dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M. GERTHOFFER: Staff Rosenberg was not only interested in paintings and objects of art, but in books as well. Thus it appears, in a document discovered by the United States Army and registered under Document Number 171-PS, of which I submit a copy as Exhibit Number RF-1324, that 550,000 volumes were seized in France. Holland also provided a heavy contribution in books. Libraries rich in early prints, books, and manuscripts were pillaged. It appears from Document Number 176-PS, discovered by the United States Army, a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1325, that the value of the books amounted to about thirty or forty million Reichsmark. It must also be noted, as proved by Documents 178-PS and 1,1-PS, which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1326, that archives of the Rothschild Bank were taken away in the month of February 1941. Staff Rosenberg likewise pillaged furniture. This is quite evident from a note addressed by the Defendant Rosenberg to the Fuehrer, dated 3 October 1942, submitted under Document Number RF-1327. I read the following passage: "For carrying out action 'M' the Dienststelle Westen was created in Paris with special branches (Einsatzleitungen) in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands. This service has to date sent about 40,000 tons of furniture to the Reich, utilizing all available transport, ship, and railroa d facilities. Since it was recognized that the needs of bombed-out people of the Reich should be given preference over the needs of those in the East, the Reich Ministry has placed a considerable part of this furniture (over 19,500 tons) at the disposal of bombed-out people in the Reich...." A copy of a Rosenberg report, dated 4 November 1943, Document Number 1737-PS(b), a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1328, tells us: "52,828 Jewish lodgings were seized and sealed in favor of the bombed-out victims.
M. GERTHOFFER: Including special orders, furniture has been removed from 47,569 dwellings for shipment to the bombed cities." Document Number L-188, found by the American 7th Army, is a report issued by the offices of the Defendant Rosenberg, Item 8 of which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1329, shows that over 69,619 Jewish lodgings were looted, that the furniture occupied over 1 million cubic meters, and that it took 26,984 freight cars, that is, 674 trains, to remove it. In the same file there is a document which I submit, Document Number RF-1330, which indicates that in Paris alone 38,000 Jewish lodgings were emptied of their contents. Document Number 1772-PS, already submitted under Exhibit Number RF-1325, indicates that in Holland, from March 1942 to July 1943 inclusive, 22,623 lodgings were emptied of their contents and that it took 586 barges and 178 freight cars to move this furniture. These few figures undeniably suffice to support the accusation of economic pillage levied against Staff Rosenberg on behalf of the western European countries. As has already been stated, although the material elements of the breach of the law remain unaltered, there can be no comparison between the pillaging typical of the history of this or that conqueror and practiced throughout the centuries, and the pillaging as understood by the defendants. What prevents any comparison between the past pillaging and the looting practiced by Staff Rosenberg or the National Socialist chiefs, is the difference in purpose, however difficult and delicate a matter it may be to analyze it. The looting in the past of works of art may primarily be traced to the vanity of the conqueror, in which his egoism, his taste, and his love of glory played the determining part in the pillaging. It is of course possible to identify the same feeling as underlying the criminal activities of one or the other of the defendants.
M. GERTHOFFER: But-and here we find the fundamental difference-the National Socialist leaders, when estimating the value of this and that painting or of this or that work of art, wittingly took into account both the standard of aesthetic wealth, that is the value of the object to the individual, and the standard of material wealth, that is its exchange value, an exchange value in which it is a matter of retaining a pledge, if not to facilitate, at least to bring pressure to bear when negotiating future peace treaties, as is evident from the documents submitted to the Tribunal. Whatsoever the pretexts or excuses submitted by the National Socialist leaders when seizing the artistic heritage of western Europe, whether by theft, by so-called preservative confiscations, or by direct purchase from the owners or the markets for the sale of objects of art, the criminal intention is always the same. The German motive was undeniably the establishment of a reserve of securities, if not for the satisfaction of the individual desire, then for the satisfaction of a collective need in conformity with the myth of the "Greater Germany." This reserve of securities would have a triple advantage: A cultural advantage, that is, the advantage of the Hohe Schule. Secondly, an economic advantage, a basis for financial speculation and a reserve of securities easily negotiable in the markets of the world; above all, a reserve of fixed value entirely unaffected by the fluctuations in the cost of raw materials and unaffected either by the lowering or the manipulation of the currency. And, lastly, reserves of securities of political importance in the hands of those negotiating the peace treaties. The Defense will perhaps object that exchanges and purchases on free markets cannot be held against the defendants, because they are in the nature of contracts, and there were agreements, and because equivalents existed.
M. GERTHOFFER: But the facts presented to the Tribunal render it possible to declare that these operations have merely an appearance of regularity, if we remember the conditions under which the contracts were drawn up, that the operations were made under duress, or if we consider the rights over the equivalents supplied, equivalents of exchange represented by stolen objects or works of art, by sales paid for in national currencies coming from contributions of a more or less regular nature, and especially by occupational indemnities or clearing operations. Most of these particulars, from the point of view of the general principles of criminal law, are doubly tainted: On the one hand they were paid in stolen currency, since the work of art forming the object of the sale could never legitimately have become the heritage of the purchaser. On the other hand, fraud and deceit tainted a considerable share of the negotiations, as proved by numerous statements, such as the extract from the minutes of M. Rochlitz's statement of 8 January 1946, which I have just read to the Tribunal under Document Number RF-1317 and which the Tribunal will allow me to recall to its notice by a brief reading of a few more passages. Rochlitz, picture dealer in Paris, states: "Lohse came to see me in February 1941. He told me that he was looking for pictures for different highly placed persons, chiefly for Goering. I showed to him a painting by Wennix of which I was the owner and a "Portrait of a Man," by Titian, of which two-thirds belonged to Birchentski and one-third to me. Lohse bought them. Then 8 or 10 days later he offered me some paintings in exchange, instead of money. Incidentally he considered that I had sold the paintings at too high a price. The price was about 2,000,000. He added that Goering had seen the paintings, that he did not want to pay for them at the price agreed, but that he had given an order to exchange them for modern paintings brought from Germany. He showed me a certain number of paintings and offered me 11 of them in exchange for the 2 paintings.
M. GERTHOFFER: He prevented me from looking at the backs of the paintings." Further on, the same witness states: "I thought at that time that the paintings came from Germany. I found out shortly after that these paintings and those subsequently exchanged with Lohse were paintings confiscated from Jews. When I saw that these had been confiscated I protested and Lohse answered, 'I am acting under Goering's orders, you have nothing to fear. These confiscations have been anticipated by the Armistice Convention and the exchanges are regular.' As I still protested, he called me an enemy of the people." Never-and this is the last remark I shall make on the subject-has history furnished an example of wholesale pillaging organized on so completely an administrative basis. The pillaging, together with the Einsatzstab, became a recognized institution in the sphere of culture, just as it became a recognized institution in the "Economic Detachments" of the ROGES, whose activities have been exposed before the Tribunal. The pillaging of works of art was organized by the highest leaders of the Reich. My colleague of the Prosecution, who has been entrusted with the individual accusations, will return to this matter. I shall content myself with submitting a few more documents and making a few more quotations on this point. Alfred Rosenberg was the responsible Chief of the Einsatzstab. The orders emanated from him, as is shown in the course of the interrogatory; he was heard by Colonel Hinkel, and I submit a copy of the interrogatory of 28 September 1945 as Document Number RF-1332. The Defendant Goering was the official protector of Staff Rosenberg. He himself wrote to Rosenberg on 21 November 1940, Document Number 1651-PS, a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1335, as follows: "I have promised to support energetically the work of your staff and to make available to them what they could not obtain so far, namely, means of transport and guard personnel.
M. GERTHOFFER: The air force has received the order to render utmost assistance." There was discovered, in France, a sheet of gilt-edged paper containing, in an unknown writing, instructions issued by Goering in Paris-a date is written in by an unknown handwriting-on 11 February 1941. I submit the original document to the Tribunal, as well as the translation, as Document Number RF-1333: "All paintings marked 'H' are for the Fuehrer."
THE PRESIDENT: I think this has been read already by the United States. Has this been read already?
M. GERTHOFFER: It has never as yet been read, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then please proceed.
M. GERTHOFFER: ". . . one case marked 'AH' for me. Everything that is marked 'G'..."
THE PRESIDENT: Is this identified as a captured document?
M. GERTHOFFER: It was seized by the French authorities who transmitted it to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the identification to show this is the document captured by the French authorities?
M. GERTHOFFER: This document was transmitted to me as it is, with a series of other documents, of which I have only produced a certain number. If the Tribunal wish I can let them have a special authentication for this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I suppose there is probably a report of the French authorities which sufficiently refers to this document.
M. GERTHOFFER: The document was sent to me with a series of other documents; since they were extremely numerous, we took those that seemed to be the most important in order to present them to the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal wish, I can obtain an affidavit indicating under what conditions the documents were discovered by the French authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, the document hasn't anything on it to indicate that the French Government really found it, nor that they have ever seen it; and therefore the Tribunal does not consider that it is properly proved by mere introductions of the document, without anything on the document. Perhaps you can furnish some supplementary proof.
M. GERTHOFFER: I can bring an affidavit to the Tribunal in order to have it authenticated.
THE PRESIDENT: In what way have the other documents been certified? GERTHOFFER The other documents were certified as a whole in the covering letter. They were not certified individually. This formality can be carried out subsequently.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we must wait until this is properly identified.
M. GERTHOFFER: I continue with the reading of my report and I would point out to the Tribunal that in all the occupied countries the Defendant Goering employed a whole group of buyers, the best known of whom were Dr. Lobse, who was a member of the Einsatzstab, and Hofer. Hofer and Lohse (Page 52) acted for the defendant most often, however, under their own names. The personal collection of the Defendant Goering flourished considerably. In this regard I submit a document under Number RF-1332 to which my colleague, in charge of personal and individual accusations, will soon refer. Among the principal leaders of the Reich connected with the Einsatzstab (Page 55) Rosenberg had, as his superior in the hierarchy, Ribbentrop in his capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs (Page 56). It was Von Ribbentrop who was responsible for the Fuehrer's order of 30 June 1940, which I presented a short time ago under Document Number RF-1301, and which I read to the Tribunal. Ribbentrop's activities are likewise shown in a letter of 1 July 1940, addressed by Ambassador Abetz to the Military Commander of Paris, a copy of which I submit under Document RF-1334 (Page 56). I can read it to the Tribunal, if they wish. It shows Ribbentrop's activities. Here is the letter: "I beg you to be good enough to have transmitted by radio . . ."
THE PRESIDENT: What does this "COL" at the top of the document mean?
M. GERTHOFFER: It is the seal of the office which seized the letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Government in any way certify this document? You see, we do not know what that stamp on it may mean.
M. GERTHOFFER: This document was supplied by the General Agency of Studies and Research. It is one of the supplementary services which affixed this seal and registered it under Number 9724.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see what that is; but it does not of itself show that it is a French document, does it? Is there any French Government report, anything which could be considered to be, within the meaning of the article of the Charter , an official government document or report or an act or a document set up by the government itself? Unless it comes within Article 21 , we are not at liberty to consider it as in evidence; unless there is an affidavit which deals with it.`
M. GERTHOFFER: I do not insist on the presentation of this document since the activities of Ribbentrop as Minister for Foreign Affairs proceed from other PS documents which have never been disputed. It is a superfluous piece of evidence. I therefore do not insist on presenting it. It was merely a further piece of evidence, that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: If you find that there is some government report which identifies it, anything which proves that that stamp on it shows that it is a government document within Article 21, then of course, you may renew your application.
M. GERTHOFFER: I think that it is not necessary, Mr. President. There are sufficient other documents. I do not insist. The activities of the Defendant Keitel are also to be borne in mind.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment! You are passing over that document then. Very wed
M. GERTHOFFER: Exhibit Number RF-1336 is composed of a series of orders, of reports of the army and of the Einsatzstab. It was Document Number 1015-PS(k), submitted by the Prosecutor of the United States as Exhibit Number USA-385. "The directives concerning the co-operation with the Armed Forces will be issued by the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces in agreement with Reichsleiter Rosenberg." I shall not insist on the responsibility of the Defendant Keitel. My colleague, who is charged with the individual indictments, will lay special stress on the development of this point, and to expedite the proceedings I shall merely mention the following: The Defendant Seyss-Inquart bears a grave responsibility for the pillaging in Holland of works of art and books. I thus come to the conclusion of my presentation (Page 64). Whatever the markets, whoever the purchasers where the traffic in works of art is concerned, the motive is the same and the methods are the same. It is difficult to conceive that identical acts of pillaging, committed simultaneously in all the occupied countries of western Europe, were not the result of one single will, a ruthless will to dominate in every sphere, which expressed itself in a desire to invest the most irregular acquisitions with an appearance of legality. This is proved by the numerous declarations of the defendants, such as have been submitted to the Tribunal. A will to dominate the cultural sphere was expressed by the intention to extend the "action" of confiscation to ever fresh fields. A will to despoil the occupied countries manifested itself right up to the very last hours of the occupation. And this will be my last reading to the Tribunal, Document Number 160-PS, entered in the document book under Exhibit Number RF-1346. Here is the text. It is extremely brief: "14 August 1944 - Mission. "The Chiefs of Special Missions (Haupteinsatzfuehrer), Dr. Lobse and Dr.
M. GERTHOFFER: Borchers, of my Einsatzstab for the occupied territories, are charged with the immediate removal, from the Jeu de Paume Museum and the Louvre depot, of works of art taken into safe custody by order of the Fuehrer and still stored in Paris, by all means of transport still available. "The Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich has recently, by a personal directive of 13 August 1944, placed the two above-named persons at the disposal of the Einsatzstab until the completion of this operation. It is requested that every possible assistance be rendered to these Chiefs of Special Missions." Whatever the reasons of a juridical nature submitted by the Germans to justify the seizures of Jewish property (Page 65), this property has never lost the character of private property; and it has, for this reason, always remained guaranteed by the clauses of the Hague Convention and especially by Article 46. The seizure of this property cannot, in particular, be explained as a measure of protection rendered necessary by circumstances, since, for France at least, the French Administration of Domains was in a position to take all the measures desired. As for the fate reserved for the seizures by the National Socialist leaders, the documents. produced have sufficiently shown their intentions and their plans. The Defense will undoubtedly object that important treasures of national works of art from the occupied territories were not taken to Germany. If such an argument were presented, I should answer: 1. For various reasons the occupying authorities did not have the possibility to do so since they barely had time to centralize, to catalog, and to transport the numerous objects of art of which the occupied countries had been dispossessed. 2. It is obvious that the occupational authorities seized by priority the private works of art which are, generally speaking, easily negotiable even in neutral countries, whereas national works of art are, in a certain sense, outside the commercial sphere and are in any case difficult to negotiate in foreign countries.
M. GERTHOFFER: It may perhaps be claimed that, a great number of works of art having been recovered, the accusation of removing them no longer applies. You will consider, Gentlemen, that if many works of art have been recovered by the Allied armies, usually in hiding places, the reprehensible fact held against the defendants nevertheless remains. As a matter of fact these works of art have been recovered against their will and thanks to the victory of the Allied armies. The crime had, therefore, been entirely consummated at the time of their discovery. It is clear from the declaration that it is chiefly works of art belonging to private individuals of Belgian, Dutch, and French nationality, mostly qualified as Jews by the occupying power, which were looted-looted with the obvious intention of gratifying their personal vanity and of obtaining valuable property, viewed from an economic standpoint, contrary to the principles of international law. These acts of pillage were often accompanied by aggravating circumstances, not the least of which was the constant menace of violence threatening the population of the occupied countries. The looting of works of art, therefore, appears as a form of general economic pillaging and the defendants must answer for this before your high jurisdiction.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell me what Document FA-20, 21, and so forth, refers to? There is an inscription which is on these various documents. If you look at DocumentRF-1333 or RF-1334, you will see that on the copies that are before us there is an inscription "International Military Tribunal" and then the "French Delegation, the Public Ministry, Economic Section" and then "LVR, Document FA-21" and 'document FA-20." Now, where is Document FA-21, and where is Document FA-20?
M. GERTHOFFER: It is a serial number referring to the document sent to us. It is 1334 which was rejected by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what is Document FA-20 or Document FA-21, what does it mean?
M. GERTEOFFER: FA-20 is the serial number which had been given to this document in the series of documents which we received. It is of no importance.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that it is only a number given by you or that it is a number given by the Economic Section of the . . .? .
M. GERTHOFFER: It is a number given to it by the Economic Section.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then if that is so, if it is the number given to this document by the Economic Section, it does identify the document as a document of a public nature.
M. GERTHOFFER: We had likewise given to the document which I quoted a short time ago, a number which was 1333 for Document FA-21.
THE PRESIDENT: Document FA-21, 1333.
M. GERTHOFFER: We likewise gave it a number.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, the Economic Section is merely a section of the French Prosecution. M. GERTHOFFER Yes, it is a section of the French Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier.
M.PIERRE MOUNIER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr. President, your Honors, Gentlemen of the High International Military Tribunal, we have the honor of appearing before your high jurisdiction in order to submit the conclusions of the French Prosecution in connection with the responsibilities individually incurred by the defendants brought before this bar of justice. In pursuance of the allotment of the various tasks incumbent on each of the four nations, resulting both from the Indictment presented in compliance with the Charter of 8 August 1945 and the agreements reached between the four Delegations, the French Prosecution, in its presentation, has particularly applied itself to the study of the war crimes under the third Count of the Indictment, that is, the crimes committed by the defendants in France and in the countries of western Europe during hostilities and during the German occupation. It arises quite naturally that, in the explanations about to follow, the case of some of the defendants will be set aside, although their responsibility will already have been established by the other delegations who are, if I may say so, more interested in the crimes committed by the defendants and which correspond to the first , second , and fourth Counts of the Indictment . The French Prosecution, nevertheless, intends to join in the accusations raised by the other delegations against such of the defendants as concern them directly, especially against the Defendants Von Neurath and Von Ribbentrop. The French Delegation associates itself with the statement presented against them by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The same holds good as far as the Defendants Hess, Kaltenbrunner, Frank, Bormann, Funk, Schacht, Von Papen, Baldur von Schirach, Streicher, Raeder, Doenitz, and Fritzsche are concerned. On the other hand, Mr. President, your Honors, we should like, in this brief presentation, slightly to deviate from the order of priority in which the defendants appear, both in the Indictment and in the dock, so as to elucidate matters.