dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M. FAURE: I merely want to recall to the Tribunal this general point that the plan for Germanic predominance is defined according to the German interpretation itself in a public diplomatic document, which is the Tripartite Pact of 27 September 1940 between Germany, Italy, and Japan. In this connection I would like to quote before the Tribunal a few sentences of a comment made upon this treaty by an official German author, Von Freytagh-Loringhoven, a member of the Reichstag, who wrote a book on German foreign policy from 1933 to 1941. This book was published in a French translation in Paris at the publishing house of Sorlot, during the occupation. I do not want to submit this as a document, but merely as a quotation from a published work, a book, which is here in your hands. I read from Page 311: "This treaty granted Germany and Italy a dominant position in the new European order, and it accorded Japan a similar role in the area of eastern Asia." I am now skipping a sentence that has no significance. "At first glance, one could realize that the Tripartite Pact had in mind a double purpose." I shall skip the following sentence which is without interest, and I go to the sentence dealing with the second purpose: "Moreover, it entrusted the parties with a mission for the future, that is to say, the establishment of a new order in Europe and eastern Asia. "Without seeking to lessen the importance of the first question, there can be no doubt that this second purpose, dealing with the future, involved vaster projects and was, in fact, the principal point. For the first time in an international treaty, in the Tripartite Pact , the terms 'space' and 'orientation were used linking one with the other." I now go to Page 314 where the author makes a remark which appears to me to be significant: "Now, the Tripartite Pact places a clear delimitation of the wider spaces created by nature on our globe.
M. FAURE: The concept of space, it is true, is employed explicitly only for the Far East, but it is equally applicable to Europe and that within this conception Africa is comprised. The latter is certainly politically and economically a complement, or if one wishes, an annex of Europe. Moreover, it is obvious that the Tripartite Pact fixes the limits of the two great regions or spaces reserved for the partners, that the pact tacitly recognizes the third area, that is Asia, properly speaking, and that it leaves aside the fourth, the American Continent, thus leaving the latter to its own destiny. In this way the whole surface of the globe is concerned; and an idea, which as yet has not been considered except in theory, was given the significance of a political principle derived from international law." I have felt that this text was of interest because, on the one hand, it clarifies the fact that the African Continent is itself included in the space reserved to the German claimants, and on the other, it states that the government of such an immense space by Germany constitutes international law. This pretense of acting juridically is one of the characteristics of the undertaking to germanize the world from 1940 to 1945. It is undoubtedly one of the reasons which inspired Nazi Germany to proceed only on rare occasions by the annexation of territories. Annexation is not indispensable for the domination of a great area. It can be replaced by other methods which correspond rather accurately to the usual term of "vassalization."
THE PRESIDENT: Do you not think this will be a convenient time to break off? [A recess was taken.]
M. FAURE: Mr. President, before resuming my brief, I should like to ask the Tribunal if they could agree to hear, during the afternoon session, a witness who is M. Reuter, President of the Chamber of Luxembourg.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, M. Faure, if that is convenient to you, the Tribunal is quite willing to hear the witness you name.
M. FAURE: I propose on those conditions to have him heard at the beginning of the second part of the afternoon session. I pointed out a moment ago that the different methods of disguised annexation can correspond to the term "vassalization." From a German author I shall borrow a formula which is eloquent. It is Dr. Sperl, in an article in the Krakauer Zeitung, who used this expression: "A differentiation in methods of German domination." In using, thus, indirect and differentiated methods of domination, the Germans acted in political matters, as we have seen before, in the same way as they acted in economic matters. I had the opportunity to point out to the Tribunal, in my first brief, that the Germans immediately seized the keys of economic life. If you will permit me to use this Latin expression, I shall say as far as sovereignty in the occupied countries is concerned, they insured for themselves the power of the keys, "potestas clavium." They seized the keys of sovereignty in each country. In that fashion, without being obliged to abolish officially national sovereignty as in the case of annexation, they were able to control and direct the exercise of this sovereignty. Beginning with these principle ideas, the plan of my brief was conceived as follows: In the first chapter I shall examine the regime in annexed territories where national sovereignty was abolished. In a second chapter I shall examine the mechanism of the seizure of sovereignty for the benefit of the occupying power in the regions which were not annexed. Then it will be suitable to examine the results of these usurpations of sovereignty and the violation of the rights of the population which resulted from them. I thought It necessary that I should group these results by dealing with the principal ones in a third and fourth chapter. The third chapter will be devoted to spiritual Germanization, that is, to the propaganda in the very extensive sense that the German concept gives to this term.
M. FAURE: Chapter four, and the last, will bear the heading, "The Administrative Organization of Criminal Action." I would now like to point out, as far as the documentation of my brief is concerned, I have forced myself to limit the number of texts which will be presented to the Tribunal; and I shall attempt to make my quotations as short as possible. For the fourth chapter, for example, I might point out that the French Delegation examined more than 2,000 documents, counting only the original German documents, of which I have kept only about fifty. I should like also to point out to the Tribunal how the documents will be presented in the document books which you have before you. The documents are numbered at the top of the page to the right; they are numbered in pencil and correspond to the order in which I shall quote them. Each dossier has a pagination which begins with the number 100. I would ask the Tribunal now to take up the document book entitled: "The Annexed Territories of Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet." In carrying out, without any attempt or cloak of legality, the annexation of occupied territories, Germany did something much more serious than violating the rules of law. It is the negation of the very idea of international law. The lawyer, Bustamante y Sirven, in his treatise on international law expresses himself in the following terms regarding this subject: "It can be observed that never have we alluded at any moment to the hypothesis that an occupation terminates because the occupying power takes possession of the occupied territory through his military forces and without any convention. The motive for this mission is very simple and very clear. Since conquest cannot be considered as a legitimate mode of acquisition, these results are uniquely the result of force and can be neither determined nor measured by the rules of law." On the other hand, I have said just now that Germanization did not necessarily imply annexation. Inversely, we might conceive that annexation did not necessarily mean Germanization.
M. FAURE: We shall prove to the Tribunal that annexation was only a means, the most brutal one of Germanization, that is to say, nazification. The annexation of the Belgian cantons of Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet was made possible by a German law of 18 May 1940 and was the subject of an executive decree of 23 May 1940. These are public regulations, which were published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, Pages 777 and 804. 1 should like to ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this. As a result of this decree the three Belgian districts were attached to the province of the Rhineland, district of Aachen. A decree dated 24 September 1940 installed local German government and German municipal laws. A decree of 28 July 1940 introduced the German judicial system in these territories. Local courts were established in Malmedy, in Eupen and St. Vith, and district courts at Aachen, which could judge cases on equality with the local courts. The Court of Appeal of Cologne replaced the Belgian Court of Cassation for cases where the latter would have been competent. German law was introduced in these territories by the decree of 23 May 1940, signed by Hitler, Goering, Frick, and Lammers and was effective as from September 1940. A decree of 3 September 1940 regulates the details of the transition of Belgian law into German law in the domains of private law, commercial law, and law of procedure. By the decree of annexation German nationality was conferred upon the inhabitants of German racial origin in this Belgian territory. The details of this measure were specified and stipulated by the decree of 23 September 1941. All persons who had acquired Belgian nationality as a result of the ceding of these territories could, according to the terms of the decree, resume their German nationality, with the exception, however, of Jews and Gypsies. All the other inhabitants, on condition that they were racially German, could acquire German nationality, which might be revoked after 10 years.
M. FAURE: I shall not take up at great length the situation which resulted from the annexation of these Belgian territories, for the developments of the situation are analogous to those which we shall examine in the other countries. I simply would like to point out a special detail of this subject: A law of 4 February 1941, signed by Hitler, Goering." Frick, and Lammers granted the citizens of Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet representation in the Reichstag, that is to say, the benefits of the German parliamentary regime, the democratic character of which is known. I shall ask the Tribunal to now take up the file entitled "Alsace and Lorraine." There is a file, "Expose," and a file, "Documents." Contrary to what took place in the Belgian cantons the Germans did not officially proclaim by law the annexation of the three French departments which constitute Alsace and Lorraine.' The fact of this annexation, however, is in no way doubtful. I should like to remind the Tribunal here of extracts from a document which has already been submitted to it, which is Document Number RF-3 of the French documentation. It concerns a deposition made before the French High Court of Justice, by the French Ambassador, Leon Noel, who was a member of the Armistice Delegation. I did not put this document in your book because I shall cite only one sentence from it. The document has already been submitted to the Tribunal, as I have just said. Ambassador Noel, in this document, pointed out the conversations which he had at the time of the signing of the Armistice Convention with the German representatives, notably with the accused Keitel and Jodl. The sentence which I would like to remind the Tribunal of is as follows: "...and likewise, in thinking of Alsace and Lorraine, I required them to say that the administrative and judicial authorities of the occupied territories would keep their positions and functions and would be able to correspond freely with the government." The affirmations are dated 22 June 1940.
M. FAURE: I am now going to submit to the Tribunal a document of 3 September 1940, which is a note of protest of the French Delegation, addressed to the Armistice Commission. I submit this to the Tribunal in order that the Tribunal may see that during the period which. elapsed between these two dates, a period which covers barely 2 months, the Nazis had applied a series of measures which created, in an incontestable manner, a state of annexation. This document which I submit bears the Number RF-701 of the French documentation. It is the first document of the document book which the Tribunal has before it. All the documents in this chapter will bear numbers beginning with the Number 7, that is to say, beginning with RF-701. This document comes from the file of the French High Court of Justice, and the copy submitted to the Tribunal has been certified by the clerk of this jurisdiction. I should like to quote from this document, beginning with the fourth paragraph on Page 1 of the Document Number RF-701: "1. Prefects, subprefects, and mayors, as well as a number of local officials whose tendencies were considered suspicious, have been evicted from their respective offices. " 2. Monseigneur Heintz, bishop appointed under the Concordat to Metz, was driven from his diocese. Several members of the clergy, secular as well as regular, were also expelled under the pretext that, they were French in tongue and mentality. "3. Monseigneur Ruch, the bishop appointed under the Concordat to Strasbourg, was forbidden to enter his diocese and, consequently, to resume his ministry. "4. M. Joseph Burckel was appointed on 7 August, Gauleiter of Lorraine and M. Robert Wagner, Gauleiter of Alsace. The first of these provinces was attached to the Gau of SaarPalatinate; the second to the Gau of Baden. "5. Alsace and Lorraine were incorporated in the civil administration of Germany. The frontier and custom police were then placed on the western limits of these territories. "6. The railroads were incorporated in the German network. "7.
M. FAURE: The post office, telegraph, and telephone administration was taken over by the German postal authorities, who gradually substituted their own personnel for the Alsatian personnel. " 8. The French language was eliminated, not only in administrative life but also from public use. "9. Names of localities were germanized. "10. The racial legislation of Germany was introduced into the country; and as a result of this measure, the Jews were expelled as well as nationals which the German authorities considered to be intruders. "11. Only the Alsatians and Lorrainers who agreed to consider themselves as being of German stock were permitted to return to their homes. "12. The property of associations of a political character and of Jews was confiscated as well as property acquired after 11 November 1918 by French persons. "Nothing illustrates better the spirit which animates these measures, in themselves arbitrary, than the words pronounced publicly 16 July at Strasbourg by M. Robert Wagner. Stressing the elimination of all elements of foreign stock or nationality which was taking place, this high official affirmed that the purpose of Germany was to settle once and for all the Alsatian question. "Such a policy, which could not be the function of subordinate occupational authorities, was equivalent to disguised annexation and is strictly contrary to agreements subscribed to by Germany at Rethondes." Numerous protests were subsequently lodged by the French Delegation. We have attached to our Me a list of these protests; there are 62 of them. This list is found in the book under the Document Number RF-702. The development of the German policy may now be studied through three series of measures which were carried out. First, a body of measures destined to assure the elimination of what can be called the French complex, that is to say, of everything which can tie an inhabitant of an annexed country to his way of life and to his national tradition. Second, a body of measures destined to impose German standards in all domains of life of the population.
M. FAURE: Third, the measures of transportation and of colonization. We use here the German terminology. First, elimination of the French complex. The elimination of French nationality and of French law resulted automatically from the measures which we shall study relative to the imposition of German standards. I should like to point out particularly, that the Germans tried to fight against an elements of French organization which might have survived the suppression of their national juridical conditions. At first they proscribed, in an extraordinarily brutal way, the use of the French language. Several regulations were formulated relative to this. I shall cite only the third regulation, bearing the date of 16 August 1940, entitled, "Concerning the Reintroduction of the Mother Tongue." This document is published in the Journal of German Ordinances or Decrees of 1940, (Verordnungsblatt) on Page 2. It bears Document Number RF-703. The Tribunal will find it in the document book after the Document Number 702, which is the list of French protests. I should like to read a large part of this document, which is interesting; and I shall start at the beginning: "Following the measures undertaken with a view of reintroducing the mother tongue of the Alsatian people, I decree as follows: "1. Official Language. "All public services in Alsace, including administration of communes, of corporations within the meaning of civil law, public establishments, churches, and foundations, as well as tribunals, will use exclusively the German language orally and in writing. The Alsatian population will use exclusively its German mother tongue in both oral and written applications to the above establishments. "2. Christian and Family Names. "Christian names will be exclusively used in their German form orally and in writing, even when they have been inscribed in the French language on the birth register. As soon as this present decree comes into force, only German Christian names may be inscribed upon the birth register.
M. FAURE: Alsatians who bear French Christian names, which do not exist in German form, are asked to apply for a change of their Christian names in order to show their attachment to, Germanism. The same holds good for French family names." I shall skip the following sentence and go to Paragraph 4: "4. It is forbidden to draw up, in the French language, contracts and accounts under private seal of whatever nature they may be. Anything printed on business paper and on forms must be drawn up in the German language. Books and accounts of all business firms, establishments, and companies must be kept in the German language. "5. Inscriptions in Cemeteries. "In the future, inscriptions on crosses and on tombstones can be written only in the German language. This provision applies as well to a new inscription as to the renewal of old inscriptions." These measures were accompanied by a press campaign. Because of the resistance of the population, this campaign was carried on throughout the occupation. I should like to make one citation of an article which is particularly significant, published in the Dernieres Nouvelles de Strasbourg on 30 March 1943. This is not introduced as a document; it is a quotation of a published article. When we read such an article, we think it at first a joke; but we see, subsequently, that it is serious because repressive measures had to be taken against people who sabotaged the German language. I cite: "Germans greet one another with 'Heil Hitler.' We do not want any more French greetings, which we still hear constantly in a thousand different forms. The elegant salutation 'Bonjour' is not made for these rough Alsatian throats, accustomed to the German tongue since the distant epoch of Osfried von Weissenburg. The Alsatian hurts our ears when he says 'boschurr.' When he says 'Au Revoir,' the French think they are listening to an Arabic word, which sounds like 'arwar.' Sometimes they say 'Adje' (Adieu). "These phonetic monstrosities which disfigure our beautiful Alsatian-Germanic dialect resemble a thistle in a flower bed.
M. FAURE: Let us weed them out! They are not worthy of Alsace. Do you believe feminine susceptibility is wounded by saying 'Frau' instead of 'Madame'? We are sure that Alsatians will drop the habit of linguistic whims so that the authorities will not have to use rigorous measures against saboteurs of the German language." After this attack on the language, the National Socialists attacked music. This is the purpose of a decree of 1 March 1941, signed by Dressler, the Chief of the Department of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda in the Office of the Chief of Civil Administration for Alsace. This is Document Number RF-704, published in the German Official Journal (Verordnungsblatt) Page 170 of the year 1941. 1 shall simply cite the title of this decree: "Decree Concerning Undesirable and Injurious Music." The first 3 lines are: "Musical works contrary to the cultural will of National Socialists will be entered on a list of undesirable and injurious music by the Department for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda." After music, now, we have the question of hairdress. In this regulation the ridiculous constantly disputes supremacy with the odious. I would almost like to ask the Tribunal to pardon me, but, truly, nothing in this is invented by us. Here is Document Number RF-705. It is a decree of 13 December 1941 published in the Official Bulletin of 1941, Page 744. This Document RF-705 concerns the wearing of French berets (Basque berets) in Alsace. I read only the first paragraph: "The wearing of French berets (Basque berets) is forbidden in Alsace. Under this prohibition are included all berets which by form or appearance resemble French berets." I may add that any violation of this decree was punishable by fine or imprisonment. The leaders also undertook a long struggle against French flags -which the inhabitants kept in their houses. I cite as an example Document Number RF-706, a German administrative document which we found in the archives of the Gau Administration of Strasbourg. It is dated 19 February 1941. 1 read 3 paragraphs of this document.
M. FAURE: "The Gauleiter desires that the Alsatian population be recommended by the organization of the Block- and Zellenleiter to rip up the French flags still in possession of the people and to use them in a suitable way for household needs. "By the 1st of next May no French Rag should be in private hands. This goal should be attained in a way by which the Blockleiter are to visit each household and recommend the families to use the flags for household needs. It should also be pointed out that after the 1st of next May corresponding conclusions shall be drawn concerning the attitude of owners if, after this date, French flags are still found in private possession." The following document is our Document Number RF-707, which is also an administrative memorandum on the same subject, dated Strasbourg, 26 April 1941, of which I should simply like to read the last sentence: "If, after I June 1941, Alsatians are found still to have French flags in their possession, they are to be sent to a concentration camp for one year." The Nazis feared French influence to such a degree that they even took a special measure to prevent the coming to Alsace of French workers among the laborers brought into this territory for compulsory labor service. This is the purpose of a memorandum of 7 September 1942 of the civil administration in Alsace, which is our Document Number RF-708, also found in the archives of the Gauleitung of Strasbourg. I read the first few lines of this Document Number RF-708. "Given the general situation of the labor market, the Chief of the Civil Administration in Alsace has decided that foreign labor from all European countries could, in the future, be used in Alsace. There is but one exception, for French and Belgians, who cannot be employed in Alsace . . ." The German undertaking against the French sentiment of Alsatians ...
THE PRESIDENT: The translation which came through to me came to me as "must." It came through that the foreign workers of all countries of Europe must, in the future, be used. The word is "pouvait." That does not mean "must," does it? It is "pouvait." Does not that mean "could"?