dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M. DE MENTHON: Sometimes this great hope expresses itself with difficulty or loses its way or deceives itself or knows the dread return to barbarism, but it persists always and finally constitutes the powerful lever which brings about the progress of humanity despite everything. These aspirations always reborn, these concerns constantly awakened, this anguish unceasingly present, this perpetual combat against evil form in a definitive manner the sublime grandeur of man. National Socialism only yesterday imperiled all of this. After that gigantic struggle where two ideologies, two conceptions of life were at grips, in the name of the people whom we represent here and in the name of the great human hope for which they have so greatly suffered, so greatly fought, we can without fear and with a clean conscience rise as accusers of the leaders of Nazi Germany. As Mr. Justice Jackson said so eloquently at the opening of this Trial, "Civilization could not survive if these crimes were to be committed again," and he added, "The true plaintiff in this Court is civilization." Civilization requires from you after this unleashing of barbarism a verdict which will also be a sort of supreme warning at the hour when humanity appears still at times to enter the path of the organization of peace only with apprehension and hesitation. If we wish that on the morrow of the cataclysm of war the sufferings of martyred countries, the sacrifices of victorious nations, and also the expiation of guilty people will engender a better humanity, justice must strike those guilty of the enterprise of barbarism from which we have just escaped. The reign of justice is the most exact expression of the great human hope. Your decision can mark a decisive stage in its difficult pursuit. Undoubtedly even today, this justice and this punishment have become possible only because, as a first condition, free peoples emerged victorious from the conflict. This is actually the link between the force of the victors and the guilt of the vanquished leaders who appear before Your High Tribunal.
M. DE MENTHON: But this link signifies nothing else but the revelation of the wisdom of nations that justice, in order to impose itself effectively and constantly upon individuals and upon nations, must have force at its disposal. The common will to put force in the service of justice inspires our nations and commands our whole civilization. This resolution is brilliantly confirmed today in a judicial case where the facts are examined scrupulously in all their aspects, the penal nature of the offense rigorously established, the competency of the Tribunal incontestable, the rights of the defense intact total publicity insured. Your judgment pronounced under these conditions can serve as a foundation for the moral uplift of the German people, first stage in its integration into the community of free countries. Without your judgment, history might incur the risk of repeating itself, crime would become epic, and the National Socialist enterprise a last Wagnerian tragedy; and new Pan-Germanists would soon say to the Germans: "Hitler and his companions were wrong because they finally failed, but we must begin again some day, on other foundations, the extraordinary adventure of Germanism." After your judgment, if only we know how to enlighten this people and watch over their first steps on the road to liberty, National Socialism will be inscribed permanently in their history as the crime of crimes which could lead it only to material and moral perdition, as the doctrine which they should forever avoid with horror and scorn in order to remain faithful or rather become once more faithful to the great norms of common civilization. The eminent international jurist and noble European, Politis, in his posthumous book entitled International Ethics reminds us that, like all ethical rules, those which should govern international relations will never be definitely established unless all peoples succeed in convincing themselves that there is definitely a greater profit to be gained by observing them than by transgressing them.
M. DE MENTHON: That is why your judgment can contribute to the enlightenment of the German people and of all peoples. Your judgment must be inscribed as a decisive act in the history of international law in order to prepare the establishment of a true international society excluding recourse to war and enlisting force permanently in the service of the justice of nations; it will be one of the foundations of this peaceful order to which nations aspire on the morrow of this frightful torment. The need for justice of the martyred peoples will be satisfied, and their sufferings will not have been useless to the progress of mankind.
THE PRESIDENT: M. De Menthon, would you prefer to continue the case on behalf of France this afternoon, or would you prefer to adjourn?
M. DE MENTHON: We are at the disposal of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, if that is so, then I think we better go on until 5 o'clock.
M. DE MENTHON: It might be preferable to adjourn, because M. Faure's brief which is going to be presented will last at least an hour. Perhaps it is better to adjourn until tomorrow morning. However, we win remain at the disposal of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: When you said that the proof which will now be presented would take an hour, do you mean by that that it is an introductory statement or is it a part of the main case which you are presenting?
MADE MENTHON: Your Honor, it is part of the general case.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it not be possible then to go on until 5 o'clock?
MADE MENTHON: Yes, quite so.
M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr. President and Your Honor, I propose to submit to the Tribunal an introduction dealing with the first and the second part of the French case. The first part relates to forced labor; the second part to economic looting. These two over-all question s are complementary to each other and form a whole. Manpower on the one hand and material property on the other constitute the two aspects of the riches of a country and the living conditions in that country. Measures taken with regard to the one necessarily react on the other, and it is understandable that in the occupied countries German policy with regard to manpower and economic property was inspired from the very beginning by common directing principles. For this reason the French Prosecution has deemed it logical to submit successively to the Tribunal those two briefs corresponding to the letters "H" and "E" of the third Count of the Indictment . My present purpose is to define these initial directives covering the German procedure in regard to manpower and to material in the occupied territories. When the Germans occupied the territories of Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, and part of continental France, they thereby assumed a material power of constraint with regard to the inhabitants and a material power of acquisition with regard to its property. They thus had in fact the possibility of utilizing these dual resources on behalf of the war effort. On the other hand, legally they were confronted with precise rules of international law relating to the occupation of territories by the military forces of a belligerent state. These rules very strictly limit the rights of the occupant, who may requisition property and services solely for the needs of the army of occupation. I here allude to the regulation annexed to the Convention concerning the Laws and Customs of War signed at The Hague on 18 October 1907, Section III, and in particular to the Articles 46, 47, 49, 52, and 53.
M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): If it please the Tribunal, I shall merely cite the paragraph of Article 52 which defines in a perfectly exact manner the lawful conditions of requisition of persons and property: "Requisitions in kind and of services may be demanded of communities or of inhabitants only for the needs of the army of occupation. They will be proportionate to the resources of the country and of such a nature that they do not imply for the population the obligation of taking part in war operations against their native country." These various articles must, moreover, be considered in the general spirit defined in the preamble of the Convention, from which I take the liberty of reading the last paragraph to the Tribunal: "Until such time as a more complete code of the laws of war can be enacted, the High Contracting Parties deem it opportune to state that in cases not included in the regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the safeguard and direction of the principles of the law of nations derived from the established usages among civilized nations, the laws of humanity, and the requirements of public conscience." From this point of view it is very evident that the total exploitation of the resources of occupied countries for the benefit of the enemy's war economy is absolutely contrary to the law of nations and to the requirements of public conscience. Germany signed the Hague Convention and it must be pointed out that she made no reservations at that time except with regard to Article 44, which relates to the supply of information to the belligerents. She made no reservation with regard to the articles which we have cited nor with regard to the preamble. These articles and the preamble, moreover, reiterate the corresponding text of the previous Hague Convention of 28 July 1899. German official ratifications of the Conventions were given on 4 September 1900 and 27 November 1909.
M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): 1 have purposely recalled these well-known facts in order to emphasize that the Germans could not fail to recognize the constant principles of international law to which they subscribed on two occasions, long before their defeat in 1918 and consequently outside the alleged pressure to which they referred in regard to the Treaty of Versailles . While on this subject of juridical theory, may I point out that in the arrangement signed at Versailles on 28 June 1919 in connection with the military occupation of the territories of the Rhine, reference is made in Article 6 to the Hague Convention in the following terms: "The right of requisition in kind and in services as formulated by the Hague Convention of 1907 will be exercised by the allied and associate armies of occupation." Thus, the governing principles of the rights of requisition by the occupiers is confirmed by a third international agreement subscribed to by Germany, who in regard to the occupation of her own territory is here the beneficiary of this limitation. What, then, will the conduct of the Germans be like, in view of this factual. situation, which involves power and temptation, and in view of this legal situation which involves a limitation? The Tribunal is already aware, by virtue of the general presentation of the American Prosecution, that the conduct of the Germans was to profit by the fact and to ignore the law. The Germans systematically violated international rules and the law of nations, as far as we are concerned, both by forced labor and by spoliation. Detailed illustrations of these acts in the Western countries will be laid before you in the briefs which will follow my own. For my part I propose to concentrate 'for a moment on the actual concepts which the Germans had from the outset. In this connection I shall submit to the Tribunal three complementary propositions.
M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): First Proposition: From the very beginning of the occupation, the Germans decided, in the interests of their war effort, to seize in any way possible all the resources, both material and human, of the occupied countries. Their plan was not to take any account of legal limitations. It is not under the spur of occasional necessity that they subsequently perpetrated their illicit acts, but in pursuance of a deliberate intention. Second Proposition: However, the Germans took pains to mask their real intentions; they did not make known that they rejected international juridical rules. On the contrary, they gave assurance that they would respect them. The reasons for this camouflage are easy to understand. The Germans were anxious from the beginning to spare public opinion in the occupied territory. Brutal proceedings would have aroused immediate resistance which would have hampered their actions. They also wished to deceive world opinion, and more particularly American public opinion, since the United States of America had at that time not yet entered the war. The third proposition which I lay before the Tribunal results from the first two. As the Germans contemplated achieving their aims and masking their intentions, they were of necessity bound to organize a system of irregular means, while maintaining an appearance of legality. The complexity and the technical character of the proceedings they used enabled them easily to conceal the real state of affairs from the uninitiated or the merely uninformed. These disguised means proved, in fact, just as efficient and perhaps even more so than would have been brutal seizure. They moreover enabled the Germans to have recourse to such brutal action the day they deemed that this would yield them more advantages than inconvenience.
M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): We are of the opinion that this analysis of the German intentions is of interest to the Tribunal for, on the one hand, it demonstrates that the illicit acts were premeditated and that their authors were aware of their reprehensible character; and on the other hand, it enables one to understand the scope and extent of these acts, despite the precautions taken to mask them. The evidence which the Prosecution will submit to the Tribunal refers chiefly to the second and third propositions, for as regards the first, that is to say, the criminal intention and premeditation, it is' demonstrated by the discrepancy between the facade and reality. I say in the first place that the Germans at the time of the occupation made a pretense of observing the rules of international law. Here is, by way of example, a proclamation to the French population, signed by the Commander-in-Chief of the German Army. This is a public document which is reproduced in the Official Journal, containing the decrees issued by the military governor for French occupied territories, Number 1 dated 4 July 1940. 1 submit to the Tribunal this document, which will bear Number RF-1 of the French documentation; and from it I cite merely the following sentence: "The troops have received the order to treat the population with regard and to respect private property provided the population remains calm." The Germans proceeded in identical manner in all the occupied countries. I also submit to the Tribunal the text of the same proclamation, dated 10 May 1940, which was published in the Official Journal of the Commander-in-Chief in Belgium and in the north of France, Number 1, Page 1, under the title "Proclamation to the Population of Belgium." The German text, as well as the Flemish text, bear the more complete title, "Proclamation to the Population of Holland and Belgium." In view of the identical nature of these texts, this copy may be considered as Document Number RF-1 (bis) of the French documentation.
M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): I now submit another proclamation entitled, "To the Inhabitants of Occupied Countries!" dated 10 May 1940, and signed "The Commander-in-Chief of the Army Group." This is likewise published in the Official Journal of German ordinances. This will be Document Number RF-2 of the French documentation. I will cite the first two paragraphs: "The Commander-in-Chief of the German Army has given me authority to announce the following: "I. The German Army guarantees the inhabitants full personal security and the safeguard of their property. Those who behave peacefully and quietly have nothing to fear." I also quote passages from Paragraphs V, VI, and VII: "V. The administrative authorities of the state, communities, the police, and schools shall continue their activities. They therefore remain at the service of their own population.... "VI. All enterprises, businesses, and banks will continue their work in the interest of the population.... "VII. Producers of goods of prime necessity, as well as merchants, shall continue their activities and place their goods at the disposal of the public." The passages which I have just quoted are not the literal reproduction of international conventions, but they reflect their spirit. Repetition of the terms, "at the service of the population," "in the interest of the population," "at the disposal of the public" must necessarily be construed as an especially firm assurance that the resources of the country and its manpower will be preserved for that country and not diverted in favor of the German war effort. We pass now Document under Number RF-2 (bis) to the next of the same proclamations signed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army Group and published in the Official Journal of the Commander-in-Chief in Belgium, numbered as above, Page 3. Finally, on 22 June 1940, an armistice convention was signed between the representatives of the German Government and the representatives of the de facto authority which was at that time assuming the Government of France. This convention is likewise a public document.
M. EDGAR FAURE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): It will be submitted to the Tribunal at a later stage as the first document of the economic case, At this stage I merely wish to cite a sentence of Paragraph 3, which reads as follows: "In the occupied districts of France the German Reich exercises all the rights of an occupying power." This constitutes then a very definite reference to international law. Moreover, the German plenipotentiaries gave in this respect complementary oral assurances. On this matter I submit to the Tribunal, in the form of French Exhibit Number RF-3 (Document RF-3), an extract from the deposition made by Ambassador Leon Noel in the course of proceedings before the French High Court of Justice. This extract is reproduced from a book entitled Transcript in extenso of the Sessions of the Trial of Marshal Petain, printed in Paris in 1945 at the printing office of the official journals and constitutes a document admissible as evidence in accordance with the Charter of the Tribunal, Article 21 . This is the statement of M. Leon Noel, which I desire to cite to the Tribunal. M. Leon Noel was a member of the French Armistice Delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to present this document to us?
M. FAURE: This document is presented to the Tribunal. We have given to the Tribunal the transcript of the proceedings, and in the book of documents the Tribunal will find the excerpt I am now quoting.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not in possession of it at present. I do not know where it is.
M. FAURE: I think that possibly this document was handed to the Secretariat of the Tribunal rather late, but it will be here immediately. May it please the Tribunal, I merely intend to read a short extract from this document today.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have it tomorrow, I hope?
M. FAURE: Certainly, Mr. President. [Quoting.] "I have also obtained a certain number of replies from German generals which I believe could have been subsequently used-from General Jodl, who in the month of May last signed at Reims the unconditional surrender of Germany and from General (subsequently Marshal) Keitel, who a few weeks later was to sign in Berlin the ratification of this surrender. In this way I led them to declare in the most categorical manner that in no event would they interfere with administration, that the rights which they claimed for themselves under the convention were purely and simply those which in similar circumstances international law and international usage concede to occupation armies, that is to say, those indispensable for the maintenance of security, transportation, and the food supply needs of these armies." These assertions and promises on the part of the Germans were therefore formal. Now, even at that time, they were not sincere. Indeed, not only did the Germans subsequently violate them, but from the very beginning they organized a system whereby they were enabled to accomplish these violations in the most efficacious manner and at the same time in a manner which enabled them to some extent to mask them. As far as economy and labor are concerned, this German system comes from a very simple idea. It consisted in supervising production at its beginning and its end. On the one hand, the Germans embarked immediately upon the general requisitioning of all raw materials and all goods in the occupied countries. Thenceforth, it would depend upon them to supply, or not to supply, raw material to the national industry. They were thus in a position to develop one branch of production rather than another, to favor certain undertakings, and, inversely, to oblige other undertakings to close down. As events and opportunities demanded, they organized this appropriation of raw materials, principally with a view to facilitating their distribution in their own interest but the principle was continuously maintained.
M. FAURE: They thus held, as it were, the key of entrance to production. On the other hand, they also held the exit key, that is to say, of finance. By securing the financial means in the form of the money of an occupied country, the Germans were able to purchase products and to acquire, under the pretense of legality, the output of the economic activity of the country. In point of fact, the Germans obtained for themselves from the outset such considerable financial means that they were easily able to absorb the entire productive capacity of each country. If the Tribunal finds it suitable, I will interrupt at this point. [The Tribunal adjourned until 18 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]
M. FAURE: Mr. President, Your Honors. At yesterday's session I explained to the Tribunal the principles of the provisions made by the Germans to ensure the seizure of raw materials and the control of finance in the occupied countries. These provisions will be demonstrated by numerous documents which will be presented to the Tribunal in the course of the presentation of the case on economic spoliation and forced labor. I shall not quote these documents at this moment since, as I pointed out yesterday, the purpose of my introduction is limited to the initial concepts of the Germans in these matters. I shall cite only one document, which reveals the true intentions of the Germans in the very first period. This document bears our Document Number RF-3 (bis), and I offer it in evidence to the Tribunal. It relates particularly to Norway. It consists of a photostatic copy, certified, of a transcript of a conference held in Oslo, 21 November 1940, under the presidency of the Reich Commissioner. I would point out to the Tribunal that we submit this document as being particularly significant, because Norway is a country which was occupied at a very early date by the Germans. The date of 21 November 1940, which you see, refers to the very earliest period of the German occupation, and moreover, in the text of the conference, allusion is made to the situation of the 7 months preceding. You will find there the exact psychology of the occupation as it existed in this period of April 1940 to November 1940, that is to say, at the time, or even before, when the Germans, while invading other countries, made the reassuring proclamations which I read to the Tribunal yesterday. There were 40 personages present at the conference, of whom State Secretary Dr. Landfried represented the Reich Ministry of Economics. This is how the Reich Commissioner expresses himself: "Today's conference is the continuation of a conference which was held in Berlin.