dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M.MOUNIER: Yes, MR. President, I have not alluded to these statements made by the defendant. I simply wish to point out that when the defendant of whom I am now speaking is cross-examined, we shall be able to confront him with the statements he made, or, at least, I hope so. With the permission of the Court I shall first take up the subject of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart's terrorist activities. These are shown by the following measures: First, a whole system of collective fines. In March 1941 he established a system of collective fines which were imposed upon the Dutch cities where he thought that elements of the resistance movement existed. Thus the city of Amsterdam had to pay a fine of two and a half million. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also established a system of hostages. On 18 May 1942 he published a proclamation announcing the arrest of 450 persons in important official positions, who were only suspected of being in relation with the resistance movement. In fact, the defendant has admitted before Mr. Dodd.... No, I stop, Mr. President, I did not submit these interrogations. I shall pass over this passage and only point it out in a general way, and I beg the Court not to consider this fact as an infringement of the Charter . I am simply pointing out to the Court that in this case, too, the Defendant Seyss-Inquart tried to hide behind the shadow of the Reich Chancellor, the shadow of the Fuehrer, Hitler. By the decree of 7 July 1942, the defendant ordered that the German tribunals, the judges of which he himself appointed, were to try not only the German citizens in Holland, but also citizens suspected of activities hostile to the Reich, to the Nazi Party, or to the German people. At the same time the Defendant Seyss-Inquart introduced the death penalty for those who had not properly performed the security jobs assigned them by the Wehrmacht or the Security Police or who had failed to inform the German command posts of all criminal projects directed against the occupation forces which came to their knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you were citing then a proclamation dated 18 May 1942. You did not give us any number as yet.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I ought to say that I am referring in a general way to the official report of the Netherlands Government (Document Number RF-1429). The government submitted a report . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is it stated there?
M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Did that also apply to the document of 7 July 1942 that you just spoke of?
M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also appointed the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Rauter, General Commissioner for Security. The latter is responsible for the murder of thousands of Dutchmen executed with the passive consent of Seyss-Inquart, inasmuch as Rauter's appointment was always maintained and was never terminated. On the other hand, the Netherlands Government charges the Defendant Seyss-Inquart with the creation of a whole series of exceptional courts. In May 1943 he established summary police jurisdiction, and in fact through an ordinance issued by Hitler, Dutch prisoners of war who had been freed shortly after the cessation of hostilities were once more interned. A tough resistance showed itself in the Dutch factories and the newly established summary jurisdiction sentenced several Dutch citizens who were executed. Moreover, Seyss-Inquart did not fail to boast of all these terrorist measures at a meeting of Dutch collaborators and claimed responsibility for them. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart was Hitler's supreme representative in Holland. He should be considered as responsible, along with the Defendant Sauckel, for the mass deportation of workers from Holland to the Reich between 1940 and 1945. Whether or not the German military authorities played any part themselves in the mobilization of labor, Sauckel's officials in Holland were normally placed under the authority of the Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, and he must be considered as responsible for their actions. It was the Defendant Seyss-Inquart who signed the decree of the Reich Commissioner, Number 26 of 1942, which is found in the official Dutch report, in an official publication ordering the compulsory transport of Dutch labor to Germany. Those who would not work for Germany got nothing to eat; the occupation authorities even went so far as to make huge roundups in the streets of Rotterdam and The Hague in order to procure labor for the fortifications of the Wehrmacht.
M. MOUNIER: In regard to economic pillage during the Defendant Seyss-Inquart's period of office as Commissioner, the Dutch economic system was plundered like that of the other occupied countries. In the winter of 1941-42 woollen goods were requisitioned by order of Seyss-Inquart for the German Army on the Eastern front. In 1943 textiles and every-day household articles were requisitioned for the benefit of the bombed-out German population. Under what the occupation authorities called the "Action Bohm," people of the Netherlands were compelled to sell wines and various objects destined to form gifts for the German population for the celebration of Christmas 1943. The same thing happened with regard to the organization of the black market, for, in order to carry out the Four Year Plan, Seyss-Inquart gave the Defendant Goering and the Defendant Speer competent assistance in the pillage of the Dutch economic system. We can say in this way that a huge black market was fostered and maintained. The Four Year Plan utilized "snatchers" for these alleged purchases but when Dutch prosecutors tried to intervene they were prevented from doing so by the German police. In 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued an ordinance permitting the German authorities in Holland to confiscate the property d all persons who could be accused of hostile activities against the German Reich. The property of the royal family was, on the Defendant Seyss-Inquart's orders, confiscated by the General Commission for Security. The occupation troops could help themselves to everything that was of use to them. This pillage was manifested in a particularly cruel manner by the abuses which went on in connection with the requisition of food products.
M. MOUNIER: In fact, the official report of the Dutch Government and the document already submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution under Document Number RF-139 (Exhibit Number RF-139), and Document Number RF-140 (Exhibit Number RF-140) show that, from the very beginning of the occupation, food storks were systematically removed with the consent of Seyss-Inquart-as was also the case with agricultural produce which was transported to Germany. When a railway strike broke out in the north in September 1944, soon after the liberation of southern Holland, Seyss-Inquart, in order to break the strike, gave orders that no food stocks were to be moved from the northeast to the West. As a result of this, it was impossible to establish food stocks in the West. Consequently, Seyss-Inquart must also be held responsible for the famine which ensued during the winter of 1944-45, causing the death of some 25,000 Dutchmen. In regard to works of art, the pillage was carried on in the same way. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart must be considered responsible for organizing the removal of works of art from Holland, since he expressly called in his friend, Dr. Muhlmann, who was a specialist in this branch. In this connection I refer to the document submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution under Document Numbers RF-1343 and RF-1344. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued a whole series of measures contrary to international law which did considerable harm to the Netherlands. In 1941 the Dutch authorities had established a currency control system which allowed them to keep track of purchases made with German money, either of goods or public funds, with the aim of preventing abuses which would lead to the plundering of Holland's wealth in the form of materials or of currency. On 31 March 1941 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart abolished the "currency" frontier existing between the Reich and the occupied Dutch territory.
M. MOUNIER: By so doing, he paved the way for all the abuses committed in monetary matters by the occupying power, in addition to the impossible sums demanded by Germany to defray the expenses of occupation: 500 million Reichsmark on 24 March 1941. The frontier control between Dutch occupied territory and Germany was also abolished by order of Goering, in order to expedite the pillage of the Netherlands' economic system. When the war began to go badly for the Wehrmacht, especially after 1 September 1944, the destruction become systematic. The objectives aimed at by the Germans in the Netherlands were the following: First, to demolish or put out of action factories, shipyards, basins and docks, port installations, mines, bridges, railway equipment. Second, to flood the western parts of Holland. Third, to seize raw materials, semi-manufactured products, manufactured goods and machines, sometimes by requisitioning, sometimes in return for payment in money, but in many cases simply by force of arms. Fourth, to break open safe-deposits containing securities, diamonds, et r etera, and to take illegal possession of these. The result of these measures, responsibility for which devolves wholly or to a great extent on the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, was to throw Holland into a state of unspeakable and undeserved misery. I have now concluded, Mr. President, the case of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, how long a time do you anticipate you will take this afternoon, because I understand that the case against the Defendant Hess will be presented afterwards; and it is important that he should finish that day, so that the Chief Prosecutor may have a full day for his opening statement.
M.MOUNIER: Mr. President, both yesterday and today I have yielded most willingly to the wishes of the Tribunal. I understand perfectly your anxiety to expedite the trial as much as possible, and in view of this, I shortened the remarks which I was going to make to you this morning. For this reason, too, I state in the name of the French Prosecution that I shall now forego the presentation of the cases of the other defendants, which were on the schedule. I merely ask the Tribunal to refer to the files which we have submitted, except in the case of Keitel and Jodl. If it please the Court, my friend and colleague, M. Quatre, will make a few remarks about these two defendants at the beginning of this afternoon's session. He will try to make them as short as possible. In that way the British Delegation will have the two hours which it needs to present the case of Hess. Consequently, may it please the Court, M. Quatre will take the floor for an hour at two o'clock and then give way to the British Delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: Another question that I would like to ask you, M. Mounier, as to the documents against the other defendants, other than Keitel and Jodl, have they been furnished to the defendants concerned in them?
M.MOUNIER: Yes, they have, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] ., 7 Feb. 46 Afternoor2 Session
M. CONSTANT QUATRE (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): MR. President, Your Honors, I have the honor today to bring to a close the presentation of the French Prosecution by recapitulating the charges against the Defendants Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl. Before going into my statement, I shall ask the Tribunal for permission to present a few observations. First of all, to spare the time of the Tribunal, we have joined the two defendants in the same brief. Their activities were carried on so much in common that in separating them we would run the risk of tedious repetitions and for this reason, I am condensing as far as possible what I have to say. This presentation consists of three parts. In an introduction, I have endeavored to show the position of the two defendants in the general design of their activities. The first part following this deals with the preparation of plans of aggression, and will only be mentioned. It has already been sufficiently expounded so that it need not be brought up again. The second part will claim my special attention. It concerns the responsibility incurred by the defendants for the crimes committed in the course of the war. In this connection, I shall not mention all the documents, testimonies, and interrogatories concerning these two defendants. If their guilt is a function of the repetition of their crimes, its main characteristic is the criminal intent which caused these crimes to be carried out. This criminal intent is made particularly clear by the few documents to which I have limited myself. I shall ask the Tribunal's permission to make a few intentionally brief quotations from these. The documents quoted will be first quoted under the session number, which you will find written in red in the margin of the copy before you. I shall thereupon indicate the original number. If the document has already been submitted, I shall furnish the date at which it was submitted and the number under which it was submitted. As Chief of the National Socialist Party and subsequently as Chancellor of the Reich, Hitler endeavored to gain sole control of the German Army.
M. CONSTANT QUATRE (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): He wanted the unity which he had established between Party and State to prevail throughout the Army, the State, and the Party. Only under these conditions would the war machine be capable of fulfilling its function. The initial impulse would come from the Party, the State would translate it into action, and the Army would impose it, if necessary, both at home and abroad. To achieve this aim it was necessary first of all to impose legislation which would in fact bring the whole military organization under the Fuehrer's orders. It was also necessary to take steps to eliminate personalities too unyielding to submit to these measures. The execution of Von Schleicher in 1934 and the disgrace of Blomberg in 1938 are two examples. All that remained was to provide for their replacement by military chiefs whose conscience was sufficiently elastic to allow them to play the part of faithful executives. Keitel and Jodl were among these. - Their personal convictions and their rapid rise to eminence prove this. Questioned on 3 August 1945 by Colonel Ecer of the Czechoslovakian Military Judiciary, the Defendant Keitel spoke thus of his relations with Hitler and the National Socialist Party, (Exhibit Number RF-1430, formerly Document Number RF-710): "In my innermost thoughts I was a faithful supporter of Adolf Hitler and my political convictions were National Socialist. When the Fuehrer accorded me his confidence, my personal contact with him further influenced me towards National Socialism.
M. CONSTANT QUATRE (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Today I am still a firm partisan of Adolf Hitler, which does not imply that I adhere to all the points of the program and policy of the Party." On 7 November 1943, in a speech delivered in Munich to the leaders of the Reich and of the provinces on the strategic position of Germany at the beginning of the fifth year of the war, Jodl made the following statement by way of peroration, Exhibit Number RF-1431, Document Number 172, submitted by the American Prosecution of 27 November 1945 under Number USA-34: "At this moment I should like to testify, not only with my lips but from the bottom of my heart, that our trust and confidence in the Fuehrer are boundless." Keitel, who entered the Army in 1901, was still a colonel in 1931. Jodl, who was 3 years younger, was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel only in 1932, in spite of the opportunities offered by the war of 1914-18. The past years had brought them only mediocre advancement. Those which lay before them were to lead them to the heights of honor and responsibility. They saw their star rising at last simultaneously with that of the new master of Germany. The immediate result was their admission to public life. , During the years preceding the war, Keitel did not cease to exercise high functions in the most exalted ranks of the German Armed Forces. As he was in special favor with the new master of Germany, he adopted every possible means of strengthening the influence of Nazi ideology within the Army from the moment of Hitler's accession to power. His activities in the Armed Forces Department were particularly fruitful. This was a ministerial organization which temporarily replaced the Reich Ministry of War and was responsible among other things for the preparation and co-ordination of plans affecting the German Army. The defendant's period in office is rendered the more noteworthy by the fact that sweeping changes in organization had just been effected. The Reichswehr of the professional soldier was replaced by the Wehrmacht, recruited by compulsory military service.
M. CONSTANT QUATRE (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): It was not enough to call the whole youth of Germany to the flag; it had to be clothed and fed and supplied with powerful modern weapons. This increase in the number of men under arms, these beginnings of a military economy and of a policy of rearmament, were largely due to the efforts of the defendant, who at that time enjoyed, in fact if not in theory, the prerogatives of a Minister of War. On 4 February 1938, when Hitler abolished the War Ministry and proclaimed himself Commander-in-Chief, he transferred the chief powers of the Ministry to the High Command of the Armed Forces and its chief, Keitel, became at the same time Chief of the Fuehrer's personal staff. The defendant was to retain these functions until the German Army capitulated. As Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, Keitel did not exercise direct authority over the three services composing the Armed Forces: the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, which were directly under Hitler. His particular function was the co-ordination of matters affecting the three services; he acted as liaison agent between Hitler and these three services, but he did more than this. His main role was that of adviser. He collated the information reaching him from the different services under his orders. This included reports from the Operations Staff under Jodl, information from the office of Admiral Canaris, reports made by the economic Armament Office under General Thomas, and by the administrative, financial, and legal branches. No matter how personal and authoritative Hitler's way of working may have been, it did not exclude the regular and constant participation of Keitel in the acts of his master. It was he who was in a position to carry o ut his chief's demands, to suggest, to prepare, or to modify his decisions.
M. CONSTANT QUATRE (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): If we consider his qualifications as a member of the Defense Council of the Reich and as a member of the Secret Cabinet Council and also consider their political importance, it is easy to see the scope of the role played by the defendant in every sphere, whether in the preparation of military plans in the strict sense of the term, the life or conduct of the German Army, the distribution of manpower, or the utilization of the economic resources of Germany. Whenever a meeting was held at general headquarters or at the Chancellery, Keitel was present. He was present when Hitler made decisions of major importance. He was at his side on marches into the countries to be annexed. When orders by Hitler had to be transmitted, he in his turn would give orders, elaborating his chief's ideas and adding his personal contribution. In countersigning Hitler's decrees, Keitel did not alter the validity of these texts as regards the law of the Third Reich, but he gave Hitler a guarantee of their usefulness for the Wehrmacht and their execution to the last detail. It was in that way in particular that he acknowledged responsibility. Like Keitel, Jodl was one of those men who staked their success on the success of the new regime and its creator. His attitude, his orders, and his activities show that he was a general inspired by political considerations, attached to Hitler, who showered favors on him. In assuming the direction of the general Operations Staff of the High Command of the Armed Forces, he also took an active and important part in the elaboration of his chief's orders. Hitler represented the exclusive right to make decisions (Page 9 of my brief) but the two defendants who shared his every-day life during the period of hostilities brought his decisions into being. elaborated them, and ensured their execution. Jodl fulfilled this role of counsellor, although in theory his authority was by no means equal to Keitel's.
M. CONSTANT QUATRE (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): This did not prevent him from intervening in matters outside the field of pure operations, but in which he likewise engaged his personal responsibility. This responsibility of the two defendants has a bearing on the preparation and execution of plans of aggression. We shall not come back to this point. In this matter our British colleague, Mr. Roberts, has brought out perfectly the role played by these two defendants, and we shall consider more particularly their responsibility in the conduct of the war. First of all, their responsibility for the murder and ill-treatment of civilians, collective sanctions, and the murder of hostages (Page 13 of my brief). From the beginning of the war and keeping pace with the occupation of new territories by the German armies, there appeared measures against the civilian population, in violation of the laws of war and of the law of nations. These violations range from the apparently harmless to the most severe sanctions, the most cruel treatment, the most senseless and inhuman executions. If we turn to the occupied territories in the East, towards Norway, towards the western countries, we find everywhere the same reactions, the same scrupulous execution of the same directives. On 16 September 1941, Keitel signed an order regarding the repression of communist insurrectionary movements in the occupied territories. This is Exhibit Number RF-1432, Document Number 389-PS. If the Tribunal will permit me, I should like to read briefly from this document. Keitel's directives are the following: "Every case of insurrection against the German occupying power is to be attributed to communist initiative irrespective of the particular circumstances. "The most severe measures are to be taken to nip the rising in the bud at the first signs, so as to uphold the authority of the forces of occupation and to prevent such movements from spreading. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in the countries in question human life often means nothing and that intimidation can be achieved only by unusual severity.
M. CONSTANT QUATRE (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): In this case, the death penalty must as a general rule be considered a fitting reprisal for the death of a German soldier."
THE PRESIDENT: We have had this read already.