Chapter I: of this document is entitled, “Collaboration by Branches.” (2)

“Moreover, an agreement has been made with the Paris Office for
National Relief (Bureau du Secours National) that, after the
expiration of a period of 4 weeks, no Jew can any longer be fed
and housed by National Relief. The S.N. will appoint a special
representative for controlling the co-ordination committee on
this matter. The blocking of Jewish accounts will compel the
Jews in the very near future to ask that the co-ordination
committee be authorized to receive gifts intended for it from
these blocked holdings. The granting of this request will
demonstrate the actual existence of an enforced Jewish union.

“As can be seen this question too will be solved in the manner
desired, even if it is a ‘cold manner.’”

The following chapter bears the title, “Political Activities of the Office for Jewish Affairs of the Sipo and of the SD.” I should like to read some passages from this:

“After the promulgation of the Jewish statute of 3 October 1940
by the French Government, a certain slowing-down occurred in the
handling of the Jewish question in France; and for this reason
the Office for Jewish Affairs worked out plans for a Central
Jewish Bureau. The plan was discussed with the military
administration on 31 January 1941. The latter showed no
interest; and, as the question was a purely political one, it
was referred to the SD in agreement with the German Embassy.”

This is followed by an analysis of various discussions with the French Commissioner Vallat, with Ambassador Abetz, and with De Brinon and indicates the various demands presented by the Germans to the French authorities. I pass now to Page 26, the last paragraph:

“The proposal of the Office for Jewish Affairs has been referred
to SS Brigadeführer Dr. Best by SS Obersturmbannführer Dr.
Knochen. This proposal suggests that a liaison office ought to
be created which should comprise the representatives of the four
offices cited above. The management was to be in the hands of
the Director of the Office for Jewish Affairs of the SD in
compliance with the rules stipulating the competency of the OKW,
the OKH, and the Commander in France. As a result of this
suggestion, a conference was held on 10 June 1941. Those who
attended were: Ministerial Counsellor Dr. Stortz for the
Commander in France”—then German titles follow which have not
been translated into French and which are a little hard for me
to read—“Dr. Blancke, (Economic Service), Counsellor to the
Embassy Dr. Zeitschel (German Embassy), and SS Obersturmführer
Dannecker. The representatives of the military administration
stated clearly that the competence of the SD resulted from the
decrees of the OKW and of the OKH as well as from the last
confidential decree of 25 March 1941 of the Commander in France.
Dr. Stortz declared that for various reasons it would be better
to abstain from creating a special liaison bureau, under the
direction of the SD. SS Obersturmführer Dannecker explained for
his part that we are concerned with the final solution of the
question only; and, therefore, the SD must have the possibility
of carrying out the orders given by the RSHA.”

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, can’t you summarize this? It is a very long document, and we have so many documents and so much evidence in connection with the Jews already.

M. FAURE: I shall simply read one sentence on the same page:

“The result of the conference was the decision to meet every
week at the Office for Jewish Affairs. In the course of these
meetings they would discuss in common all their aims,
experiences, and objections.”

I think it is interesting to note these regular conferences held every week and in which representatives of the military services, the embassy, and the police took part.

The following pages of the report can be passed over. They contain remarks about Vallat, notes relating to the establishment of files concerning the Jews, and an analysis of the German ordinances. This is important as showing that these ordinances have their place in the general plan. Dannecker likewise speaks of the Anti-Jewish Institute, and observes that this institute was financed by the German Embassy.

The report goes on to give statistical notes and concludes with a statement of which I shall read only one paragraph:

“I hope I have succeeded in giving an idea of the present
situation, and a summary of the manifold difficulties which had
to be surmounted. I cannot help but acknowledge in this
connection the really friendly and thorough support which has
been given to our work by Ambassador Abetz and his
representative, Minister Schleier, as well as by SS
Sturmbannführer and Counsellor to the Embassy Dr. Zeitschel.”

To meet the desire of the Tribunal, I shall not submit all the documents included in my document file. I shall therefore pass now to Document Number RF-1210. I have not submitted Documents RF-1208 and 1209. This Document Number RF-1210 is a new report of Dannecker’s. It is dated 22 February 1942. I submit it to show the regular and progressive character of the activities of the German offices. This is a letter of the 22d of February 1942. I shall read simply the headings, and I shall quote two passages.

The first heading is “Task of the Sipo and of the SD in France”; the second is “Card Index of Jews”; the third, “French Commission for Jewish Questions”; the fourth, “The French Anti-Jewish Police.” The fifth is entitled “Activity.” I shall quote this paragraph:

“Up to now three operations have been carried out against the
Jews of Paris on a large scale. On each occasion the local
office has been responsible for selecting the Jews who were to
be arrested, as well as for the preparation and technical
organization of the operations. The Jewish card index described
above has considerably facilitated the organization of all these
operations.”

The next heading is “Anti-Jewish Institute”; next is “Compulsory Jewish Amalgamation”; and finally “Tuesday Conferences.” I shall read Paragraph 2:

“A conference has been held every Tuesday since the middle of
1941”—Page 5 of the document—“attended by representatives of
the following offices: 1) Military Command, Administrative
Staff, Administrative Section; 2) Administrative Staff, Police
Group; 3) Administrative Staff, Economic Section; 4) German
Embassy in Paris; 5) Operations Staff West of Reichsleiter
Rosenberg.

“The result of these conferences was that (of course, for very
rare exceptions caused by outsiders) the policy regarding Jews
in the occupied territories can be followed on absolutely
uniform lines.”

THE PRESIDENT: We will break off now.

[_A recess was taken._]

M. FAURE: Gentlemen, in order not to prolong the discussion too much, I should like, if it please the Tribunal, to submit as documents all the documents in my book, but to read and analyze only some of the most important.

I shall then pass over Documents RF-1211, 1212, 1213, and 1214. I should like, however, to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the end of the mimeographed French text. As the letter “K” appeared on the document, the word “Keitel” was written in, quite wrongly. I should like to say that this does not occur in the document. I should like to read this Document Number RF-1215, which is very short:

“Secret—13 May 1942. To the Chief of Area A.

“In accordance with instructions from OKH, Quartermaster
General, the words ‘dispatch to the East’ must not be used in
announcements referring to the forced evacuation of the
population, in order to avoid a defamation of the occupied
regions in the East. The same applies to the expression
‘deportation,’ this word being too strongly reminiscent of the
banishment to Siberia at the time of the Czars. In all
publications and correspondence we must use the phrase ‘dispatch
for forced labor.’”

Document Number RF-1216, which I offer in evidence now, is another memorandum from Dannecker, dated 10 March 1942. The purpose of this memorandum is defined as “Deportation from France of 5,000 Jews.” The quotation of the title suffices to indicate the subject of the document. Dannecker alludes to a meeting of the Office for Jewish Affairs, a meeting which took place at the RSHA in Berlin on 4 March 1942 at which it was decided that negotiations would be undertaken for the deportation of 5,000 Jews from France. The memorandum specifies Paragraph 4, second sentence:

“Jews of French nationality must be deprived of their
nationality before being deported, or at the latest on the day
of the deportation itself.”

In a subsequent passage of the document Dannecker explains that the expenses of this deportation would have to be paid by the French Jews, since in the case of impending mass deportations of Jews from Czechoslovakia provisions had been made for the Slovakian Government to pay a sum of 500 marks for each Jew deported and, in addition, to bear the cost of deportation.

I now offer in evidence Document Number RF-1217, which is a memorandum of 15 June 1942 headed “Other Transports of Jews Coming from France.” It is still dealing with the same operation, but I believe it is interesting to submit these documents without reading them, since they show the extremely complex and regular working of this administration whose purpose was to arrest and deport innocent people. The beginning of the memorandum alludes to a new conference held in Berlin on 11 June 1942 and attended by those responsible for the Jewish departments in Brussels and The Hague, as well as by Dannecker himself. In the fourth paragraph on Page 1 of this document I read the last sentence of the paragraph, “Ten percent of Jews unfit for labor may be included in these convoys.” This sentence shows that the purpose of this deportation was not merely to procure labor, even if it involved labor to be exterminated by work.

I should like also to read the fifth paragraph, which contains only one sentence:

“It was agreed that 15,000 Jews should be expelled from Holland,
10,000 from Belgium, and up to 100,000 from France, including
the unoccupied zone.”

The last part of the memorandum relates to the technical execution. It alludes first to negotiations with the transport service to obtain the necessary trains. It then alludes to the necessity of inducing the _de facto_ French Government to take steps to deprive of their nationality all Jews resident outside of French territory. This would mean that deported Jews would no longer be considered as French citizens. Lastly the French State was to pay the cost of transport and various expenses connected with the deportation.

I now present Document Number RF-1218, which is a memorandum dated 16 June 1942, entitled “The Transportation of Jews from France: Subject, Order from the SS Obersturmbannführer Eichmann to SS Hauptsturmführer Dannecker, 11 June 1942.” The first three paragraphs of this memorandum show that there was difficulty in transporting deportees, because of the large quantity of railway stock necessary for the preparation of the eastern campaign. I should like to read the last two paragraphs of this letter:

“We are now carrying out a large-scale reorganization of the
German transport agencies in France. The main feature of this is
that the numerous organizations existing hitherto will be taken
over by the Reich Ministry of Transportation, which will be
responsible for them. This reorganization, which was ordered
without notice, takes a few days to complete. Before that date
it is impossible to give approximate information as to whether
the transportation of Jews can be carried out in the near future
or at a later date, on the scale anticipated, or even
partially.”

These remarks seemed to me interesting as defining the responsibility of the Reich Cabinet. Such a large undertaking as the deportation of so many Jews required the intervention of many different administrative services, and we see here that the success of this enterprise depended on the reorganization of transport on the responsibility of the Reich Ministry of Transportation. It is certain that a ministerial department of this kind, which is above all a technical department, intervened to help carry out that general enterprise of deportation.

I now submit Document Number RF-1219 which is a memorandum by Dr. Knochen dated 15 June 1942. This memorandum is entitled, “Technical Execution of New Convoys of Jews from France.” Not to take too much time I shall read only the first paragraph of this memorandum:

“To avoid any conflict with the operation in progress with
regard to ‘French workmen for Germany,’ mention will be made
only of Jewish resettlement. This version is confirmed by the
fact that the convoys may include entire families and therefore
the possibility is left open of sending at a later date for the
children under 16, who were left behind.”

The remainder of the memorandum, like all these texts, which are so extremely painful from a moral point of view, continues to discuss the question of the deportation of the Jews in round figures as if all these human beings were mere goods and chattels.

I now submit Document Number RF-1220, which is a letter from the German Embassy in Paris, from Dr. Zeitschel, dated 27 June 1942. I should like to read this letter, which is thus expressed:

“Following my conversation with Hauptsturmführer Dannecker on 27
June, during which he stated that he needed, as soon as
possible, 50,000 Jews from the free zone for deportation to the
East and that something had to be done to support the operations
of Darquier de Pellepoix, the Commissioner General on Jewish
questions, I immediately informed Ambassador Abetz and
Counsellor Rahn of this matter. Counsellor Rahn is to meet
President Laval this afternoon and he promised to discuss with
him at once the handing over of these 50,000 Jews, demanding at
the same time plenary powers for Darquier de Pellepoix, in
conformity with the laws already promulgated, and the immediate
granting of the credits promised him.

“As unfortunately I shall be away from Paris for a week, I
request, in view of the urgency of the question, that
Hauptsturmführer Dannecker contact Counsellor Rahn directly, on
Monday, 29 June, or Tuesday, 30 June, at the latest, to learn
Laval’s reply.”

I thought it useful to read this letter, for it shows the responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Defendant Ribbentrop in this abominable matter of handing over 50,000 Jews as required. It is quite evident that such a step cannot be taken by a counsellor at an embassy unknown to his minister and without the latter’s full knowledge and consent.

I submit now Document Number RF-1221. It is a memorandum dated 26 June 1942 of which I shall give only the title, “Directives for the Deportation of Jews.”

Now I come to Document Number RF-1222, of which I shall also read only the title, “Conference with the Specialists for Jewish Questions of the Security Police, Command of the Section IV-J on 30 June 1942. Deportation to Auschwitz of Jews from the Occupied Territories.”

In this memorandum Dannecker again alludes to the conference which took place at the RSHA, according to which 50,000 Jews were to be transferred. There follows a list of trains, the stations in which they were to be assembled, and a request for reports.

I now submit Document Number RF-1223. It is a memorandum, dated 1 July 1942, summing up a conference between Dannecker and Eichmann, who, as we already know, was in Berlin but had to come to Paris on that occasion. “Subject: Departmental Conference with SS Hauptsturmführer Dannecker, Paris, Concerning the Impending Evacuation from France.” It still deals with the preparation of the great operation envisaged.

I now submit Document Number RF-1224, of which I read only the title and the date, “4 July 1942: Directives for a Major Round-up of Jews in Paris.”

I now offer in evidence Document Number RF-1225, which is a Dannecker memorandum dated 6 July 1942. Subject: “Deportation of Jews from France.” It concerns a conference held with representatives of French authorities. We see in the document the expression “Judenmaterial,” which was translated in a roundabout way by the words “Jewish livestock.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1226. I should like to read, if the Tribunal please, the first paragraph of this document which is very revealing both in regard to the collaboration with the transport services and the horrifying mentality of the Nazi authorities. The memorandum is the sequel to a telephone conversation between the signatory Röthke and the SS Obersturmführer Eichmann at Berlin:

“The SS Obersturmführer Eichmann in Berlin telephoned on 14 July
1942 about 1900 hours. He wished to know why the train provided
for the transport of 15 July 1942 had been cancelled. I replied
that originally the star bearers in the provinces were to be
arrested too but that by virtue of a new agreement with the
French Government only stateless Jews were to be arrested to
begin with.

“The train due to leave on 15 July 1942 had to be cancelled
because, according to information received by the SD Kommando at
Bordeaux, there were only 150 stateless Jews in Bordeaux. There
was no time to find enough other Jews to fill this train. SS
Obersturmführer Eichmann replied that it was a question of
prestige. They had to conduct lengthy negotiations about these
trains with the Reichsminister of Transportation, which turned
out successfully; and now Paris cancels a train. Such a thing
had never happened to him before. The matter was highly
shameful. He did not wish to report it to SS Gruppenführer
Müller right now, for the blame would fall on his own shoulders.
He was reflecting whether he would not do without France as an
evacuation country altogether.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1227, which gives statistics indicating that up to the 2d of September 1942 27,069 Jews were evacuated and that by the end of October a total figure of 52,069 might be reached. They are anxious to accelerate the pace and to attack also the Jews in the unoccupied zone of France.

I now submit Document Number RF-1228. It is also an account of a conference where there were invited representatives of the French authorities. I should like to read only the last paragraph of this document:

“On the occasion of the meeting which took place on 28 August
1942 in Berlin, it was stated that most of the European
countries are much nearer to a final solution of the Jewish
problem than France. In fact, these countries began much
earlier. We then must catch up with them in many matters between
now and 31 October 1942.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1229 without reading it. It is a memorandum by Dr. Knochen on this same subject of deportation dated 31 December 1942.

I now submit Document Number RF-1230, which is a memorandum dated 6 March 1943, headed, “Ref: Present Situation of the Jewish Question in France.” In the first part of this document, the deportations are stated to have reached a total of 49,000 Jews as on 6 March 1943. This is followed by a statement of the nationalities, which are extremely varied, of a certain number of Jews who were deported in addition to the French Jews. Paragraph 3 of this memorandum is headed, “Attitude of the Italians with Regard to the Jewish Question.” I shall read only the first and the last lines of this long paragraph:

“The attitude adopted up to now in the French territory occupied
by Italy must be changed by all means if the Jewish problem is
to be solved. A few conspicuous cases. . . .”

I break off the quotation here. These conspicuous cases were cases in which the Italians opposed the arrest of Jews in the zone occupied by them.

I now read the last paragraph:

“A.A. has been informed by the RSHA (Eichmann) about proceedings
of the Italians.”—A.A. appears to be the initials of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and this is confirmed by the
following sentence. I continue the quotation—“The Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, meant to discuss, in negotiations
with the Duce, the attitude adopted by the Italians with regard
to the Jewish question. We do not yet know the results of these
discussions.”

I shall not submit Documents RF-1231 and RF-1232. I pass then to the last documents which I want to present to the Tribunal. These documents relate more specifically to the deportation of children.

I submit Document Number RF-1233, which is a memorandum by Dannecker dated 21 July 1942. I shall read Paragraph 2:

“The question of deporting children has been examined with SS
Obersturmbannführer Eichmann. He decided that as soon as
deportations to the Government General could be resumed, convoys
of children could be sent by rail. SS Obersturmführer Nowak
promised to arrange about six convoys to the Government General
at the end of August or the beginning of September, which may
comprise all sorts of Jews (also disabled and old Jews).”

Now I offer in evidence Document Number RF-1234. It is a memorandum dated 13 August 1942. Before pointing out the interest of this document I remind the Tribunal that I have already submitted Document Number RF-1219 and in that document there was a formula which I recall, namely, “The possibility is left open of sending at a later date for children under 16 who were left behind.” The Nazis wished to give the impression that they deported entire families at the same time or at least that they did not deport whole trainloads of children. To give this impression, they invented a device which is wholly incredible unless you actually see it in black and white: the mingling of children and adults in definite proportions. I read Paragraph 4 of this Document Number RF-1234:

“The Jews arriving from the unoccupied zone will be mingled at
Drancy with Jewish children now at Pithiviers and
Beaune-la-Rolande, so that out of a total of 700 at least 500
Jewish adults 300 to 500 Jewish children will be allotted.
According to instructions of the Reich Security Main Office, no
trains containing Jewish children only are to leave.”

I read the next sentence too:

“Leguay has been told that 13 trainloads of Jews would also
leave Drancy in September and that Jewish children from the
unoccupied zone could be handed over.”

I now submit the last document of the series dealing with the Jewish question, Document Number RF-1235. I am going to read it, as it is very short.

“6 April 1944, Lyons, 2010 hours. Subject: Home for Jewish
Children at Izieu, Ain.

“The home for Jewish children, ‘Child Colony,’ at Izieu (Ain)
was raided this morning and a total of 41 children aged from 3
to 13 were apprehended. Moreover, the arrest of the entire
Jewish personnel, numbering 10 in all and including 5 women was
successfully carried out. Money or other property could not be
seized. The convoy for Drancy will leave on 7 April 1944.”

This document also bears a memorandum written by hand and couched in the following terms:

“Matter discussed in the presence of Dr. V. B. and
Hauptsturmführer Brunner. Dr. V. B. stated that in cases of this
kind, special measures were provided for the billeting of the
children by the Obersturmführer Röthke. The Hauptsturmführer
Brunner stated that he knew of no such instructions or plans and
that on principle he did not approve of such special measures.
In this case he would also follow the lines of the usual
regulations for deportation. For the moment I made no decision
affecting the principle in this respect.”

For me what is even more striking and more horrible than the concrete fact of removing these children is the administrative color given to the proceedings, the report made through official channels, the meeting at which different officials placidly discussed the matter as if it were part of the normal business of the department. All the administrative mechanism of the State—I am speaking of the Nazi State—was set in motion on such an occasion and for such a purpose. It is a perfect illustration of the word used by Dannecker in his report: “The cold manner.”

I now present the Tribunal with a continuation under the same head, including a certain number of documents which have been collected in order to show in accordance with our general line of presentation the perpetual interference of the German administrative services.

As I am a little behind my timetable, I shall give the numbers of only those documents which I should like to offer in evidence and which I have no time to describe. These documents will be numbered Documents RF-1238 to 1249.

I would like to read to the Tribunal only the document which bears the Number RF-1243, which is interesting as showing the organic character and the juridical claims of the German organizations. I shall quote a few sentences from this document:

“In the report made by the Chief of the Administrative Staff on
experience concerning the arrest from 7 to 14 December 1941 it
was proposed to evade the execution of hostages in the future by
having the death sentences passed through court-martial
proceedings.”

I shall skip the following two lines and continue:

“The reprisal will be carried out by pronouncing and inflicting
capital punishment on prisoners who would normally be sentenced
only to imprisonment, or else be acquitted altogether. To
influence the discretion of the judge concerning the meting out
of punishment for committing murder or sabotage would answer the
formalistic legal reasoning of the French.”

I should like now, in the last paragraph of my presentation, to submit documentary evidence in connection with criminal actions of which the Tribunal has not yet been informed and which involve the personal responsibility of certain of the defendants present here. I must remind you that the criminal actions of the Nazis took extremely varied forms which have already been put before the Tribunal at some length. A particularly new and unusual manifestation of this consisted in causing crimes to be committed by organized bands of murderers, who were ordinary criminals, under conditions which made it appear as if these crimes were committed by ordinary bandits or even by resistance organizations which they tried in this way to dishonor.

Such crimes were committed in all the occupied countries; but the precautions taken, with good reason, to camouflage them sometimes make it difficult to trace back the responsibility for these crimes to the ringleaders, the leaders of the Nazi State. We were able to find this evidence in the records of proceedings instituted in Denmark. All the elements are contained in Danish reports of which we were able to get possession only a short time ago.

I can indicate the position very briefly. It concerns a series of murders which were committed in Denmark and which were known as “compensatory” or “clearing” murders. This definition is explained. . . .

Counsel for the Defense tells me that there is an error in translation in the last document which I read—RF-1243. He says that “acquittal” is not the correct translation of “Begnadigung.” As I do not know German, it is quite possible that this error exists and that the word means “pardon.”

THE PRESIDENT: Which part of the document?

M. FAURE: This error really exists. I hope the Tribunal will excuse me, because there is a considerable amount of translation work. I shall read line 14 of Document Number RF-1243: “. . . who would normally be sentenced to imprisonment only or else be acquitted altogether.” According to Counsel for the Defense that should be, “. . . who would normally be sentenced to imprisonment only or else be pardoned.” The construction of the sentence does not seem to be as good when this word is used, which explains the error in translation if there was one. In any case, I think it is sufficient to note the instructions given: The imposition of “capital sentences” in cases where only a sentence of imprisonment would normally have been justified.

To come back to the subject I was discussing, I should like to make the situation clear by reading the definition given in the Danish report. It is found on Page 19 of the supplementary memorandum of the Danish Government. This document was submitted last Saturday under Number RF-901. As it is very bulky, I see that it is not included in the document book but that the passages which I cite can be found in my brief.

The page numbers start again at the end of this brief, and I am now on Page 3 in the last series of numbers. I quote Page 19 of the Danish report:

“From New Year 1944 onwards, a large number of persons, most of
them well known, were murdered at intervals which grew steadily
shorter. The doorbell would ring, for instance, and one or two
men would ask to speak to them. The moment they appeared at the
door. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: I do not have it. Is it in this dossier of the administrative and juridical organization of the criminal actions? Under which document?

M. FAURE: It is not in the document book. It is in the dossier of the brief.

THE PRESIDENT: No. In the dossier? Which part of the dossier?

M. FAURE: It is the last part of the dossier. The numbering of the pages starts again after Page 76. If the Tribunal will turn to Page 76, the page numbers begin again after that with Page 1.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have it.

M. FAURE: I read from Page 19 of the report, the extract reproduced on Page 3:

“From New Year 1944 onwards, a large number of persons, most of
them well known, were murdered at intervals which grew steadily
shorter. The doorbell would ring, for instance, and one or two
men would ask to speak to them. The moment they appeared at the
door they were shot by these unknown persons. Or, someone would
pretend to be ill and go to a doctor during the latter’s
consulting hour. When the doctor entered the room, the unknown
shot him. At other times, unknown men would force their way into
a house and kill the owner in front of his wife and his
children, or else a man would be ambushed in the street by
civilians and shot.”

I do not need to read the following paragraph. I go on reading at the last paragraph on Page 19:

“As the number of victims increased it was borne in upon the
Danes, to their amazement, that there was a certain political
motive behind all these murders; for they realized that in one
way or another the Germans were the instigators.

“After the capitulation of the German forces in Denmark,
investigations by the Danish police established the fact that
all these murders, running into hundreds, were in reality
committed on the direct orders of the supreme authorities and
with the active collaboration of Germans who occupied the
highest positions in Denmark.”

I end my quotation here and I shall summarize what follows: The Danish authorities were able to clear up these criminal affairs, 267 in number; and they are analyzed in the official Danish report and the documents attached to it. These acts consisted not only in actual crimes but also in other criminal activities, notably explosions. It was established that all these acts were committed by bands, consisting of Germans and some Danes, who constituted real groups of bandits but who acted, as I am going to prove to you, on orders from the highest quarters.

The Danish report contains in particular the detailed story of the investigation made into the first of these crimes, whose victim was Kaj Munk, the well-known Danish poet and pastor of a parish. The crime was confessed by the men who carried it out.

I summarize the document in order not to take too much time. The pastor was taken from his home, forced into a vehicle, and killed on the highway. His body was found next day with a sign pinned on it with the words, “Swine, you worked for Germany just the same.”

The Tribunal sees how many similar crimes were committed in the vilest possible way. Now one of the first things discovered was that the members of the gangs of bandits who committed these different crimes had all received a personal letter of congratulation from Himmler. The text of this letter, which was found on one of the murderers, constitutes Appendix 14 of the Danish report; and, on the other hand, we have here photostatic copies with Himmler’s signature.

But these extraordinary crimes involve in the most incredible way other persons responsible besides Himmler, himself. The Danish police were able to arrest Günther Pancke, who exercised the functions of Chief of Police in Denmark from 1 November 1943.

The inquiry was established by the tribunal of first instance in Copenhagen and is in the Danish report. It contains an account of the interrogation of Günther Pancke on 25 August 1945. It is necessary for me to read to the Tribunal an extract from this document, which involves several of the defendants. I quote:

“On 30 December 1943 Pancke and Best were present at a meeting
at the Führer’s headquarters attended by Hitler, Himmler,
Kaltenbrunner, General Von Hannecken, Keitel, Jodl, Schmundt,
and others. This agrees with Best’s diary for 30 December 1943.
There is a copy of this. A representative of the German Foreign
Office also attended; but Pancke does not remember his name nor
whether the person in question made a speech. During the first
part of the meeting, Hitler was in a very bad temper and
everything led one to believe that the information that he had
obtained concerning the situation in Denmark was rather
exaggerated.”

I should like to skip the following page, which is not indispensable and go on to Page 14 of my brief. In the passage which I am omitting, the witness Pancke reports that he and Dr. Best advised that saboteurs be fought in a legal way. He also points out on Page 14 that Hitler—I quote—“ . . . was strongly opposed to the proposals of Pancke and Best, declaring there could be absolutely no question of judging saboteurs before a tribunal.” He then said that such methods would lead to those condemned being considered as heroes.

I resume the quotation on Page 15, Line 3:

“There was only one way of dealing with saboteurs, namely, to
kill them, preferably, at the moment when the crime was
committed; otherwise, on arrest. Both of them received strict
orders from Hitler personally to start compensatory murders.
Pancke replied that it was very difficult and dangerous to shoot
people on arrest, as they could not be sure when the arrest was
made if the person arrested was really a saboteur. Hitler
demanded compensatory murders in the proportion of at least five
to one. In other words: Five Danes were to die for every German
killed.”

The rest of the document shows that General Von Hannecken made a report on the military situation. I shall read this paragraph, Page 16 of my brief:

“Moreover, General Keitel took part in the conversation; but he
confined himself to a proposal to reduce food rations in Denmark
to the same level as rations in Germany. This proposal was
rejected by all the three representatives in Denmark. As a
result, the meeting ended with Hitler’s express order to Pancke
to start compensatory murders and counter-sabotage. After this
meeting, Pancke had a conversation alone with Himmler, who told
him that he, Pancke, had now been told by the Führer, himself,
how to act and that he thought that he could rely on Pancke to
execute the order which he had received. It seemed that up to
now he had executed only those of Himmler. Pancke knows that
Best had a conversation with Ribbentrop immediately after the
meeting, but doesn’t remember the result.”

The document then shows that these compensatory murders were carried out, not in the proportion of five to one, but in the proportion of one for one. It shows that reports on these compensatory murders were sent to Berlin.

I read on Page 18 of my brief, second paragraph:

“Pancke explained that in his opinion these murders were decreed
deliberately by the supreme jurisdiction in Germany, as being
necessary for the protection of Germans stationed in Denmark and
Danes working for Germany; and so Pancke had to obey the order.
Bovensiepen stated the facts and made suggestions when subjects
of importance were raised. Pancke does not know whether
Bovensiepen selected his own subjects in every case or whether
in certain cases the subjects were selected by his subalterns;
but he, too, said that he was subjected to strong pressure from
the military side, especially from General Von Hannecken,
although General Von Hannecken was at first opposed to reprisals
by terror. Later still more pressure was exercised by Colonel
General Lindemann. When soldiers were killed or damage was
caused to military objectives, Pancke was immediately asked what
steps he had taken and what they were to report to general
headquarters, that is, to Hitler himself, from a military point
of view. Pancke had to give a satisfactory reply, and he also
had to take action.”

I end my quotation here. General Pancke then explains how these terror groups were organized.

I must now say that the Danish police were also able to arrest Dr. Best, the German plenipotentiary, and make an inventory of his papers. Among them they found Dr. Best’s private diary. This diary has one leaf, dated 30 December 1943, which agrees with the information given in the preceding testimony about the meeting held on 30 December 1943 in the Führer’s tea house. This is at Page 21.

“Lunch with Adolf Hitler, Reichsführer Himmler, Dr.
Kaltenbrunner, SS Obergruppenführer Mr. Pancke, Field Marshal
Keitel, General Jodl, General Von Hannecken, Lieutenant General
Schmundt, Brigade Lieutenant Scherff. Lunch and discussions on
the Danish question lasted from 1400 to 1630 hours.”

Dr. Best was naturally interrogated on the subject. From official Danish documents, extracts from which are found on Page 23 of my brief, it appears that Dr. Best corroborated the note in his diary dated 30 December which I have cited. With regard to the fundamental questions concerned, here is what Dr. Best says at the bottom of Page 23:

“Dr. Best does not remember whether Hitler, who spoke at
considerable length, said anything about compensatory murders
being carried out in the proportion of five to one. Himmler and
Kaltenbrunner agreed with Hitler. The rest of those present
apparently expressed no opinion. The names given by Best agree
with Pancke’s list.”—This is on Page 24—“The Ministry of
Foreign Affairs was not represented, so that Sonnleitner did not
attend the conference. After the conference, Dr. Best had a
conversation alone with Ribbentrop, to whom he explained what
had taken place. Ribbentrop shared his opinion that some protest
should be made against such methods but that after all, nothing
could be done.”

It is proved, therefore, that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Keitel, and Jodl were present at a department meeting where it was decided that murder, pure and simple, should be organized in Denmark. The witnesses certainly do not say that the Defendants Keitel and Jodl showed any enthusiasm for this proposal, but it is established that they were present and that they were present in the exercise of their functions along with their subordinate, the military commander of Denmark. This is a question of responsibility for several hundred murders abominable in themselves but undoubtedly constituting only a small part of the crimes implied by the Prosecution and carried out on millions of victims. I think, however, that it is important to learn that the military and diplomatic leaders knew and accepted the systematic organization of acts of banditry and murders committed by professional killers who fled when they had committed their crimes.

The documents which I have just cited are the last of the series which I wanted to present to the Tribunal. I shall not follow them up by commentary. I think that there is so much monotony and at the same time so many shades of variety in the innumerable crimes committed by the Nazis that the human mind finds it difficult to grasp their whole extent. Each of these crimes has in itself all the intensity of horror and reflects the distorted values of the doctrine responsible for them. If it be true that life has any meaning whatsoever, if there is around and within us anything else than “sound and fury,” such a doctrine must be condemned with the men who originated it and directed its enterprises.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us what is proposed for tomorrow?

M. FAURE: Tomorrow, M. Gerthoffer will, if it suits the Tribunal, make a statement on pillage of works of art. A problem is involved here. For at the time when this would normally have been done, we decided to dispense with it, thinking that a reference to the American documents would be sufficient. On consulting our American colleagues, however, it appeared that they themselves relied on that part of the matter being presented by the French Prosecution. So, if the Tribunal does not object to our returning to the subject now, a statement will be presented to this effect.

On the other hand, one of the magistrates of the French Delegation proposes to present a brief which recapitulates systematically the charges against each of the defendants, according to the documents and briefs submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would hope that the exposé on the pillage of objects of art will be quite short because it must be cumulative, because you will remember that we had at some stage of the Trial presented to us 39 books, or 30, or some number of books of objects of art which had been taken away from various parts of Europe and France and all photographed by the Germans themselves; and, therefore, any evidence which would now be given would be cumulative to that spoliation.

M. FAURE: That is why I asked the Tribunal whether it would agree to this procedure; but at any rate, if the Tribunal considers that the statement can be made, it will be only a very short statement which will take about two hours.

DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): If I understood M. Faure correctly, he asked the Tribunal whether the confiscation and plundering of works of art in France would again be dealt with tomorrow. I should like to add that the American Prosecution has already declared before this Tribunal that the question of the plundering of works of art could not be dealt with again. Accordingly, I myself, representing Rosenberg, and my colleague, Dr. Stahmer, representing Göring, took steps to cancel the calling of witnesses whom we had planned to bring. If, however, the French Prosecution intends to submit new material, we must have these witnesses called again. For this reason, I should like to ask the Tribunal to decide whether it is necessary for the confiscation of works of art objects in France to be taken up once more.

THE PRESIDENT: I think defendant’s counsel must be wrong in thinking that the United States counsel said anything which meant that the French Prosecution could not produce evidence with reference to the spoliation of objects of art. I can’t think the United States had any authority to do that and I had understood myself that this part of the Prosecution had been omitted by one of the French Counsel on account of the request of the Tribunal to shorten their argument. Was that not so?

M. FAURE: That is quite true, Mr. President. Your interpretation is exact.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would wish that the presentation should be made, if the French Prosecutors wish it; and it should be made as shortly as possible.

M. FAURE: Thank you.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 6 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]

FIFTY-SECOND DAY
Wednesday, 6 February 1946

_Morning Session_

M. FAURE: If it please the Tribunal, M. Gerthoffer will now present the brief concerning the pillage of works of art.

M. CHARLES GERTHOFFER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): The Economic Section of the French Delegation had prepared a report on the pillage of works of art in the occupied countries of western Europe.

We had thought, at the session of 22 January last, of waiving the presentation of this statement in order to expedite the proceedings, while holding ourselves at the disposal of the Tribunal should they consider the presentation necessary. However, since then—on 31 January—the American Prosecutor was good enough to inform us that the Defendant Rosenberg intended to maintain that the artistic treasures were collected only in order to be “protected.”

We consider, from the documents which we are holding at the disposal of the Court, that this cannot be a question of protection only but that this was genuine spoliation; and I am at the Tribunal’s disposal to prove this, in a statement which I shall make as brief as possible, while offering in evidence the documents which we had already collected. If the Tribunal wish, I can make this very brief statement. In any case, I am at the disposal of the Tribunal.

Mr. President, Gentlemen, the pillage of works of art has a cultural significance to which I shall not refer again since it was the subject of a statement presented by Colonel Storey on 18 December 1945. I shall simply regard the subject from the economic point of view in order to complete the report on the general spoliation of the western European countries.

As the Tribunal will realize, the leaders of the Reich primarily and systematically seized works of art belonging to private individuals, mostly under the pretext that these individuals were Jews, thus procuring for themselves very valuable means of exchange. In Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France picture galleries, public as well as private collections, ancient furniture, china, and jewelry were stolen.

It was not a question of individual looting, of pillaging by soldiers, such as is encountered in all wars and of which we still find examples; this campaign of plunder was carried out in a systematic and disciplined manner. The methods introduced varied in character. Personal judgment and personal initiative could be exercised only insofar as they contributed to the execution of plans already elaborated by the National Socialist leaders before the month of June 1940.

The official organization for pillaging was primarily Minister Rosenberg’s Einsatzstab for the occupied territories of western Europe and the Netherlands. If this organization was not the sole agent, it was the most important one. Colonel Storey has already drawn the attention of the Tribunal to this criminal behavior.

The urge to seize works of art, as well as material wealth, underlies the policy of National Socialist expansion. The behavior in Poland of the Defendant Frank has already given sufficient proof of this. The idea of protecting this valuable booty arose at the time of the invasion of western Europe. From the very beginning, in their haste and their desire to seize as much as they could, several parallel authorities would carry out the confiscations, firstly by the military authorities, either indirectly, as in Holland through the special services of the Devisenschutzkommando or directly as in France through the Department for the Protection of Works of Art. Further, the same mission was entrusted simultaneously to the civil authorities, whether represented by the German Embassy in Paris or, in Holland, the Office for Enemy Property under the auspices of the Reich Commissioner. This plurality of control, moreover, did not end with the establishment of the Rosenberg Staff.

This is the first phase in the pillage of works of art. According to official correspondence, as well as to the statements of Otto Abetz, the initiative may be attributed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, beginning with the Defendant Ribbentrop. The first phase lasted from the entrance of the Germans into the countries of western Europe until October 1940.

The second phase opened with the arrival of Einsatzstab Rosenberg which appeared on the scene under the aegis of the Defendant Göring. From now on this Einsatzstab must be considered primarily responsible for the organized pillage.

Towards July 1942 a third phase opens in the history of the Staff Rosenberg. The person primarily responsible is the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg. The activities of this staff did not cease in Europe until the liberation. One part of the archives of the Rosenberg services fell into the hands of the French armies; another part, which had been sent to Füssen, was seized by the American Army which also picked up the archives of the Defendant Rosenberg. This is the origin of the PS documents submitted to the Tribunal.

The seizure of works of art began with the entrance of the German troops into Holland, Belgium, and France. In Paris, as from the month of June, there was an Embassy service directed by Dr. Von Kunsberg and Dr. Dirksen similar to a specialized service of the Military Governor directed by Count Wolff Metternich. This order of seizure, in defiance of the Hague Convention, applied to public as well as to private property. The Defendant Keitel, on 30 June 1940, issued an order to the Governor of Paris, General Von Bockelberg. I submit a copy of this order as Document Number RF-1301. Here it is:

“The Führer, on receiving the report of the Reich Minister for
Foreign Affairs, has issued an order to safeguard for the time
being, in addition to objects of art belonging to the French
State, also such works of art and antiquities which constitute
private property. Especially Jewish private property is to be
taken in custody by the occupational power against removal or
concealment, after having been labelled with the names of their
present French owners. There is no intention of expropriation
but certainly of a transfer into our custody to serve as a pawn
in the peace negotiations.”

Identical measures were soon taken in Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Exhibit Number RF-1302, which is a document discovered by the Army of the United States and which was registered under Document Number 137-PS, a copy of which I submit, was drawn up by Defendant Keitel on 5 July 1940:

“Reichsleiter Rosenberg has suggested the following to the
Führer:

“1. State libraries and archives to be searched for documents of
value to Germany.

“2. The chancelleries and high authorities of the Church, as
well as the Masonic lodges, to be searched for proofs of
political activities directed against us and the proofs in
question to be seized.

“The Führer has ordered that this suggestion be carried out and
that the Gestapo, assisted by the archivists of Reichsleiter
Rosenberg, be placed in charge of the search. The Chief of the
Security Police, SS Gruppenführer Heydrich, has been informed.
He is to contact the military commander competent to deal with
the execution of these orders.

“These measures to be executed in all regions of the
Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France which are occupied
by us.

“It is requested that subordinate offices be informed.

“The Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, (signed)
Keitel.”

I submit under Exhibit Number RF-1303 a copy of Document Number 139-PS, drawn up for Holland and expressed in approximately the same terms, and under Exhibit Number RF-1304 I submit a copy of Document Number 140-PS which is an analogous order for Belgium.

At the same time, by a decree of 15 July 1940 in execution of Keitel’s orders, a decree for the protection of works of art was issued in the occupied territories. This decree appeared in the German _Official Bulletin_ VOBIF Number 3, Page 49 and following. I submit a copy of this decree under Document Number RF-1305, and I request the permission of the Tribunal to quote the two following paragraphs:

First paragraph, Section 1:

“Moveable works of art will not be taken from the place where
they are at present or modified in any way whatsoever without
the written authorization of a commander of the military
administration.”