dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M. FAURE: The Nazis also, used all kinds of constraint to obtain members for their SA formation as well as for the motorized group of the SA which is known under the initials NSKK. I would like now to point out to the Tribunal that a special effort was directed towards the youth, because the Nazis thought it would be easier to get young people - and I may say, even children to accept their precepts and doctrines. I think I may submit to the Tribunal Document Number RF-810, which is a circular dated 22 May 1941, addressed to the principals of high schools. This is a very short document and I ask your permission to read it. "By order of the Gauleiter, all teachers are bound to buy the book of the Fuehrer, Mein Kampf, before I June 1941. By September 1941 every member of the teaching profession must make a declaration on his honor that he has read this work." The Germans thought that the compulsory reading of Mein Kampf they allowed three months to assimilate this important work might convince the teachers, who in turn would teach it to their pupils in the prescribed spirit. I have here another document, Number RF-811, which I should like to read to the Tribunal, because it is not long and is also very characteristic. It is an extract from a collection of circulars addressed to the pupils of the Athenaeum: "Luxembourg, 16 June 1941: "1. All pupils must stand up when the teacher enters to begin the lesson and when leaving the classroom at the end of the lesson. "2. The German salute will be given in the following manner: a) Raise the outstretched right arm to shoulder level. b) Shout: 'Heil Hitler! "3. The pupils must return the same salute which the teachers use at the beginning and end of the lessons. "4. 1 also expect all pupils to give the German salute in the street, especially to those gentlemen known to be enthusiastic partisans of the German salute." These German methods reached their culminating point with the imposition of the oath of allegiance to Hitler, which oath was imposed upon the gendarmes and the police. I refer here to the testimony of M.
M. FAURE: Reuter, who made the terrible statement that those who refused to do so were deported and afterwards most of them were shot. I also submit as proof of this the government report which gives the same information, on Page 12. Naturally, as in the other annexed territories, the Luxembourgers did not yield to these German methods; and there also endeavors were made to break the resistance by terror. I must mention a quite special regulation, the ordinance of 2 June 1941. This will be Document Number RF-812, which has as title "Ordinance on the Putting into Force in Luxembourg of the Law of 10 February 1936 Concerning the Gestapo." This title suffices to show the subject. The Gestapo established in Luxembourg special tribunals, a special summary court known as Standgericht, and SS tribunals. These jurisdictions, if we can use the term jurisdiction, passed many sentences for political reasons. A detailed list of these convictions is appended to the government report. One tribunal, the Standgericht of which I spoke just now, passed 16 death sentences and sentenced 384 people to penalties involving loss of their liberty. But this tribunal was not the only one, and the report states-and the witnesses also confirmed it-that about 500 were condemned to death in this country, which is a considerable number, because the population is not very large. I think I should likewise mention, in connection with the Germanization, the measures concerning deportation already known to the Tribunal through the testimony of M. Reuter. These measures concerning deportation were applied systematically to the intellectual elite of the country, to the clergy, and to persons who had served in the army. This proves that it was deliberately intended to do away with the social, intellectual, and moral structure of this country.
M. FAURE: To the Luxembourg report is appended a list of names of deportees, including officers, magistrates, men who took part in politics in the Grand Duchy, writers, economic leaders, and in particular-I shall give only one figure which is striking-the Germans expelled or deported 75 clergymen, which, with regard to a population as small as that of Luxembourg, shows clearly the will to abolish completely the right to worship. The official report also states that the property of religious orders was confiscated, and most of the places of worship were either destroyed or desecrated. Just a word about agricultural colonization: An organization called "Fur Deutsches Volkstum und Siedelung" (For the Settlement of Racial Germans) was entrusted with the liquidation of the property of Luxembourg deportees for the benefit of southern Tyroleans who were settled in the Grand Duchy. Also, industrial and economic colonization: Here we find the same methods, the same spoliations, and therefore I do not want to go over this ground again. The Tribunal already knows the way in which this was carried out. But I should like to give one example concerning Luxembourg because when dealing with points, even general points, I think the best method is to give a documentary example, and also because, from this document that I am going to cite, I think it is possible to draw some important conclusions from the point of view of the Prosecution. The document which I am going to cite concerns many cases where the German authorities compelled private citizens and firms to transfer their assets and the control of their businesses to Germans. That was called colonization, and consisted in putting German nationals into the businesses with large assets and economic functions. The Reich Minister of Economy himself devised these illicit methods by which it was intended to plunder private citizens and to germanize the economy of the country. The document that I am going to read to the Tribunal bears the Document Number 813.
M. FAURE: It is offered as a document by the Luxembourg Government, and it is an original document with the signature, bearing the heading "The Reich Minister of Economy," Berlin, 5 January 1942. This letter with the heading "The Minister of Reich Economy" is signed "By order: Dr. Saager." He is a subordinate who is acting regularly, administratively, by order of his minister. It is Number RF-813, the last but one. This letter is marked "Secret." It concerns the "Accumulateurs Tudor, S.A., Bruxelles," and is addressed to the battery factory in the hands of Mr. Von Holtzendorff of Berlin, Askanischer Platz 3. The Tribunal will understand that the Minister of Economy is writing to the German firm which is going to benefit by the pressure to be exercised on the Luxembourg firm. "Referring to our repeated conversations I confirm that in the interest of the Reich it would be considered very desirable if your company would obtain a participation in the stock of the Tudor Batteries. The interest of the Reich is based in no small degree on economic requirements of national defense. "In order to obtain a majority the stock owned by M. Leon Laval, formerly in Luxembourg and now in Bad Mergentheim, would have to be considered first. This concerns not only the shares which M. Laval possesses personally, but also the 3,000 shares deposited with Sogeco." I now come to a very important paragraph: "I therefore request that the necessary negotiations be started immediately. I would point out that, first of all, you will have to apply to the Gestapo for the authorization of the State Police to negotiate with M. Laval, and then request them to give their agreement to the transfer of these shares to your company in case M. Laval should be willing to cede them. "I have already informed the Gestapo of the matter.
M. FAURE: If the result of your negotiations should make it necessary I am prepared to point out once again to the Gestapo how urgent your mission is." Now I should like to read to the Tribunal the sequel to this, Document Number RF-814, which shows a further stage of the maneuver by which the Reich Minister of Economy, in conjunction with the Gestapo, sought to plunder a private citizen. This is a letter addressed to a private citizen, who was going to be compelled to sell his shares, Dr. Engineer Leon Laval, and we are going to see who writes to him. Here is the text of this letter, which is dated Luxembourg, 14 January 1942, and which bears the heading of the Einsatzkommando of the Security Police and the SD in Luxembourg: "On 19 January 1942 and the following days you must remain at your residence to be at the disposal of the representative of the Accumulatoren-Fabrik, A.G., Berlin, Director Von Holtzendorff." The Tribunal will recognize the name of Von Holtzendorff, who was the recipient of the letter from the Reich Minister of Economy in the previous document. I continue the quotation: "Mr. Von Holtzendorff, who is in possession of a special authorization from the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, win discuss business matters with you. Heil Hitler! Signed, Hartmann." The Tribunal will understand, I am sure, that if I have read these two documents, it. is not because I think it very important in the scope of this Trial that the Tudor battery firm was despoiled, an illicit act which was to their prejudice; but I want especially, and I think it is very important in the Trial, to emphasize-and I shall do it each time when the document gives me the opportunity-the co- ordination which existed between the different German services of which these defendants here were the leaders. Certain persons are sometimes inclined to believe that all the German crimes must be imputed to the Gestapo, and it is true that the Gestapo was a characteristic criminal organization; but the Gestapo did not function all by itself.
M. FAURE: The Gestapo acted on the order of, and in conjunction with, the civil administrations and with the military command. We heard yesterday, in connection with the pontificals of the Bishopric of Strasbourg and also in connection with the University of Strasbourg, of the scheme which allowed the civil minister or his representative to have recourse to the police agents for the enforcement of orders. We also noted this fact when reading these documents which dealt with economic matters. I now conclude the first chapter of my brief. I should like to mention that the work on the documentation and the preparation of this chapter was carried out with the aid of my assistant, M. Albert Lentin. I should like now to hand to the Tribunal the first part of the second chapter, concerning the seizure of sovereignty. This first part includes general ideas which I think I should expound to the Tribunal before supporting them by documents. Consequently, the Tribunal will have before them a file entitled "Expose" for which there is no corresponding document book. The Germans occupied the territories of five powers, without counting Luxembourg which was annexed and of which I spoke just now. Of these five countries, three kept governmental authority. These are Denmark, Norway, and France, but even in these three countries the cases are entirely different. The government of Denmark was a legitimate government; the government of France was a de facto government, which at the beginning exercised real authority over unoccupied territories; the government of Norway was also a de facto government, typical example of a puppet government. The two other powers, Belgium and Holland, retained no governmental authority but only administrative authorities, of which the highest were the general secretariats of the ministerial departments. In view of these situations, the Germans, as I said previously, varied their methods of domination.
M. FAURE: On the other hand, they did not establish a specific form of government corresponding to the internal organization of each country; therefore looking at it as a whole, it would seem at first sight to be somewhat complex. The usurpation of sovereignty by the occupying power assumed three different forms. We are speaking here of the external procedure. First form: Direct exercise of power to legislate or issue regulations. By this we mean the exercise of power above and beyond the limited power to issue regulations accorded by international law to occupation armies. Second form: The indirect exercise of power to legislate or issue regulations through local authorities. This was also done in two ways: 1. By injunction, pure and simple, which is the case when the local authorities are the administrative authorities. 2. By pressure, which is the case when the local authorities are authorities of a governmental character, either de facto or de jure. It should be noted, moreover, that the pressure is sometimes such that it bears a complete resemblance to an injunction, pure and simple. We also understand such pressure to include recourse to the complicity of traitors. Third form: The third form is purely and simply that of assault and battery. We do not mean physical force used in individual cases, for this does not concern us here: but physical force used as a result of the order of a competent occupation authority, which consequently entails the responsibility of a superior. If we now consider the question of determining who or what the instruments of usurpation were, we observe that these instruments fall into five categories: In the first place, we have the Reich Commissioner, who was appointed in Norway and Holland only, that is to say, in the one case in a country which retained governmental authority at least in appearance and for a certain length of time, and in the other, in a country which retained administrative authority only. In the second place, we have the military administration.
M. FAURE: In all countries the military authorities exercised powers absolutely disproportionate to those which belonged to them lawfully. I must note here that only these two instruments, the Reich Commissioner and the military authority, were able to carry out usurpation by issuing direct legislative or regulatory decrees. In each of the two powers where there was a Reich Commissioner, the powers conferred were naturally shared by the Reich Commissioner and the military authority. A third instrument of usurpation took the form of diplomatic administration responsible to the Foreign Office. Diplomatic representations existed only in countries which had governmental authorities and where there was no Reich Commissioner. We refer to Denmark and France. These diplomatic representatives of the Reich, unlike the Reich Commissioner and the military occupation authority, did not have power-illicit but formal power-to legislate or issue regulations. However, this does not mean that their role in the usurpation of sovereignty is a secondary one. On the contrary, it is an important one. Their principal activity consisted, naturally, in bringing pressure to bear on local authorities to whom they were accredited. I should like to bring out two points here. It might be thought from a logical point of view, that in an occupied country such as France, the intervention by the occupying power in the administration of the local authorities would be the exclusive competence of the diplomatic representatives. That is not the case. The military authority also intervened on frequent occasions through direct contact with the French authorities. In their turn, the diplomatic representatives did not limit themselves to the powers conferred by their functions. One of the characteristics of the Nazi method is this exceeding of powers conferred. It is, moreover, when one thinks of it, a necessary result of the Nazi enterprise.
M. FAURE: In view of the fact that the usurpation of sovereignty in a country which is militarily occupied is an illegal and abnormal thing, it does not come within the normal competency of the categories of public functions as understood by civilized nations. Thus the diplomats, as well as the military authorities, exceeded their powers; and there was also an overlapping of functions. The diplomats and the military authorities dealt with the same things. We see this in regard to propaganda, for instance; and in regard to the persecution of the Jews. Generally speaking, the military authority acted in a more obvious way; the diplomatic administration preferred to act in domains where publicity could be evaded. There was a constant liaison between them on all questions concerning the occupied country. The fourth instrument of usurpation was the police administration. The German police was installed in all occupied countries, often under several distinct administrations, according to the principles which were presented to the Tribunal when the American Prosecution revealed the inner workings of the immense, complex, and terrible police organism of the Nazis. Neither did the police have limited or exclusive functions. They acted in close and constant liaison with the other instruments we have defined. The fifth instrument which we must mention consisted of the local branches of the National Socialist Party and the similarly inspired organizations which sought to organize nationals in the occupied country. These organizations served as auxiliaries to the German authorities; and in a specific case, that of Norway, they provided the foundation of a so-called government. I have thought fit to outline this picture, as it seems to me that the Prosecution may draw from it an interesting conclusion in regard to the points I have already touched on in my statement on Luxembourg. We have seen, in effect, that the German line of policy for the usurping of sovereignty was carried out by means of various organs which were associated with this action.
M. FAURE: In the occupied countries-and we must not forget that this usurpation provided the method for the commission of crimes-this usurpation was not the exclusive work of an official, or of an ambassador, or of a military commander. In countries which had a Reich Commissioner there also existed a military administration. A country placed under the sole regulating authority of the Army also had diplomatic agents. In all countries there were police authorities. In all these occupied countries, as a result of the occupation and the usurpation of sovereignty, there were systematic abuses and crimes. Many of them are already known to the Tribunal. Others have still to be mentioned. From what I have just said, we see that the responsibility for these abuses does not exist only with one or the other of these administrations which we have mentioned, it exists with all of them. It may be true that in Belgium, for instance, there was no diplomatic representation; but there was such representation in France and in Denmark. It therefore follows that the Department of Foreign Affairs and its head could not help being aware of the conditions under the occupation which, as far as the principal features are concerned, were similar in the different countries. Moreover, as I have just said, these coexisting administrations had no fixed division of functions. Even if this division of functions had existed, it must be pointed out that the responsibility and the complicity of each in the action of the others would have been sufficiently proved by their knowledge and their approval-which was at least implicit with regard to this action. But even this division did not exist, and we shall show that all were associated and accomplices in a common action. Now, this very fact involves a more far reaching consequence. The association and complicity of these various departments involves all the leaders and all the organizations here accused in a general responsibility. I shall explain this point by giving an example.
M. FAURE: If, for instance, all the abuses and all the crimes had been committed only by the Army without a single interference, perhaps it would be possible for one important person, or organization, having no military functions, to claim that it had no knowledge of these abuses and of these crimes. Even in this case I think this claim would be difficult to uphold, because the vast scope of the enterprises which we denounce made it impossible for anyone who exercised a higher authority not to know of these things. However, since several administrations are jointly responsible, it necessarily follows that the other authorities are also responsible, because the question at this point is no longer the question whether one administration is involved, or even three, but all the administrations; it involves the consubstantial element of all the authorities of the State. I shall speak later of the order concerning the deportation of the Jews; and I shall show that this order was the result of a common action of the military administration, the diplomatic administration, and the Security Police, in the case of France. It follows that in the first place the Chief of the High Command, in the second place, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and in the third place, the Chief of the Security Police and Reich Security Service-these three persons were all necessarily informed and necessarily approved this action, for it is clear that their offices did not keep them in ignorance of such plans concerning important affairs and that, moreover, decisions were agreed upon on the same level in the three different administrations. Therefore these three persons are responsible and guilty. But is it possible that, by an extraordinary chance, among the persons who directed the affairs of the Reich, as ministers or as persons holding equivalent offices, these three persons turned out to be criminals and the only ones to be criminals and that they had conspired among themselves to hide from the others their criminal actions? This idea is manifestly absurd.
M. FAURE: In view of the interpenetration of all the executive departments in a modem state, all the leaders of the Reich were necessarily aware of and agreed with the usurpation of sovereignty in the occupied countries, as well as the criminal abuses resulting therefrom. In this chapter I shall go on to speak first of Denmark, which is a special case. Then I shall speak of the civil administration which existed in Norway and in Holland, and finally I shall speak of the military administration which was the regime in Belgium and in France. I think it would be a suitable time now for the Tribunal to have a recess; or if the Tribunal prefers, I can continue my brief.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
M. FAURE: After the recess I should like to call the witness of whom I spoke to the Tribunal yesterday. I should like to mention one fact, however. Yesterday the lawyer for Seyss-Inquart requested that he be allowed to cross-examine this witness on Monday. Senator Vorrink, who is my witness, is absolutely obliged to leave Nuremberg this evening. I think, therefore, that the lawyer for Seyss-Inquart might cross-examine him today. In any case I should like to notify him of the modification of the request which I made yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn't it be possible, if the counsel for Seyss-Inquart wants to cross-examine the witness, for the witness to be brought back at some other date?
M. FAURE: My witness can of course be brought back at another date, if it should be necessary.