Chapter VIII: Part 8

“6. In the case of all officers of the French Army of the
Armistice, the Chief of the Security Police, in collaboration
with the Supreme Command West, will appoint a special day for
the whole territory for a check to be made by the police of
domiciles and occupations.”

And here are the most important passages:

“As a measure of reprisal, families of suspected persons who
have already shown themselves to be resistants or who might
become so in the future, will be transferred as internees to
Germany or to the territory of eastern France. For these the
question of billeting and surveillance must first of all be
solved. Afterwards we contemplate as a later measure the
deprivation of their French nationality and the confiscation of
property, already carried out in other cases by Laval.”

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:

“In the course of the conference which took place yesterday with
the representatives of the High Command West and the SD, the
following was agreed on concerning measures to be taken:

“The aim of these measures must be to prevent, by precautionary
measures, the escape from France of any more well-known soldiers
and at the same time to prevent these personages from organizing
a resistance movement in the event of an attempted landing in
France by the Anglo-Saxon powers.

“The circle of officers here concerned comprises all who, by
their rank and experience or by their name, would considerably
strengthen the military command or the political credit of the
resistants, if they should decide to join them. In the event of
military operations in France we must consider them as being of
the same importance.

“The list has been drawn up in agreement with the High Command
West, the Chief of the Security Police, and the General of the
Air Force in Paris.”

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.

“In view of the present general situation and the contemplated
security measures, all the authorities here consider it
undesirable for these generals to remain in French custody, as
the possibility must be considered that either through
negligence or by intentional acts of the guard personnel, they
might escape and regain their liberty.”

Finally, Page 7, under Roman numeral IX, concerning reprisals against families:

“General Warlimont had asked the Commander-in-Chief of the
Western Front to raise the question of reprisal measures against
the relatives of persons who had joined the resistance and to
submit any proposals.

“President Laval declared himself ready, not long ago, to take
measures of this kind on behalf of the French Government; but to
limit himself to the families of some particularly distinguished
persons.”

I refer to the paragraph before the last of the telegraphic report Number 3,486 of 29 May 1943:

“We must wait and see whether Laval is really willing to apply
reprisal measures in a practical way.

“All those present at the meetings were in agreement that such
measures should be taken in any event, as rapidly as possible,
against families of well-known personages who had become
resistants. (For example, members of the families of Generals
Giraud, Juin, Georges, the former Minister of the Interior,
Pucheu, the Inspector of Finance Couve De Murville,
Leroy-Beaulieu, and others.)

“The measures may also be carried out by the German authorities,
since the persons who have become resistants are to be
considered as foreigners belonging to an enemy power and the
members of their families are also to be considered as such.

“In the opinion of those present, the members of these families
should be interned; the practical carrying-out of this measure
and its technical possibilities must be carefully examined
. . . .

“We might also study the question of whether these families
should be interned in regions particularly exposed to air
attacks, for instance, in the vicinity of dams, or in industrial
regions which are often bombed.

“A list of families who are considered liable for internment
will be compiled in collaboration with the Embassy.”

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:

“As far as this question is concerned the Führer has always
adopted an attitude of refusal, not only from the point of view
of their release but also with regard to their hospitalization
in neutral countries.

“Release or hospitalization today is more out of question than
ever, since the Führer has only recently ordered the transfer to
Germany of all French generals living in France.”

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:

“Copy attached to VAAP-7236 (g)—Secret. Ministry for Foreign
Affairs, Berlin, 18 September 1941.

“Subject: Report of August 30, of this year.

“The explanations of the Military Commander in France, of 1
August of this year, are considered in general to be
satisfactory as a reply to the French note.

“Here, also, we consider there is every reason to avoid any
further discussion with the French concerning preventive arrest,
as this would only lead to fixing definite limits to the
exercise of these powers by the occupying power, which would not
be desirable in the interests of the liberty of action of the
military authorities. By order, signed (illegible).”

“To the Representative of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs at
the German Armistice Commission at Wiesbaden.

“The Representative of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs—VAAP
7236(g), Secret, dated Wiesbaden, 23 September 1941. Copy.

“. . . the Representative of the Ministry requests that he be
informed at an opportune time of the reply made to the French
note.”

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:

“The synchronism between the evolution of political events and
the rhythm of arrests is evident. The suppression of the line of
demarcation, the establishment of resistance groups, the
formation of the Maquis resulting from forced labor, the
landings in North Africa and in Normandy, all had immediate
repercussions on the figures for arrests, of which the maximum
curve is reached for the period of May to August 1944,
especially in the southern zone and particularly in the region
of Lyons.

“We repeat that these arrests were carried out by the members of
all categories of the German repressive system: the Gestapo in
uniform or in plain clothes, the SD, the Gendarmerie,
particularly at the demarcation line, the Wehrmacht and the
SS. . . .

“The arrests took on the characteristics of collective
operations. In Paris, as a result of an attempted assassination,
the 18th Arrondissement was surrounded by the Feldgendarmerie.
Its inhabitants, men, women, and children, could not return to
their homes and spent the night where they could find shelter. A
round-up was carried out in the arrondissement.”

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:

“. . . on the pretext of conspiracy or attempted assassinations,
whole families were made to suffer. The Germans resorted to
round-ups when compulsory labor no longer furnished them
sufficient workers.

“Round-up in Grenoble, 24 December 1943, Christmas Eve.

“Round-up in Cluny, Saône-et-Loire, in March 1944.

“Round-up in Figeac in May 1944.”

The last paragraph, at the bottom of Page 11:

“Most Frenchmen who were rounded up in this way were in reality
not used for work in Germany but were deported, to be interned
in concentration camps.”

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.

“Certain German policemen were especially entrusted to pick out
Jewish persons, according to their physiognomy. They called this
group ‘The Brigade of Physiognomists.’ This verification
sometimes took place in public as far as men were concerned. (At
the railway station at Nice, some were unclothed at the point of
a revolver.)

“The Parisians remember these round-ups, quarter by quarter.
Large police buses transported old men, women, and children
pell-mell and crowded them into the Velodrome d’Hiver under
dreadful sanitary conditions before taking them to Drancy, where
deportation awaited them. The round-up of the month of August
1941 has gained sad renown. All the exits of the subway of the
11th Arrondissement were closed and all the Jews in that
district were arrested and imprisoned. The round-up of December
1941 was particularly aimed at intellectual circles. Then there
were the round-ups of July 1942.

“All the cities in the southern zone, particularly Lyons,
Grenoble, Cannes, and Nice, where many Jews had taken refuge,
experienced these round-ups after the total occupation of
France.

“The Germans sought out all Jewish children who had found refuge
with private citizens or with institutions. In May 1944 they
proceeded to take into custody the children of the Colony of
Eyzieux, and to arrest children who had sought refuge in the
colonies of the U.G.I.F. in June and July 1944.”

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._]

FORTY-THIRD DAY
Friday, 25 January 1946

_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:

“. . . on their arrival at Fort Montluc, the prisoners who were
taken in the round-up by the Gestapo on 20 September 1943 were
stripped of all their belongings. The prisoners were treated in
a brutal fashion. The food rations were quite inadequate. The
women’s sense of decency was not respected.”

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:

“The young men returned from the interrogation with their toes
burned by means of cotton-wool pads which had been dipped in
gasoline; others had had their calves burned by the flames of a
blow torch; others were bitten by police dogs . . . .”

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 Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common
knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also
take judicial notice of official governmental documents and
reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents
of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the
investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of
military or other Tribunal of any of the United Nations.”

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?

M. DUBOST: Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything to what you have said?

M. DUBOST: No, I have nothing to add.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Merkel, you may speak.

DR. MERKEL: I should only like to stress briefly that these statements which are presented here are not statements of an official government agency and cannot be considered as governmental records. Rather, they are only minutes which have been taken in police offices and thus can in no way be authentic declarations of a government or of an investigating committee. I emphasize once more that these declarations, which have certainly been taken—partially at least—in minor police precincts, have not been made under oath and do not represent sworn statements; and I have to protest firmly against their being considered as evidence here.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything?

DR. MERKEL: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Who is M. Binaud?

M. DUBOST: He is the Police Inspector of the Special Police, who was attached to the Special Commissariat of Saint Gingolph.

I must correct an error made by the Defense Counsel, who said this was a minor police office. This was a frontier post. The Special Commissariats at frontier posts are all important offices even though they are located in very small towns. I think that is the same in all countries.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, M. Dubost, you understand what the problem is? It is a question of the interpretation of Article 21.

M. DUBOST: I understand.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal requires your assistance upon that interpretation, as to whether this document does come under the terms of Article 21. If you have anything to say upon that subject we will be glad to hear it.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, it seems to me impossible that the Tribunal should rule out this and similar documents which I am going to present, for all these documents bear, for authentication, not only the signature of the French representative at this Tribunal but that of the Delegate of the Minister of Justice to the War Crimes Commission as well. Examine the stamp beside the second signature. It is the seal.

THE PRESIDENT: Do not go too fast; tell us where the signatures are.

M. DUBOST [_Indicating on the document._]: Here, Your Honors, is a notation of the release of this document by the Office for Inquiry into War Crimes to the French Prosecutor as an element of proof and below, the signature of the Director of the Cabinet of the French Minister of Justice, the Keeper of the Seals, and in addition, over this signature, the seal of the Minister of Justice. You may read: “Office for Inquiry into War Crimes.”

THE PRESIDENT: Is this the substance of the matter: That this was an inquiry by the police into these facts; and that police inquiry was recorded; and then the Minister of Justice, for the purposes of this Trial, adopted that police report? Is that the substance of it?

M. DUBOST: That is correct, Mr. President. I think that we agree. The Office for Inquiry into War Crimes in France is directly attached to the Ministry of Justice. It carries out investigations. These investigations are made by the police authorities, such as M. Binaud, Inspector of Special Police, attached to the Special Commissariat of Saint Gingolph.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know when the service of inquiry into War Crimes was established.

M. DUBOST: I cannot give you the exact date from memory, but this service was set up in France the day after the liberation. It began to function in October 1944.

THE PRESIDENT: Was this service established after the police report was made?

M. DUBOST: In the month of September or October.

THE PRESIDENT: September of what year?

M. DUBOST: In September 1944 this Office for Inquiry into War Crimes in France was established, and this service functioned as soon as the Provisional Government was set up in France.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the police inquiry was held under the service? You see, the police report is dated the 9th of October, and therefore the police report appears to have been made after the service had been set up. Is that right?

M. DUBOST: You have the evidence, Mr. President. If you look at the top of the second page at the left, it shows the beginning of the record and you read: “Purpose: Investigation of atrocities committed by Germans against the civilian population.” These investigations were prescribed by the Office for Inquiry into War Crimes.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That would appear to be so if the service was really established in September and this police investigation is dated the 9th of October.

The Tribunal will adjourn for consideration of this question.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has considered the arguments which have been addressed to it and is of the opinion that the document offered by counsel for France is a document of a committee set up for the investigation of War Crimes within the meaning of Article 21 of the Charter. The fact that it is not upon oath does not prevent it being such a document within Article 21, of which the Tribunal is directed to take judicial notice. The question of its probative value would of course be considered under Article 19 of the Charter and therefore, in accordance with Article 19 and Article 21 of the Charter, the document will be admitted in evidence; and the objection of Counsel for the Gestapo is denied.

The Tribunal would wish that all original documents should be filed with the General Secretary of the Tribunal and that when they are being discussed in Court, the original documents should be present in Court at the time.

HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and SD): I have been informed that General Giraud and his family were probably deported to Germany upon the orders of Himmler, but that they were treated very well and that they were billeted in a villa; that they were brought back to France in good health; that things went well with them and that they are still well today. I do not see . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, forgive me for interrupting you, but the Tribunal are not now considering the case of General Giraud and his family. Are you unable to hear?

What I was saying was that you were making some application in connection with the deportation of General Giraud and were stating facts to us—what you allege to be facts—as to that deportation. The Tribunal is not considering that matter. The Tribunal has already ruled that it cannot take judicial notice of the facts as to General Giraud’s deportation.

HERR BABEL: I was of the opinion that what I had to say might bring about an explanation by the Prosecution and might expedite the trial in that respect. That was the purpose of my inquiry.

THE PRESIDENT: I am merely pointing out to you that we are not now considering General Giraud’s case.

M. DUBOST: If the Tribunal will permit me to continue? It seems to me necessary to come back to the proof which I propose to submit. I have to show that, through uniformity of methods, the tortures which were inflicted in each bureau of the German Police . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished the document we have just admitted?

M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President; I have completed this and I will now read from other documents. But first I would like to sum up the proofs which I have to submit this morning through the reading of these documents.

I said that I was going to demonstrate how through the uniformity of ill-treatment inflicted by all branches of the German Police upon prisoners under interrogation, we are able to trace a common will for which we cannot give you direct proof—as we did yesterday, regarding hostages, by bringing you papers signed in particular by Keitel—but we shall arrive at it by a way just as certain, for this identity of method implies a uniformity of will, which we can place only at the very head of the police, that is to say, the German Government, to which the defendants belonged.

This document, Number F-555, Exhibit Number RF-302, from which I have just read, refers to the ill-treatment of prisoners at Fort Montluc in Lyons.

I pass to Document Number F-556, which we shall submit as Exhibit Number RF-303, which relates to the prison regime at Marseilles.

The Tribunal will note that this is an official record drawn up by the military security service of Vaucluse concerning the atrocities committed by Germans upon political prisoners and that this record includes the written deposition of M. Mousson, chief of an intelligence service, who was arrested on 16 August 1943 and then transferred on 30 August 1943 to St. Pierre prison at Marseilles. At the last paragraph of the first page of this document we read:

“Transferred to Marseilles, St. Pierre prison, on 30 August
1943, placed in room P, 25 meters long, 5 meters wide. We are
crammed up 75 and often 80. Two straw mattresses for three.
Repulsive hygienic conditions: lice, fleas, bed-bugs, tainted
food. For no reason at all comrades are beaten and put in cells
for 2 or 3 days without food.”

Following page, fourth paragraph:

“Taken into custody again 15 May in a rather brutal way”—this
is the 4th paragraph—“I was imprisoned in the prison of Ste.
Anne and . . .”

5th paragraph:

“Living conditions in Ste. Anne: deplorable hygiene; food
supplied by National Relief.”

Next page, second paragraph:

“Living conditions in Petites Beaumettes: Food, just enough to
keep one alive; no packages; Red Cross gives many, but we
receive few.”

This concerns, I repeat, prisons entirely under control of the Germans. Regarding conditions at the prison of Poitiers, we submit Document Number F-558, Exhibit Number RF-304. A report is attached from the Press Section of the American Information Service in Paris, dated 18 October 1944. The Tribunal should know that all these reports were included with the documents which were presented by the French Office for Inquiry into War Crimes. We read under number two:

“M. Claeys was arrested 14 December 1943 by the Gestapo and
imprisoned in the Pierre Levee Prison until 26 August 1944 . . .

“While in prison he asked for a mattress, as he had been wounded
in the war. He was told that he would get it if he confessed. He
had to sleep on 1 inch of straw on the ground. Seven men in one
room 4 meters long, 2 meters wide, and 2.8 meters in
height. . . . For 20 days did not go out of cell. WC was a great
discomfort to him because of wounds. The Germans refused to do
anything about it.”

Paragraph 4(b).

“Another prisoner weighed 120 kilograms and lost 30 kilograms in
a month. Was in isolation cell for a month. Was tortured there
and died of gangrene of legs due to wounds caused by torture.
Died after 10 days of agony alone and without help.”

Paragraph 5.

“Methods of torture:

“(a) Victim was kept bent up by hands attached around right leg.
Was then thrown on the ground and flogged for 20 minutes. If he
fainted, they would throw a pail of water in his face. This was
to make him speak.

“Mr. Francheteau was flogged like that four days out of six. In
some cases, subject was not tied. If he fell they would pick him
up by his hair, and go on.

“At other times the victim was put naked in a special punishment
cell; his hands were tied to an iron grill above his head. He
was then beaten until made to talk.

“(b) Beating as above was not common, but M. Claeys has friends
who have seen electric tortures. One electric wire was attached
to the foot and another wire placed at different points on the
body.”

Paragraph 6.

“The tortures were all the more horrible because the Germans in
many cases had no clear idea of what information they wanted and
just tortured haphazard.”

And at the very end, the five last lines.

“One torture consisted in hanging up the victims by the hands,
which were tied behind the back, until the shoulders were
completely dislocated. Afterwards, the soles of the feet were
cut with razor blades and then the victims were made to walk on
salt.”

Concerning the prisons of the north, I submit Document Number F-560, Exhibit Number RF-305. It also comes from the American War Crimes Commission. On Page 1, under the letter “A” you will find a general report of Professor Paucot on the atrocities committed by the Germans in Northern France and in Belgium. The report covers the activities of the German police in France, at Arras, Béthune, Lille, Valenciennes, Malo les Bains, La Madeleine, Quincy, and Loos; in Belgium, at Saint-Gilles, Fort de Huy, and Camp de Belveroo. This report is accompanied by 73 depositions of victims. From examination of these testimonies the fact emerges that the brutality, the barbarity of methods used during the interrogations was the same in the various places cited.

This synthesis which I have just mentioned is from the American report. It seems to me unnecessary to stress this as it is confirmed on the first page. The Tribunal can read further on Pages 4, 5, 6, and 7 a detailed description of the atrocities, systematic and all identical, which the German police inflicted to force confessions.

On Page 5, the fifth paragraph, I quote:

“A prisoner captured while trying to escape was delivered in his
cell to the fury of police dogs who tore him to pieces.”

On Page 17, second paragraph, of the German text (Page 14 of the French text) there is the report of M. Prouille, which, by exception, I shall read because of the nature of the facts. I quote:

“Condemned by the German Tribunal to 18 months of imprisonment
for possessing arms and after having been in the prisons of
Arras, Béthune and Loos, I was sent to Germany.

“As a result of ill-treatment in eastern Prussia I was obliged
to have my eyes looked after. Having been taken to an infirmary,
a German doctor put drops in my eyes. A few hours later, after
great suffering, I became blind. After spending several days in
the prison of Fresnes, I was sent to the clinic of Quinze-Vingts
in Paris. Professor Guillamat, who examined me, certified that
my eyes had been burned by a corrosive agent.”

Under the Number F-561 I shall read a document from the American War Crimes Commission, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-306. The Tribunal will find on Page 2 the proof that M. Herrera was present at tortures inflicted on numerous persons, and saw a Pole, by the name of Riptz, have the soles of his feet burned. Then his head was split open with a spanner. After the wound had healed he was shot. I quote:

“Commander Grandier, who had had a leg fractured in the war of
1914, was threatened by those who conducted the interrogations
with having his other leg broken and this was actually done.
When he had half revived, as a result of a hypodermic injection,
the Germans did away with him.”

We do not want to use more of your time than is necessary, but the Tribunal should know these American official documents in entirety, all of which show in a very exact way the tortures carried out by the various German police services in numerous regions of France, and give evidence of the similarity of the methods used.

The following document is Number F-571, which we submit as Exhibit Number RF-307, and of which we shall read only one four-line paragraph:

“M. Robert Vanassche, from Tourcoing, states: ‘I was arrested
the 22 February 1944 at Mouscron in Belgium by men belonging to
the Gestapo who were dressed in civilian clothing. During the
interrogation they were wearing uniforms . . . .’”

I skip a paragraph.

“‘I was interrogated for the second time at Cand in the main
German prison, where I remained 31 days. There I was locked up
for 2 or 3 hours in a sort of wooden coffin where one could
breathe only through three holes in the top.’”

Further, the same, document:

“M. Rémy, residing at Armentières, states: ‘Arrested 2 May 1944
at Armentières, I arrived at the Gestapo, 18 Rue François Debatz
at La Madelaine about 3 o’clock the same day. I was subjected to
interrogation on two different occasions. The first lasted for
about an hour. I had to lie on my stomach and was given about
120 lashes. The second interrogation lasted a little longer. I
was lashed again, lying on my stomach. As I would not talk, they
stripped me and put me in the bath tub. The 5th of May I was
subjected to a new interrogation at Loos. That day they hung me
up by my feet and rained blows all over my body. As I refused to
speak, they untied me and put me again on my stomach. When pain
made me cry out, they kicked me in the face with their boots. As
a result I lost 17 lower teeth . . . .’”

The names of two of the torturers follow, but are of no concern to us here. We are merely trying to show that the torturers everywhere used the same methods. This could have been done only in execution of orders given by their chiefs.

I will further quote the testimony of M. Guérin:

“. . . as I would not admit anything, one of the interrogators
put my scarf around my mouth to stifle my cries. Another German
policeman took my head between his legs and two others, one on
each side of me, beat me with clubs over the loins. Each of them
struck me 25 times . . . . This lasted over two hours. The next
morning they began again and it lasted as long as the day
before. These tortures were inflicted upon me because, on 11
November, I with my comrades of the resistance had taken part in
a demonstration by placing a wreath on the monument to the dead
of the 1914-18 war . . . .”

I now quote the report of Mr. Alfred Deudon. Here is the ill-treatment to which he was subjected:

“18 August, sensitive parts were struck with a hammer. 19
August, was held under water; 20 August, my head was squeezed
with an iron band; 21 and 24 August, I was chained day and
night; 26 August, I was chained again day and night; and at one
time hung up by the arms.”

I will now read an extract from the report of M. Delltombe, arrested by the Gestapo 14 June 1944:

“Thursday, 15 June, at 8 o’clock in the morning, I was taken to
the torture cellar. There they demanded that I should confess to
the sabotage which I had carried out with my groups and denounce
my comrades as well as name my hiding places. Because I did not
answer quickly enough, the torture commenced. They made me put
my hands behind my back. They put on special handcuffs and hung
me up by my wrists. Then they flogged me, principally on the
loins, and in the face. That day the torture lasted 3 hours.

“Friday, 16 June, the same thing took place; but only for an
hour and a half, for I could not stand it any longer; and they
took me back to my cell on a stretcher.

“Saturday the tortures began again with even more severity. Then
I was obliged to confess my sabotage, for the brutes stuck
needles in my arms. After that they left me alone until 10
August; then they had me called to the office and told me I was
condemned to death. I was put on a train of deportees going to
Brussels, from which I was freed on 3 September by Brussels
patriots.

“. . . women were subjected to the same treatment as men. To the
physical pain, the sadism of the torturers added the moral
anguish, especially mortifying for a woman or a young girl, of
being stripped nude by her torturers. Pregnancy did not save
them from lashes. When brutality brought about a miscarriage,
they were left without any care, exposed to all the hazards and
complications of these criminal abortions.”

This is the text of the summary drawn up by the American officer who carried out this investigation.

Here is the report of Madame Sindemans, who was arrested in Paris 24 February 1944:

“. . . by four soldiers, each armed with a submachine gun, and
two other Germans in civilian clothes holding revolvers.

“Having looked into my handbag, they found three identification
cards. Then they searched my room and discovered the pads and
stamp of the Kommandantur and some German passes and employment
cards which I had succeeded in stealing from them the day before
. . . .

“Immediately, they placed handcuffs upon me and took me to be
interrogated. When I gave no reply, they slapped me in the face
with such force that I fell from my chair. Then they struck me
with a rubber ring across the face. This interrogation began at
10 o’clock in the morning and ended at 11 o’clock that night. I
must tell you that I had been pregnant for 3 months.”

We shall submit now Documents F-563 and 564 under the one number Exhibit Number RF-308. It is a report concerning the atrocities committed by the Gestapo in Bourges. We shall read a part of this report.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, how do you establish what this document is? It appears to be the report of M. Marc Toledano.

M. DUBOST: That is correct, Mr. President. This report, with the rest of the documents in the same bundle, was incorporated in the document presented by the French Office for Inquiry into War Crimes, as is evident from the official signature of M. Zambeaux on the original, which is in the hands of the Secretary of the Court. I shall read the first page of the original:

“I, the undersigned, Madame Bondoux, supervisor at the prison in
Bourges, certify that nine men, mostly youths, were subjected to
abominable treatment. They remained with their hands bound
behind their backs and with chains on their feet for 15 to 20
days; it was absolutely impossible for them to take their food
in a normal way and they were screaming with hunger. In the face
of this situation several of the ordinary criminal prisoners
showed their willingness to help these martyrs by making small
packets from their own rations which I had passed to them in the
evening. A certain German supervisor, whom I knew under his
first name of Michel, threw their bread in a corner of the cell,
and at night came to beat them. All these young men were shot on
20 November 1943.

“Then, too, a woman named Hartwig, who lived at Chevannes, I
believe, told me that she had remained for 4 days bound to a
chair. At all events, I can testify that her body was completely
bruised.”

We read in the statement of M. Labussiere, who is a captain of the reserve and a teacher at Marseilles-les-Aubigny:

“. . . On the 11th I was twice flogged with a lash. I had to
bend over a bench and the muscles of my thighs and calves were
fully stretched. At first I received some 30 lashes with a heavy
whip, then another instrument was used which had a buckle at the
end. I then was struck on the buttocks, on the thighs, and on
the calves. To do this my torturer got up on a bench and made me
spread my legs. Then with a very thin thong he finished off by
giving me some 20 more biting lashes. When I picked myself up I
was dizzy and I fell to the ground. I was always picked up
again. Needless to say, the handcuffs were never taken off my
wrists . . .”

I recoil from reading the remainder of this testimony. The details which precede are atrocious.

“At 10 o’clock on the 12th, after having beaten a woman, Paoli
came to find me and said: ‘Dog, you have no heart. It was your
wife I have just beaten. I’ll go on doing it as long as you
refuse to talk.’ He wanted me to give the place of our meetings
and the names of my comrades.”

On the following line:

“. . . on the 14th at 6 o’clock in the evening I was taken once
again to the torture chamber. I could hardly crawl. Before he
let me come in, Paoli said: ‘I give you 5 minutes to tell me all
you know. If after these 5 minutes you’ve said nothing, you’ll
be shot at 3 o’clock; your wife will be shot at six, and your
boy will be sent to Germany.’”

We read that after signing the record of the interrogation his torturer said to him:

“‘Look at yourself! See what we can make of a man in 5 days! You
haven’t seen the finish yet!’ And he added: ‘Now get out of
here. You make us sick!’”—and the witness concluded with—“I
was, in fact, covered with filth from head to foot. They put me
in a cart and took me back to my cell . . . . During those 5
days I had certainly received more than 700 strokes from a lash
. . . .”