dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M. MOUNIER: President and Your Honors, I would respectfully refer the Tribunal to the report submitted by the Economic Section yesterday, which was made by Dr. Scholz, the associate of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This report was submitted by the Economic Section under Exhibit Number RF-1323 (Document Number 1015-PS), and in it the Tribunal will find enumerated everything that the Einsatzstab took out of France. In this connection I shall make an incidental remark in answer to the question that the President asked my colleague yesterday about the Rothschild collections. The President asked my colleague, "Have you proof that certain collections and objects of value were taken from the Rothschild collections?" I should like, Mr. President, to point out that there are two proofs of this. The first is the immediate result of the Rosenberg interrogation of 23 September 1945. I have just spoken to the Tribunal of the all-important questions put to the Defendant Rosenberg as to the legitimacy and legal basis of these removals. I beg the Tribunal to refer to Page 5 of these minutes. I read from the text the question asked by the American officer in charge of the interrogation, my eminent friend, Colonel Hinkel: "Question: 'How do you justify the confiscation of art treasures belonging to the Rothschild family?"'-A very precise question. It concerned the art treasures taken from the Rothschild family by Rosenberg's organization. "Answer: 'Still from the same general point of view' " That means that the Defendant Rosenberg claimed to justify the confiscations made to the detriment of the Rothschilds! by the reasons which I had the honor of analyzing to the Tribunal a few moments ago. A second consequence: The Defendant Rosenberg thus admitted with his own lips that the Rothschild family was among those despoiled. That confession, Mr. President, Your Honors, can be considered as one of the proofs, one of the main proofs. This is the first answer, then, to the question that the President asked yesterday.
M. MOUNIER: The second proof which I wish to present to the Tribunal is the following: I beg the Tribunal to refer to the report by Dr. Scholz mentioned above and produced yesterday in the document book of the Economic Section. This is Exhibit Number RF-1323 (Document Number 1015-PS). If the Tribunal will kindly refer to it, that is to say, the report by Dr. Scholz, the second paragraph of Page 1, it will find the following statement, "The special staff not only seized a very considerable part of the collection..."
THE PRESIDENT: [Interposing.] As I said the other day, we cannot keep all the books before us; but it seems to me that, as you have shown that the Defendant Rosenberg agreed that this collection had been taken, that is quite sufficient.
M.MOUNIER: Mr. President, I understand perfectly your point of view. I should like respectfully to point out to you that I was to speak immediately after my colleague, and if I had done so you would have had this document book before you. We had a delay of one day, and I apologize for not having thought of asking you to bring this document again this morning. However, I respectfully ask the Tribunal to be good enough to note this reference which it will easily find. It is a very short passage, which I should like to read to the Tribunal. It will not take very much time.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
M.MOUNIER: This declaration is simply the following: "The special staff"-that is to say, the Einsatzstab Rosenberg-"not only seized a very considerable portion of the collection which the Rothschilds had left behind in their Paris mansion..." I shall not read the rest. Here then, Gentlemen, is an official report which cannot be disputed and which demonstrates, like the previous proof, that the Rothschild collection was among those pillaged. I do not insist on these facts, which are known to you. It seems to me that the two points on which I have just cast a ray of light suffice to make it clear that illegal seizures-fraudulent seizures- were really operated by the Defendant Rosenberg to the detriment of France and to the detriment, likewise, of the western countries. As for their importance, I do not want to abuse the patience of the Tribunal by quoting statistics. I respectfully ask the Tribunal to refer to the Scholz report which I have twice mentioned in the course of my previous statements. I should not, however, wish to leave the case of Rosenberg, for the time being, without quoting to the Tribunal a passage from an article by the French writer Francois Mauriac, of the French Academy. Francois Mauriac was present on 7 November 1945 at the inaugural session of the National Constituent Assembly at the Palais. Bourbon. On this occasion Francois Mauriac invoked a memory which was recalled in Le Figaro of 6 November 1945 in the following terms: "Almost five years ago to a day, from the height of this rostrum, the most illustrious in Europe, a man spoke to other men dressed in field gray. His name was Alfred Rosenberg. I can testify to the exact date. It was 25 November 1940. "Rosenberg leaned his elbows on this rostrum, where the voices of Jaures and of Albert De Mun were once heard and where, on 11 November 1918, Clemenceau nearly died of joy. Here are his words: " 'In one gigantic revolutionary burst'-he said-'the German nation has reaped such a harvest as never before in its history.
M.MOUNIER: The French will admit one day, if they are honest, that Germany has freed them from the parasites of which they could not rid themselves unaided.' "And the Nazi philosopher"-continues Mauriac-"then proclaimed the victory of blood. He meant"-writes Mauriac- "the victory of race; but it happens that a man may utter prophetic words unwittingly and without realizing the full import of the words which God places upon his lips. As Rosenberg predicted at the Palais Bourbon on 25 November 1940, it was indeed blood that won the victory. It was the blood of the martyrs which in the end choked the executioners." M. President, with the approval of the Court, and with the same brevity as heretofore-and I hope the Tribunal will appreciate the care I am taking not to abuse its patience-I should like to say a few words on the individual charge against the Defendant Fritz Sauckel. Your Honors, the Tribunal is already acquainted with the really remarkable work, the genuinely positive work, presented to it some time ago by my colleague and friend, M. Jacques Bernard Herzog. This is why, with your permission, I shall pass over the facts themselves, which are known to you, and limit myself to the part beginning oh Page 3 of my brief; and we shall examine together, if it please the Tribunal, the grounds for the pleas advanced up to now by the Defendant Fritz Sauckel One question must be asked first of all: Was Fritz Sauckel acting under orders when he carried out this recruiting-so-called voluntary in part but compulsory in most cases-this recruiting of laborers destined to supply the needs of the German Reich? According to Sauckel, when he was appointed Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor on 27 March 1942, his initial program did not include the conscription of foreign workers; and it is supposed to have been Hitler who intervened then.
M.MOUNIER: For it is striking, Your Honors, when you read the minutes of the interrogations and also, I am sure, when the defendants speak before the Tribunal, you will see that most of them take refuge behind two great shadows; the shadow of the former Fuehrer and the shadow of his accursed second, Himmler. Here we can see Hitler intervening to tell Sauckel, according to the latter, that the use of foreign workers in the occupied territories is not contrary to the Hague Convention for two reasons; firstly, the countries involved surrendered unconditionally and consequently we can impose any kind of labor conditions on them, and secondly because Russia has not signed this convention. If, therefore, we use Russian workers on compulsory labor and make them work to death, we are not violating the Hague Convention. This, Your Honors, is the reasoning of the Defendant Sauckel on this point, without the addition of a single word. Hitler is supposed to have ordered him to recruit workers, at first using persuasion and then all the means of compulsion which you already know; suppression of ration cards, for instance, which compelled men, who saw their wives and children starving, to volunteer for work which would be used against their own fellow citizens and against the soldiers of the Allied armies with whom all their sympathies lay. The Tribunal will know how to deal with such an excuse for, in the first place, Sauckel, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by his office, enjoyed full authority in regard to everything to do with the labor necessary for the execution of the Four Year Plan. On the other hand, on taking up his appointment as Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation, Sauckel knew that he would be unable to carry out his mission without resorting sooner or later to means of coercion. In any case, Sauckel, as well as most of the defendants who are before you, enjoyed the most extensive powers, indeed autonomous powers. Consequently, he cannot shelter behind orders received.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you must forgive me if I interrupt you; but as I pointed out yesterday, I think, we have already had an opening statement which contained argument from the United States, from Great Britain, and from M. De Menthon on behalf of France, and we have, in the past, confined other counsel. . . Do you hear me? I was saying that after having heard the opening statement from the United States, from Great Britain, and from France, we have in the past, confined the counsel who have followed them to a presentation of evidence and have not permitted them to go into an argument. I am not sure that that rule has been strictly carried out in all cases because it is, perhaps, somewhat difficult to confine the matter; but we have, on several occasions, pointed out to counsel who have followed the counsel who made the leading statement that they ought to confine themselves to a presentation of the evidence. I think the Tribunal would wish you, if possible, to adhere to that rule and, therefore, not to argue the case but to present the evidence, that is to say, to refer us to the evidence insofar as it has already been put in evidence; to refer used it by its number, possibly stating what the substance of the evidence is; and, in reference to any document which has not yet been put in evidence, to read such parts of that document as you think necessary.
M.MOUNIER: Very well, Mr. President, to meet the wishes of the Tribunal, I shall limit myself, as concerns the Defendant Sauckel, to referring to figures which, it seems to me, do not unknit of argument, since they are the figures given by the Defendant Sauckel himself under interrogation. This does not seem to me to infringe upon the rule which the President has just drawn to my attention. The figures stated are the following: In 1942 there revere already a million foreign workers in Germany. In one year Sauckel incorporated into the economy of the Reich some 1,600,000 war prisoners to meet the needs of war economy. I beg to refer the Tribunal to Exhibit Number RF-1411 in my document book. This is an interrogation of the Defendant Speer under the date of 18 October 1945, which has already been submitted by the United States Prosecution on 12 December 1945, under Exhibit Number USA-220 (Document Number 3720-PS). In this interrogation the Defendant Speer states that 40 percent of all prisoners of war were employed in the production of arms and munitions and in related industries. I likewise offer under Exhibit Number RF-1412 (Document Number 1292-PS) of 13 December 1945, a memorandum signed by Lammers, Secretary of the Reich Chancellery, giving an account of the discussion which occurred at a conference held on 4 January 1944. On that date, 4 January 1944, in the course of a conference, at which, in addition to the Defendant Sauckel, the Fuehrer himself, Himmler, Speer, Keitel, Field Marshal Milch, and others were present, the number of new workers to be furnished by Sauckel was fixed at four million. I must mention in this connection that in the course of this meeting, Sauckel expressed doubts as to the possibility of furnishing this number of workers unless he were given sufficient police forces. Himmler replied that he would try to help Sauckel to achieve this objective by means of increased pressure.
M.MOUNIER: Consequently, when the Defendant Sauckel claims, as he probably will do, that he had absolutely nothing to do With the institution now spurned by everyone, known as the Gestapo, we may answer him by official German documents showing that for the recruitment of labor he really did employ the police with all the more or less condemned means already pointed out to you. As for France alone, the demand for workers at the beginning of 1944 amounted to one million; and this figure was over and above the number of men and women workers already sent to Germany, who in June 1944 numbered one million to one and a half million. The Defendant Sauckel, therefore, committed the offenses already known to the Court. We have an old adage, an old slogan we may say, according to which "The court is the law"; and it is proper to present only the facts. I shall, therefore, abstain from reading the passage on Page 9 of my presentation dealing with those articles of the law under which the activities of the accused, Sauckel, are punishable. Mr. President, Your Honors, I should like now to summarize the activity of the Defendant Speer, for as regards France and the western countries the Defendant Speer incurs responsibilities of the same nature as those of the Defendant Sauckel. Like the defendant of whom I have just spoken, he permitted violations of the laws of war, violations of the laws of humanity, in working towards the drafting and carrying out of a vast program of forced deportation and enslavement of the occupied countries. Speer, Mr. President, first took part in working out the program of forced labor and collaborated in its adoption. In the course of his interrogatory, he stated under oath: First, that he took part in the discussion at which the decision to use forced labor was made; second, that he collaborated in the execution of this plan; third, that the basis of this program was the removal to Germany by force of foreign workers on the authority of Sauckel, Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor under the Four Year Plan.
M.MOUNIER: The Tribunal will kindly refer to Document Number 3720-PS, submitted by the United States Delegation on 12 December 1945, which I quote under Exhibit Number RF-1411 of our documentation. As regards France, in particular, Hitler and the Defendant Speer held a conference on 4 January 1943 in the course of which it was decided that more severe measures would be taken to expedite the recruiting of French civilian workers without discrimination between skilled and unskilled workers. This is made clear by a note to which I would ask the Tribunal to refer. That is a note signed by Fritz Sauckel, himself. It has already been presented by the American Prosecution under Document Number556-PS (ExhibitNumberRF-67). The Defendant Speer knew that the levies for forced labor in the occupied territories were obtained by violence and terror. He approved the continuation of these methods from September 1942 onward. He knew, for instance, that workers were deported by force from the Ukraine to work in the Reich. He knew, likewise, that the great majority of workers in the occupied regions of the West were sent to Germany against their will. He even declared before the American magistrate who was questioning him that he considered these methods regular and legal. The Defendant Speer, knowing that the foreign workers were recruited and deported for forced labor in Germany, made specific demands for foreign workers and provided for their employment in the various branches of activity placed under his direction. The preceding paragraphs summarize all the declarations made by the defendant in the course of the interrogation already mentioned and to which I have just referred. I beg to remind you that Speer, in addition, was a member of the Central Committee of the Four Year Plan. On account of this, and in common with Field Marshal Milch, only Hitler and Goering were superior to him as far as demands for labor were concerned. He likewise took part, in this capacity, in discussions which took place with Hitler to settle the numbers of foreign workers required.
M.MOUNIER: He knew that most of these forces were obtained by means of deportation, through coercion and enslavement of the occupied countries. Proof of this is furnished by various passages of the minutes of the Central Committee of the Plan and from Speer's conferences with Hitler. I refer to Document Numbers R-123 and R-124 which have been submitted under Exhibit Number USA-179, on 12 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1414). Speer did not hesitate to resort to methods of terrorism and brutality as a means of achieving a peak output from the forced workers. He found justification for the action of the SS and of the police and for the use of concentration camps to subdue recalcitrants. I beg to recall to the Tribunal the document relating to the minutes of the 21st meeting of the Central Committee of the Four Year Plan, 30 October 1942, Page 1059, already quoted. This is the document which I quoted previously, Exhibit Number USA-179, Document Numbers R-123 and R-124 on 12 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1414). The Defendant Speer likewise bears responsibility for the use of prisoners of war in military operations directed against their countries; for in his capacity as chief of the Todt Organization, he forced citizens of the Allied nations to work for this organization, particularly, in the building of fortifications and, among other things, the famous West Wall. He likewise forced Frenchmen, Belgians, Luxembourgers, Dutchmen, Norwegians, and Danes to manufacture arms to be utilized against the allies of the countries to which they themselves belonged. Finally-and this is a very important question regarding the responsibility of the Defendant Speer-he participated directly in the use of internees from the concentration camps. He proposed the use of internees from the concentration camps in the armament factories. Now, in view of the wretched physical condition of the prisoners, no profit but only the extermination of the prisoners could be expected from this measure.
M.MOUNIER: The use of internees from the concentration camps in the factories had the effect of increasing the demand for this type of labor; and this demand was satisfied in part, at least, by sending to the concentration camps persons who, in ordinary times, would never have been sent there. Speer went so far as to establish, near the factories, concentration camps which served solely to feed them with labor. He knew the Mauthausen Camp. The Spanish witness, Boix, whom the Tribunal heard a few days ago, attested under oath that he had seen, with his own eyes, the Defendant Speer visit the camp at Mauthausen and congratulate the directors of this camp. He even declared that he had worked on the preparation of photographs of this scene. Consequently this visit to the camp must be considered, absolutely beyond doubt. He therefore saw for himself the barbarous conditions in which the prisoners lived. Nevertheless, he persisted in utilizing labor from the Camp of Mauthausen in the factories under his authority. I have concluded the case against Speer.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes. [A recess was taken.]
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, Your Honors, considering the strictly limited time at my disposal, I shall be compelled, in dealing with the Defendant Goering, of whom I shall have the honor to speak to you, to skip Pages 1, 2, and 3 of this presentation. I ask the Court now to turn to Page 3 of my statement. I should like to present to the Tribunal the question of the responsibility of the Defendant Goering for the measures taken against the commandos and against Allied airmen who fell into the hands of the Germans during their missions. During the Trial we have on several occasions mentioned an order given by Hitler on 18 October 1942, which was first submitted by the American Delegation on 2 January 1946 under the Document Number 498-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1417). It is an order detailing the measures to be taken against commandos in operations in Europe and Africa. They were to be exterminated to the last man, even if they were in military uniform, and no matter what their mode of transport might be: boat, plane, or parachute. An order was given to take no prisoners. In the occupied territories isolated members of commandos who might fall into the hands of the German forces were to be handed over immediately to the Sicherheitsdienst, RSHA branch. This order did not apply to enemy soldiers who were captured or who surrendered in open battle and within the scope of combat operations. Among those notified was the Oberkommando of the Luftwaffe.. Consequently, the Defendant Goering knew of this order; and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, as well as in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of one of the three military services, he has joint responsibility with the leaders of the other services. We know, also, that on the same date, 18 October 1942, Hitler had a memorandum distributed annotating the previous instructions and announcing that if one or two prisoners were spared for the time being, so that information might be obtained from them, they were to be put to death as soon as they had been interrogated.
M. MOUNIER: I refer to Exhibit Number RF-1418 (Document Number 503-PS) of 9 January 1946. The American Prosecution which produced this document has also submitted to the Tribunal-and I shall not come back to this fact-a certain number of cases proving that this order was frequently carried out. On the other hand, the Tribunal already knows that numerous Allied airmen, who found themselves in German territory after losing their planes, were maltreated and lynched by the Germans with the connivance of the authorities. As evidence we present only the order of 10 August 1943 by which Himmler forbade the police to take part in these lynchings and forbade them equally to oppose them. I refer to Document Number R-110, presented 19 December 1945 as Exhibit RF-1419. Goebbels, in an article in the Volkischer Beobachter, intervened in the same way. Bormann, in a memorandum of 30 May 1944, confirmed these instructions and stipulated that they should be passed on to the administrative authorities, not in writing but by word of mouth only. I refer to Document Number 057-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1420), cited on 17 December 1945 by the American Delegation. These instructions were carried out to the letter, to such an extent that the American forces have brought to trial, since the capitulation, a considerable number of German civilians who had murdered unarmed Allied airmen. But the Defendant Goering was not satisfied simply to let these things happen. At a conference which took place on 15 and 16 May 1944 he stated that he would suggest to the Fuehrer that not only parachutists but also American or English crews who attacked, indiscriminately, cities and civilian trains in motion should be put to death on the spot forthwith. This is Exhibit Number RF-1421 (Document Number 166), cited by the French Prosecution, 31 January 1946, under Exhibit Number RF-377. In fact, Goering saw Hitler between 20 and 22 May 1944.