Convention with the German representatives, notably with the accused Keitel and Jodl. The sentence which I would like to remind the Tribunal of is as follows:

“. . . and likewise, in thinking of Alsace and Lorraine, I
required them to say that the administrative and judicial
authorities of the occupied territories would keep their
positions and functions and would be able to correspond freely
with the government.”

The affirmations are dated 22 June 1940.

I am now going to submit to the Tribunal a document of 3 September 1940, which is a note of protest of the French Delegation, addressed to the Armistice Commission. I submit this to the Tribunal in order that the Tribunal may see that during the period which elapsed between these two dates, a period which covers barely 2 months, the Nazis had applied a series of measures which created, in an incontestable manner, a state of annexation.

This document which I submit bears the Number RF-701 of the French documentation. It is the first document of the document book which the Tribunal has before it. All the documents in this chapter will bear numbers beginning with the Number 7, that is to say, beginning with RF-701.

This document comes from the file of the French High Court of Justice, and the copy submitted to the Tribunal has been certified by the clerk of this jurisdiction. I should like to quote from this document, beginning with the fourth paragraph on Page 1 of the Document Number RF-701:

“1. Prefects, subprefects, and mayors, as well as a number of
local officials whose tendencies were considered suspicious,
have been evicted from their respective offices.

“2. Monseigneur Heintz, bishop appointed under the Concordat to
Metz, was driven from his diocese. Several members of the
clergy, secular as well as regular, were also expelled under the
pretext that they were French in tongue and mentality.

“3. Monseigneur Ruch, the bishop appointed under the Concordat
to Strasbourg, was forbidden to enter his diocese and,
consequently, to resume his ministry.

“4. M. Joseph Bürckel was appointed on 7 August, Gauleiter of
Lorraine and M. Robert Wagner, Gauleiter of Alsace. The first of
these provinces was attached to the Gau of Saar-Palatinate; the
second to the Gau of Baden.

“5. Alsace and Lorraine were incorporated in the civil
administration of Germany. The frontier and custom police were
then placed on the western limits of these territories.

“6. The railroads were incorporated in the German network.

“7. The post office, telegraph, and telephone administration was
taken over by the German postal authorities, who gradually
substituted their own personnel for the Alsatian personnel.

“8. The French language was eliminated, not only in
administrative life but also from public use.

“9. Names of localities were germanized.

“10. The racial legislation of Germany was introduced into the
country; and as a result of this measure, the Jews were expelled
as well as nationals which the German authorities considered to
be intruders.

“11. Only the Alsatians and Lorrainers who agreed to consider
themselves as being of German stock were permitted to return to
their homes.

“12. The property of associations of a political character and
of Jews was confiscated as well as property acquired after 11
November 1918 by French persons.

“Nothing illustrates better the spirit which animates these
measures, in themselves arbitrary, than the words pronounced
publicly 16 July at Strasbourg by M. Robert Wagner. Stressing
the elimination of all elements of foreign stock or nationality
which was taking place, this high official affirmed that the
purpose of Germany was to settle once and for all the Alsatian
question.

“Such a policy, which could not be the function of subordinate
occupational authorities, was equivalent to disguised annexation
and is strictly contrary to agreements subscribed to by Germany
at Rethondes.”

Numerous protests were subsequently lodged by the French Delegation. We have attached to our file a list of these protests; there are 62 of them. This list is found in the book under the Document Number RF-702.

The development of the German policy may now be studied through three series of measures which were carried out. First, a body of measures destined to assure the elimination of what can be called the French complex, that is to say, of everything which can tie an inhabitant of an annexed country to his way of life and to his national tradition. Second, a body of measures destined to impose German standards in all domains of life of the population. Third, the measures of transportation and of colonization. We use here the German terminology.

First, elimination of the French complex.

The elimination of French nationality and of French law resulted automatically from the measures which we shall study relative to the imposition of German standards. I should like to point out particularly, that the Germans tried to fight against all elements of French organization which might have survived the suppression of their national juridical conditions.

At first they proscribed, in an extraordinarily brutal way, the use of the French language. Several regulations were formulated relative to this. I shall cite only the third regulation, bearing the date of 16 August 1940, entitled, “Concerning the Reintroduction of the Mother Tongue.” This document is published in the Journal of German Ordinances or Decrees of 1940, (_Verordnungsblatt_) on Page 2. It bears Document Number RF-703. The Tribunal will find it in the document book after the Document Number 702, which is the list of French protests. I should like to read a large part of this document, which is interesting; and I shall start at the beginning:

“Following the measures undertaken with a view of reintroducing
the mother tongue of the Alsatian people, I decree as follows:

“1. Official Language.

“All public services in Alsace, including administration of
communes, of corporations within the meaning of civil law,
public establishments, churches, and foundations, as well as
tribunals, will use exclusively the German language orally and
in writing. The Alsatian population will use exclusively its
German mother tongue in both oral and written applications to
the above establishments.

“2. Christian and Family Names.

“Christian names will be exclusively used in their German form
orally and in writing, even when they have been inscribed in the
French language on the birth register. As soon as this present
decree comes into force, only German Christian names may be
inscribed upon the birth register. Alsatians who bear French
Christian names, which do not exist in German form, are asked to
apply for a change of their Christian names in order to show
their attachment to Germanism. The same holds good for French
family names.”

I shall skip the following sentence and go to Paragraph 4:

“4. It is forbidden to draw up, in the French language,
contracts and accounts under private seal of whatever nature
they may be. Anything printed on business paper and on forms
must be drawn up in the German language. Books and accounts of
all business firms, establishments, and companies must be kept
in the German language.

“5. Inscriptions in Cemeteries.

“In the future, inscriptions on crosses and on tombstones can be
written only in the German language. This provision applies as
well to a new inscription as to the renewal of old
inscriptions.”

These measures were accompanied by a press campaign. Because of the resistance of the population, this campaign was carried on throughout the occupation.

I should like to make one citation of an article which is particularly significant, published in the _Dernières Nouvelles de Strasbourg_ on 30 March 1943. This is not introduced as a document; it is a quotation of a published article. When we read such an article, we think it at first a joke; but we see, subsequently, that it is serious because repressive measures had to be taken against people who sabotaged the German language. I cite:

“Germans greet one another with ‘Heil Hitler.’ We do not want
any more French greetings, which we still hear constantly in a
thousand different forms. The elegant salutation ‘Bonjour’ is
not made for these rough Alsatian throats, accustomed to the
German tongue since the distant epoch of Osfried von
Weissenburg. The Alsatian hurts our ears when he says
‘boschurr.’ When he says ‘Au Revoir,’ the French think they are
listening to an Arabic word, which sounds like ‘arwar.’
Sometimes they say ‘Adje’ (Adieu).

“These phonetic monstrosities which disfigure our beautiful
Alsatian-Germanic dialect resemble a thistle in a flower bed.
Let us weed them out! They are not worthy of Alsace. Do you
believe feminine susceptibility is wounded by saying ‘Frau’
instead of ‘Madame’? We are sure that Alsatians will drop the
habit of linguistic whims so that the authorities will not have
to use rigorous measures against saboteurs of the German
language.”

After this attack on the language, the National Socialists attacked music. This is the purpose of a decree of 1 March 1941, signed by Dressler, the Chief of the Department of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda in the Office of the Chief of Civil Administration for Alsace.

This is Document Number RF-704, published in the German Official Journal (_Verordnungsblatt_) Page 170 of the year 1941. I shall simply cite the title of this decree: “Decree Concerning Undesirable and Injurious Music.” The first 3 lines are:

“Musical works contrary to the cultural will of National
Socialists will be entered on a list of undesirable and
injurious music by the Department for Public Enlightenment and
Propaganda.”

After music, now, we have the question of hairdress. In this regulation the ridiculous constantly disputes supremacy with the odious. I would almost like to ask the Tribunal to pardon me, but, truly, nothing in this is invented by us.

Here is Document Number RF-705. It is a decree of 13 December 1941 published in the Official Bulletin of 1941, Page 744. This Document RF-705 concerns the wearing of French berets (Basque berets) in Alsace. I read only the first paragraph:

“The wearing of French berets (Basque berets) is forbidden in
Alsace. Under this prohibition are included all berets which by
form or appearance resemble French berets.”

I may add that any violation of this decree was punishable by fine or imprisonment.

The leaders also undertook a long struggle against French flags which the inhabitants kept in their houses. I cite as an example Document Number RF-706, a German administrative document which we found in the archives of the Gau Administration of Strasbourg. It is dated 19 February 1941. I read 3 paragraphs of this document.

“The Gauleiter desires that the Alsatian population be
recommended by the organization of the Block- and Zellenleiter
to rip up the French flags still in possession of the people and
to use them in a suitable way for household needs.

“By the 1st of next May no French flag should be in private
hands. This goal should be attained in a way by which the
Blockleiter are to visit each household and recommend the
families to use the flags for household needs. It should also be
pointed out that after the 1st of next May corresponding
conclusions shall be drawn concerning the attitude of owners if,
after this date, French flags are still found in private
possession.”

The following document is our Document Number RF-707, which is also an administrative memorandum on the same subject, dated Strasbourg, 26 April 1941, of which I should simply like to read the last sentence:

“If, after 1 June 1941, Alsatians are found still to have French
flags in their possession, they are to be sent to a
concentration camp for one year.”

The Nazis feared French influence to such a degree that they even took a special measure to prevent the coming to Alsace of French workers among the laborers brought into this territory for compulsory labor service. This is the purpose of a memorandum of 7 September 1942 of the civil administration in Alsace, which is our Document Number RF-708, also found in the archives of the Gauleitung of Strasbourg. I read the first few lines of this Document Number RF-708.

“Given the general situation of the labor market, the Chief of
the Civil Administration in Alsace has decided that foreign
labor from all European countries could, in the future, be used
in Alsace. There is but one exception, for French and Belgians,
who cannot be employed in Alsace . . . .”

The German undertaking against the French sentiment of Alsatians . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The translation which came through to me came to me as “must.” It came through that the foreign workers of all countries of Europe _must_, in the future, be used. The word is “pouvait.” That does not mean “must,” does it? It is “pouvait.” Does not that mean “could”?

M. FAURE: “Could,” according to necessity. The interesting aspect is that those who are French may not work there, even if labor is needed in Alsace.

The German undertaking against the French sentiments of the Alsatians found its complementary aspect in the attempt also to destroy, on the outside, anything which might be an indication of Alsace belonging to the motherland, France. I shall cite one example in relation to this point. This is our Document Number RF-709.

It is a letter of the German Embassy in Paris, 7 May 1941, which is reproduced in a memorandum of the French Delegation, which is found in the archives of the government. I read this Document Number RF-709, which is short:

“The German Embassy has the honor to point out the following to
the General Delegation of the French Government in occupied
territory:

“The German Embassy has been informed that in a series of
reports on a theme concerning the fatherland, a French radio
station in the unoccupied territory, on 16 or 17 April 1941,
about 2100 hours, is said to have made a broadcast about the
village of Brumath.

“As Brumath, near Strasbourg, is in a German language territory,
the German Embassy requests that they inform it if such a
broadcast was actually made.”

There exist numerous claims and protests of this kind, which fortunately have often an anecdotal character. We must now cite two especially serious cases, for they included assault, flagrant violations of sovereignty, and even crime.

The first case concerns the seizure and profanation of the treasure of the Cathedral of Strasbourg. I shall submit, concerning this subject, Document Number RF-710, which is a letter of protest of 14 August 1943 written by General Bérard, President of the French Delegation of the Armistice Commission. I read the beginning of the letter and repeat that the date is 14 August 1943:

“Dear General,

“From the beginning of the war, the treasure of Strasbourg
Cathedral and the property of certain parishes of this diocese
had been entrusted by Monseigneur Ruch, Bishop of Strasbourg, to
the Beaux-Arts Department. This department had put them in a
safe place in the castles of Hautefort and of Bourdeilles in
Dordogne, where they still were on the date of 20 May 1943.

“The treasure and this property included, in particular, the
pontificalia reserved for the exclusive use of the Bishop,
several of which were his personal property, the relics of
saints, vessels, or objects for the performance of ceremonies.

“After having sought on several occasions—but in vain—to
obtain the consent of Monseigneur Ruch, the Ministerial
Counsellor Kraft, on 20 May, requested not only the prefect of
Dordogne, but also the director of religious matters, for
authority to remove the objects deposited. Faced with the
refusal of these high officials, he declared that the
repatriation to Alsace of the property of the Catholic Church
would be entrusted to the Sicherheitspolizei.

“As a result, at dawn on 21 May, the castles of Hautefort and
Bourdeilles were opened and occupied by troops, despite the
protests of the guardian. The sacred objects were placed in
trucks and taken to an unknown destination.

“This seizure, moreover, was extended to consecrated vessels and
ceremonial objects and the relics of saints worshipped by the
faithful. The seizure of these sacred objects by laymen not
legally authorized and the conditions under which the operation
was carried out aroused the emotion and unanimous reprobation of
the faithful.”

Relative to this document I would like to emphasize to the Tribunal one fact which we shall find frequently hereafter, and which is, in our opinion, very important in this Trial. It is the constant interference and collaboration of different or diverse German administrations. Thus, the Tribunal must through this document see that Ministerial Counsellor Kraft, belonging to the civilian service dealing with national education, appeals to the police of the SS to obtain objects which he cannot obtain through his own efforts.

The second case which I would like to cite concerns the University of Strasbourg. From the beginning of the war the University of Strasbourg, which was one of the finest in France, had withdrawn to Clermont-Ferrand to continue its teaching there. After the occupation of Alsace and since this occupation really meant annexation, it was not reinstated in Strasbourg and remained in its city of refuge. The Nazis expressed their great disapproval of this in numerous threatening memoranda.

We would like to submit Document Number RF-711 relative to this. In this document we shall again come across the Ministerial Counsellor, Herbert Kraft, about whom I spoke in the preceding document. The document, which I submit, bears the Document Number RF-711 and is an original signed by Kraft. It was found in the archives of the German Embassy. In this memorandum, which is dated 4 July 1941, Counsellor Kraft expresses his disappointment at the result of steps which he had undertaken with the Rector of the University of Strasbourg, M. Danjon.

I believe that it is adequate if I read a very short passage of this memorandum in order to show the insolence and the threatening methods which the Germans used, even in the part of France which was not yet occupied. The passage which I am going to read will be the last paragraph on Page 2 of Document Number RF-711. Mr. Kraft relates the end of his conversation with the rector. I cite:

“I cut off the conversation, rose, and asked him, by chance,
whether the decisions of Admiral Darlan did not represent for
him an order from his government. As I went out I added, ‘I hope
that you will be arrested.’ He ran after me, made me repeat my
remark, and called out, ironically, that this would be a great
honor for him.”

This document gives an amusing impression, but the matter as a whole was very serious.

The 15th of June 1943 the German Embassy wrote a note which I submit as Document Number RF-712. This document is an extract from the archives of the High Court of Justice, and has been certified by the clerk of that jurisdiction. Here is the text of this Document RF-712. I shall not read the beginning of the document:

“The German Embassy considers it very desirable to find a
solution of the affair of the University of Strasbourg at
Clermont-Ferrand.

“We would be happy to learn that no further publication would
appear under the heading ‘University of Strasbourg’ so that new
disagreements may not result from publications of that kind.

“The German Embassy has taken note of the fact that the Ministry
of National Education will no longer fill vacant professorial
chairs.

“Furthermore, it is requested that in the future no examination
certificates be awarded under the title ‘University of
Strasbourg.’”

I must, in concluding this subject of the University of Strasbourg, point out to the Tribunal a fact which is notorious, that is that Thursday, 25 November 1943, the German police took possession of the buildings of the University of Strasbourg in Clermont-Ferrand, arrested the professors and students, screened them, and deported a great number of persons. During this operation, they even shot at two professors; one was killed and the other seriously wounded.

I will be able to produce a document relative to this; but I think that is not indispensable, since there are no proofs for the Prosecution that these murders were committed under orders which definitely show governmental responsibility.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, did you say that you had or had not got proof of the facts that you have just stated about the seizure of the property of the university?

M. FAURE: I said this, Mr. President: We consider that these facts are facts of public knowledge; but because of the interpretation which was given by the Tribunal, I have considered that it would be better to prove it by a document. As this document was not added to my file at that time, this document will be submitted as an appendix. I am going to read a passage of this document; but I should like to explain that it is not found in its proper place, as I added it to the brief after the statement of the Tribunal the other day on the interpretation of facts of “public knowledge.”

THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.

Tomorrow being Saturday, the Tribunal will sit from 10 o’clock in the morning until 1 o’clock. We will then adjourn.

DR. KAUFFMANN: It was said that this afternoon there will be a witness. I would like to ask that this testimony be postponed to another day. I believe that we have reached a so-called silent agreement that we shall be notified in advance as to whether there will be witnesses and what the subject of their evidence will be.

I do not know whether there will be cross-examination; but the possibility exists, of course, and pertinent questions can only be put when we know, first of all, who the witness is to be, and secondly, what the subject will be on which the witness is to be cross-examined, perhaps just a clue.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think it is necessary to postpone the evidence of this witness. As a matter of courtesy on the part of the Prosecution, it would be well, perhaps, but the subject matter—not necessarily the name, but the subject matter upon which the witness is to give evidence—should be communicated to the Defense so that they may prepare themselves upon that subject matter for any cross-examination.

I understand that this afternoon you propose to call a witness who will deal with the circumstances in respect to the German occupation of Luxembourg. That is right, is it not?

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you will give the defendants’ counsel the subject matter upon which they can prepare themselves for cross-examination. I am told that this subject matter has already been communicated to the defendants and is on their bulletin board at the present moment.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Seyss-Inquart, and Streicher will be absent from this afternoon’s session on account of illness.

THE PRESIDENT: The question which was raised this morning about certain documents has been investigated, and the Tribunal understands that the documents were placed in the Defense Counsel’s Information Center yesterday; but it may be that the misunderstanding arose owing to those documents not having been in any way indexed, and it would, I think, be very helpful to the Defense Counsel if Prosecuting Counsel could, with the documents, deposit also some sort of index which would enable the Defense Counsel to find the documents.

M. FAURE: It is understood that we shall present a table of contents of the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: I think if you could, yes.

M. FAURE: Your Honors, I was speaking this morning of the incident which occurred at the Strasbourg faculty in Clermont-Ferrand, on 25 November 1943. I pointed out to the Tribunal that I shall produce to this effect a document. This document has not been classified in the document book, and I shall ask the Tribunal to accept it as an annex number or as the last document of this book, if that is agreeable.

This is a report of M. Hoeppfner, Dean of the Faculty of Letters, established on 8 January 1946, and transmitted from Lorraine to the French Prosecution. I should like simply to read to the Tribunal, in order not to take up too much of its time, the two passages which constitute the texts which were submitted to it as an appendix.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the original document here?

M. FAURE: Yes, Your Honor.

“It is the 25th of November 1943, a Thursday. The 10 o’clock
class is drawing to an end. As I come out of the room, a student
posted at a window in the hall signals me to approach and shows
me in the inner court in front of the Department of Physics a
Wehrmacht soldier with helmet, boots, a submachine gun in his
arm, mounting guard. ‘Let us try to flee.’ Too late. At the same
moment, wild cries arise from all directions—the corridors, the
stairways are filled with the sound of heavy boots, the clanking
of weapons, fierce cries, a frantic shuffling. A soldier rushes
down the hall shouting, ‘Everybody in the courtyard—tell the
others.’ Naturally, everyone understood.”

Second passage:

“One of our people, Paul Collomp, was cold-bloodedly murdered
with a shot in the chest, and an eyewitness confirms the fact.
Alas, it is only too true. Asked to leave the Secretariat where
he was, Collomp no doubt obeyed too slowly to suit the
policeman, for the latter gave him a violent blow on the back;
instinctively, our colleague turned around, and the other then
fired a shot directly into his chest. Death was almost
immediate, but the body was left lying there alone until that
evening. Another rumor reached us. We didn’t know from where. A
colleague in Protestant Theology, M. Eppel, was apparently also
shot down, in his own house, where they had gone to look for
him. He received, as was later learned, several bullet shots in
the abdomen but miraculously recovered and even survived the
horrors of Buchenwald Camp.”

As I indicated to the Tribunal this morning, I wish to say that the Prosecution has no proof that such crimes were due to a German governmental order; but I believe that it is nevertheless interesting to advise the Tribunal of this last episode in the German undertakings against the University of Strasbourg, for the episode constitutes the sequel and, in a sense, the climax of the preceding incidents. We have seen, indeed, that German procedure began at first regularly and that after these regular procedures it reached the stage of recourse to the police. Brutality and violation accompanied this recourse.

I wish to advise you that this document which I have just read bears the Document Number RF-712 (bis).

I come now to the second part of this subject, which is the imposition of German standards. The leaders of the Reich began by organizing a specifically German administration. I already indicated a while ago the appointment of Gauleiter as heads of the civil administration. I continue on this point by producing as Document Number RF-713 the Ordinance of 28 August 1940, _Official Gazette_ of the Reich, 1940, Page 22. The Ordinance is entitled: “Concerning the Introduction of the German Regime in Alsace.” I shall not read this Ordinance. I simply indicate that its object is to put into effect, from 1 October 1940 on, the German municipal regime of 30 January 1935.

The text and the organization show that the territories annexed were reorganized on the basis of German administrative concepts. At the head of each district (arrondissement) we no longer have a French subprefect but a Landkommissar, who has under his orders the different offices of Finance, Labor, School Inspection, Commerce, and Health. The large towns, the chief towns of arrondissements and even of cantons, were endowed with a Stadtkommissar instead of, and replacing, the mayors and elected counsellors, who had been eliminated. The judicial offices were attached to the court of appeals in Karlsruhe. The economic departments and, in particular, the chambers of commerce were run by the representatives of the chambers of commerce of Karlsruhe for Alsace and of Saarbrücken for Moselle.

After having germanized the forms of administrative activity, the Germans undertook to germanize the staffs. They nominated numerous German officials to posts of authority. They attempted, moreover, on a number of occasions, to make the officials who had remained in office sign declarations of loyalty to the Germans. These attempts, however, met with a refusal from the officials. They were therefore renewed on a number of occasions in different forms. We have recovered from the archives of the Gauleiter of Strasbourg 8 or 10 different formulas for these declarations of loyalty. I shall produce one of these for the Tribunal, by way of example.

This is Document Number RF-714. It is the formula for the new declaration which the officials are obliged to sign if they wish to retain their positions:

“Name and first name, grade and service, residence.

“I have been employed from —— 1940 to this date in the public
service of the German administration in Alsace. During this
period I have had, from my own observation as well as from the
Party and the authorities, verbally and in writing, occasion to
learn the obligations of a German official and the requirements
which are exacted of him from a political and ideological point
of view. I approve these obligations and these requirements
without reservation and am resolved to be ruled by them in my
personal and professional life. I affirm my adherence to the
German people and to the National Socialist ideals of Adolf
Hitler.”

Along with the administration, properly speaking, the Nazis set up in Alsace the parallel administration of the National Socialist Party, as well as that of the Arbeitsfront, which was the sole labor organization.

German currency legislation was introduced in Alsace on 19 October and in Lorraine on 25 October 1940. The Reichsmark became thenceforth the legal means of payment in the annexed territory. The German judicial organization was introduced by a series of successive measures leading up to the decree of 30 September 1941 concerning the simplification of the judicial organization in Alsace. I produce this ordinance as Document Number RF-715, without reading it.

In regard to the teaching system, the German authorities established a series of regulations and ordinances which were aimed at assuring the unification of the Alsatian school system with the German teaching system. I shall simply mention the dates of the principal texts, which we produce as documents, and which are of a public nature, since they were all published in the _Official Gazette_ of the Reich in Alsace. Here are the main texts:

Document Number RF-717, regulation of 2 October 1940.

Document Number RF-718, ordinance of 24 March 1941 on elementary teaching in Alsace.

Document Number RF-719, ordinance of 21 April 1941 concerning the allocation of subsidies for education in Alsace.

Document Number RF-720, ordinance of 11 June 1941 on obligatory education in Alsace.

I now quote a series of measures ordering the introduction in Alsace and Lorraine of German civil law, German criminal law, and even procedure. I shall quote as the most important, under Document Number RF-721, the ordinance of 19 June 1941 concerning the application of the provisions of German legislation to Alsatians. I should like to read the first paragraph of Article 1 because it contains an interesting item:

“Article 1:

“1. The legal relationships of persons who acquired French
citizenship under the Appendix to Articles 51 to 79 of the
Versailles dictate and of those who derive their nationality
from those persons, in particular in the domain of personal and
family law, are governed by the legislation in force in the
former Empire, in accordance with the law of the country of
origin, insofar as this legislation applies to the country of
origin.”

A similar ordinance was drawn up for Lorraine, Document Number RF-722, ordinance of 15 September 1941 concerning the application of German legislation to personal and family status in Lorraine. _Official Bulletin_ of the Reich, Page 817.

I should like to quote, indicating the titles and references, the principal measures which have been introduced in penal matters:

Document Number RF-723, notice of 14 February 1941 relative to the penal dispositions declared applicable in Lorraine by virtue of Section 1 of the second ordinance concerning certain transitory measures in the domain of justice.

Document Number RF-724, ordinance of 29 October 1941 relative to the introduction into Alsace of the German legislation of penal procedure and of other penal laws.

Document Number RF-725, ordinance of 30 January 1942 relative to the introduction into Alsace of the German penal code and other penal laws.

I do not wish to read this text which is long, but I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to two features which show that the Germans introduced into Alsace the most extraordinary provisions of their penal law, conceived from the point of view of the National Socialist regime. The Tribunal will thus see, in this Document Number RF-725, Page 1 under Number 6 of the enumeration, that the law of 20 December 1934, repressing perfidious attacks directed against the State and the Party and protecting Party uniforms, was introduced into Alsace, as well as the ordinance of 25 November 1939, under Number 11 of the enumeration, completing the penal provisions relating to the protection of the military power of the German people.

As concerns public freedom, the Germans eliminated from the beginning the right of association; and they dissolved all existing associations. They intended to leave free room for the Nazi system, which was to be the only and obligatory association.

I shall quote in the same way a number of documents, with the titles of these public texts:

Document Number RF-726, regulation of 16 August 1940, dissolving the youth organizations in Alsace.

Document Number RF-727, regulation of 22 August 1940, setting up a supervising commission for associations in Lorraine.

Document Number RF-728, regulation of 3 September 1940, providing for the dissolution of teachers’ unions. I point out, in regard to this Document RF-728, that the last article provides an exception in favor of the organization called “Union of National Socialist Teachers.”

Document Number RF-729, regulation of 3 September 1940, providing for the dissolution of gymnastic societies and of sports associations in Alsace. I should like to read Article 4 of this Document RF-729:

“My Commissioner of Physical Culture will take, in regard to
other gymnastic societies and sports associations in Alsace, all
necessary provisions in view of their re-integration into the
Reich’s National Socialist Union for Physical Culture.”

Following up these measures of Germanization, we now encounter two texts which are very characteristic and which I produce as Documents Numbers RF-730 and RF-731. Of Document Number RF-730 I read simply the title, which is significant: “Ordinance of 7 February 1942 Relative to the Creation of an Office of the Upper Rhine for Genealogical Research.” I shall likewise read the title of Document Number RF-731, “Regulation of 17 February 1942 Concerning the Creation of the Department of the Reich Commission for the Strengthening of Germanism.”

I indicated a moment ago to the Tribunal that the Party had been established in Alsace and in Lorraine in a way that was parallel with the administration in Germany. I shall produce in this connection Document Number RF-732, which is a confidential note of the National Socialist Workers Party of the province of Baden dated Strasbourg, 5 March 1942. This document belongs likewise to the series found in the files of the Gauleitung of Strasbourg. It bears as a heading, “Gaudirektion—Auxiliary Bureau of Strasbourg.” If it please the Tribunal, I shall read the beginning of this document:

“Evaluation of recruiting possibilities of the Party, its
subdivisions and related groups in Alsace.

“In the framework of the drive of 19 June organized for the
recruiting of party members, the Kreisleiter in collaboration
with the Ortsgruppenleiter have to investigate Alsatians above
the age of 18, even if their membership is not yet to be
obtained within this drive which may be”—the word “which” was
omitted in the text—“considered for prospective membership of
the Party, its sections, and affiliated organizations and which
men between the age of 17 and 48 could be actively employed in
the Party or in its subdivisions. In order to gain a numerical
survey, these investigations should also comprise all persons
already enrolled in the Party, in the Opferring”—this is the
collecting organization of the Party—“in the sections, and
affiliated organizations.

“The Kreisleiter may call upon the collaboration of the
Kreisorganisationsleiter”—these are the organizing directors of
the section—“and of the Kreispersonalamtsleiter”—the personnel
information offices of the sections—“In spite of this work the
19 June drive for recruiting members should not suffer but must
be carried on by all possible means and gain the goal set by the
Gauleiter at the given date.

“The results of the screening of the population are to be
compiled in five lists, namely: List 1a; List 1b; List 2a; List
2b; Control list.”

I shall skip over the following paragraphs, which are rather long and purely administrative, and I shall continue on Page 2 of the document, Paragraph 9:

“Since it is the aim of the National Socialist movement to
embrace all Germans in a National Socialist organization in
order to mould and direct them in compliance with the intentions
of the Movement, 90 percent of the population will have to
figure on Lists 1a and b and 2a and b, while on the Control List
only those shall be named who, on account of racial inferiority
or asocial or anti-German attitude are considered unworthy of
belonging to an organization, are not deemed worthy of
membership in Party organizations.”

I shall now enter upon the two most serious questions which are directly interconnected, questions which, on the one hand, concern nationality and, on the other hand, military recruiting.

The German policy in the matter of nationality reveals a certain hesitation, which is related to the German policy in regard to military recruiting. Indeed, the German leaders seem to have been swayed by two contradictory trends. One of these trends was that of bestowing the German nationality on a large number of people, in order to impose the corresponding obligation for military service. The other trend was that of conferring nationality only with discrimination. According to this viewpoint it was considered, first of all, that the possession of nationality was an honor and should to some extent constitute a reward when conferred on those who had not previously possessed it. On the other hand, nationality confers on its possessor a certain special quality. In spite of the abolition of all democracy, it gives that person a certain influence in the German community. It should, therefore, be granted only to persons who give guarantees in certain regards, notably that of loyalty; and we know that, from the German point of view, loyalty is not only a matter of mental attitude and choice but that it also applies to certain well-known physical elements, such as those of blood, race, and origin.

These are the two opposed trends in the German policy of conferring nationality. This is how they develop:

At first—and up to the month of August 1942—the Reich, not yet requiring soldiers as urgently as it did later, deferred the introduction of compulsory recruiting. Along with this they also deferred any action to impose German nationality on the population generally. During this earlier period the Nazis did not resort to compulsory recruiting but relied simply on voluntary recruiting which, however, they tried to render more effective by offering all kinds of inducements and exercising pressure in various ways.

I shall not go into details regarding these German procedures for voluntary recruitment. I should like simply to give, by way of example, the subject matter of Document Number RF-733. It is an appeal posted in Alsace on 15 January 1942 and constitutes one of the appendices of the governmental report, which was submitted previously under Document Number UK-72. In this document, I shall read simply the first sentence of the second paragraph:

“Alsatians: Since the beginning of the campaign in the East,
hundreds of Alsatians have freely decided to march as
volunteers, side by side with the men of the other German
regions, against the enemy of civilization and European
culture.”

For anyone who knows German propaganda and its technique of exaggeration, the term “hundreds” which is used in this document immediately betrays the failure of the Nazi recruiters. “Hundreds” may obviously be translated by “tens,” and it must be admitted that this was a very poor supply for the Wehrmacht.

During the period that I am speaking of the Nazis practiced, in regard to nationality, a policy similar to their policy in recruiting military forces, that is, a policy of selective nationalization. They appealed for volunteers for German nationality. It is desirable to quote in this regard an ordinance of 20 January 1942, a general ordinance of the Reich, not a special one for the annexed territories.

This ordinance in its first article increases the possibilities of naturalization, which until then had been extremely limited, in accordance with the Reich statute book. In Article 3 it gives the following provision: (This ordinance is not produced in the document book, for it is an ordinance of the German Reich and, therefore, a public document.)

“The Reich Minister of the Interior may, by means of a general
regulation, grant German nationality to categories of foreigners
established on a territory placed under the sovereign power of
Germany or having their origin in such territory.”

In connection with this earlier period it is necessary to stress that natives of Alsace-Lorraine who did not become German citizens did not retain their French nationality. They are all considered as German subjects. They are qualified in the documents of the period as “members of the German community (Volksdeutsch),” and are consequently liable for German labor service. I submit Document Number RF-734 in this connection, “Regulation of 27 August 1942, on Compulsory Military Service and on Labor Service in Alsace.” I shall return to this document presently with regard to military service, but I would like to quote now the passages relative to service in the Hitler Youth, one of which bears an earlier date, the ordinance of 2 January 1942 for Alsace and ordinance of 4 August 1942 for Lorraine.

The German policy regarding nationality and military recruiting reaches its turning point in the month of August 1942. At this moment, on account of military difficulties and the need for extensive recruiting, the Germans instituted compulsory military service in Lorraine by an ordinance of 19 August 1942 and in Alsace by an ordinance of 25 August 1942. These two ordinances, relative to the introduction of compulsory military service, constitute Document Number RF-735, ordinance for Lorraine, and Document Number RF-736, ordinance for Alsace.

At the same time, the Germans promulgated an ordinance of 23 August 1942 on German nationality in Alsace, Lorraine, and Luxembourg. This text is the subject of a circular issued by the Reich Minister of the Interior, which constitutes Document Number RF-737. These provisions are the following:

“Full rights of nationality are acquired by natives of Alsace
and Lorraine and Luxembourgers of German origin:

“When they have been or will be called upon to serve in the
armed forces of the Reich or in SS armed formations;

“when they are recognized as having acted as good Germans.”

As concerns the expression “of German origin,” which is used in these texts, this concerns Alsatians and Lorrainers who have become French either through the Treaty of Versailles or subsequently on condition of having previously been German nationals or having transferred their domicile from Alsace or Lorraine to the territory of the Reich after 1 September 1939; and, finally, children, grandchildren, and spouses of the preceding categories of persons are likewise considered as of German origin.

Lastly, it was anticipated that the Alsatians, Lorrainers, and Luxembourgers who did not acquire German nationality absolutely could obtain it provisionally.

I should like to mention, to complete this question of nationality, that an ordinance of 2 February 1943 gave details as to the German nationality laws applicable in Alsace, and that an ordinance of 2 November 1943 likewise conferred German nationality upon persons who had been in concentration camps during the war.

The German texts indicate that, on the one hand, German nationality was imposed upon a great number of persons; and, on the other hand, that Alsatians and Lorrainers who were French were forced to comply with the exorbitant and truly criminal requirements of military service in the German Army against their own country. These military obligations were constantly extended by the calling-up of successive classes, as far as the 1908 class.

These German exigencies provoked a solemn protest on the part of the French National Committee, which in London represented the Free French Government authority. I should like to read to the Tribunal the text of this protest, which is dated 16 September 1942, and which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-739. I shall read only the three paragraphs of the official protest, which constitute the beginning of this document of the Information Agency in London.

“After having proclaimed, in the course of the war, the
annexation of Alsace and of Lorraine, banished and robbed a
great number of the inhabitants, and enforced the most rigorous
measures of Germanization, the Reich now constrains Alsatians
and Lorrainers—declared German by the Reich—to serve in the
German armies against their own compatriots and against the
allies of France.

“The National Committee, defender of the integrity and of the
unity of France and trustee of the principle of the rights of
peoples, protests, in the face of the civilized world, against
these new crimes committed in contempt of international
conventions against the will of populations ardently attached to
France. It proclaims inviolable the right of Alsatians and of
Lorrainers to remain members of the French family.”

This protest could not have been unknown to the Germans, for it was read and commented on over the radio by the French National Commissioner of Justice, Professor René Cassin, on a number of occasions.

In regard to this solemn protest on the part of France, I shall allow myself to quote the justifications, if one may use this term, which were furnished in a speech by Gauleiter Wagner delivered in Colmar on 20 June 1943. This quotation is drawn from the _Mühlhäuser Tageblatt_ of 21 June 1943. In view of its importance I shall not deal with it simply as a quotation, but I produce it as a document and submit it as Document Number RF-740. The clerk has been given this paper. I read the explanations of Gauleiter Wagner, as they are reproduced in this newspaper under the title “Alsace will not Stand Aloof”:

“The decisive event for Alsace in 1942 was therefore the
introduction of compulsory military service. It cannot be my
intention to justify legally a measure which strikes so deeply
at the life of Alsace. There is no reason for this either. Every
decision which the Greater Reich is taking, here is motivated
and cannot be attacked as to its juridical and its _de facto_
form.”

Naturally, the Alsatians and Lorrainers refused to accept the criminal orders of the German authorities, and they undertook to avoid these by every means. The Nazis then decided to compel them by means of merciless measures. The frontiers were strictly guarded, and the guards had orders to fire on the numerous recalcitrants who attempted to escape across the border. I should like to quote in this connection a sentence from a newspaper article, which appeared in the _Dernières Nouvelles de Strasbourg_ of 28 August 1942. This is Document Number RF-741. This article deals with the death of one of these men who refused to serve in the German Army, and it concludes with the following sentence: “We insist most particularly on the fact that it is suicidal to attempt to cross the frontier illegally.”

Naturally, judicial penalties were applied with great severity and in a large number of cases. I do not consider that I should bring to the Tribunal all the instances of these cases, which would take too long; but I should like simply to insist on the principle that governed this form of repression.

I shall quote first of all a document which is entirely characteristic of the conception which the German administration had of justice and of the independence of judicial power. This is Document Number RF-742. It is a part of a series of documents discovered in the files of the Gauleitung. It is a teletype message dated Strasbourg, 8 June 1944, addressed by Gauleiter Wagner to the Chief of the Court of Appeals in Karlsruhe. I shall read Paragraph 2 of this document, which is on Page 1 of the same document:

“Especially in Alsace it is required that the sentences for
refusal of military service should be intimidating. But upon
those trying to evade military service, for fear of personal
danger, this intimidating effect can be produced only by the
death penalty, the more so, as an Alsatian bent upon escaping
military service by emigration counts generally on an early
victory of the enemy and, therefore, in case of conviction with
punishment other than death, with a near cancellation of the
penalty. The death penalty is, therefore, to be applied in all
cases in which after 6 June 1944 an evasion of military service
is attempted by illegal emigration, irrespectively of any other
legal practice used in Germany proper.”