Читать книгу The Nuremberg Trials: Complete Tribunal Proceedings (V. 7) - International Military Tribunal - Страница 16

“I have promised to support energetically the work of your staff and to make available to them what they could not obtain so far, namely, means of transport and guard personnel. The air force has received the order to render utmost assistance.”

There was discovered, in France, a sheet of gilt-edged paper containing, in an unknown writing, instructions issued by Göring in Paris—a date is written in by an unknown handwriting—on 11 February 1941. I submit the original document to the Tribunal, as well as the translation, as Document Number RF-1333:

“All paintings marked ‘H’ are for the Führer.”

THE PRESIDENT: I think this has been read already by the United States. Has this been read already?

M. GERTHOFFER: It has never as yet been read, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Then please proceed.

M. GERTHOFFER: “. . . one case marked ‘AH’ for me. Everything that is marked ‘G’. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: Is this identified as a captured document?

M. GERTHOFFER: It was seized by the French authorities who transmitted it to us.

THE PRESIDENT: Where is the identification to show this is the document captured by the French authorities?

M. GERTHOFFER: This document was transmitted to me as it is, with a series of other documents, of which I have only produced a certain number. If the Tribunal wish I can let them have a special authentication for this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I suppose there is probably a report of the French authorities which sufficiently refers to this document.

M. GERTHOFFER: The document was sent to me with a series of other documents; since they were extremely numerous, we took those that seemed to be the most important in order to present them to the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal wish, I can obtain an affidavit indicating under what conditions the documents were discovered by the French authorities.

THE PRESIDENT: You see, the document hasn’t anything on it to indicate that the French Government really found it, nor that they have ever seen it; and therefore the Tribunal does not consider that it is properly proved by mere introductions of the document, without anything on the document. Perhaps you can furnish some supplementary proof.

M. GERTHOFFER: I can bring an affidavit to the Tribunal in order to have it authenticated.

THE PRESIDENT: In what way have the other documents been certified?

M. GERTHOFFER: The other documents were certified as a whole in the covering letter. They were not certified individually. This formality can be carried out subsequently.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we must wait until this is properly identified.

M. GERTHOFFER: I continue with the reading of my report and I would point out to the Tribunal that in all the occupied countries the Defendant Göring employed a whole group of buyers, the best known of whom were Dr. Lohse, who was a member of the Einsatzstab, and Hofer. Hofer and Lohse (Page 52) acted for the defendant most often, however, under their own names. The personal collection of the Defendant Göring flourished considerably. In this regard I submit a document under Number RF-1332 to which my colleague, in charge of personal and individual accusations, will soon refer.

Among the principal leaders of the Reich connected with the Einsatzstab (Page 55) Rosenberg had, as his superior in the hierarchy, Ribbentrop in his capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs (Page 56). It was Von Ribbentrop who was responsible for the Führer’s order of 30 June 1940, which I presented a short time ago under Document Number RF-1301, and which I read to the Tribunal.

Ribbentrop’s activities are likewise shown in a letter of 1 July 1940, addressed by Ambassador Abetz to the Military Commander of Paris, a copy of which I submit under Document RF-1334 (Page 56). I can read it to the Tribunal, if they wish. It shows Ribbentrop’s activities. Here is the letter:

“I beg you to be good enough to have transmitted by radio. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: What does this “COL” at the top of the document mean?

M. GERTHOFFER: It is the seal of the office which seized the letter.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Government in any way certify this document? You see, we do not know what that stamp on it may mean.

M. GERTHOFFER: This document was supplied by the General Agency of Studies and Research. It is one of the supplementary services which affixed this seal and registered it under Number 9724.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see what that is; but it does not of itself show that it is a French document, does it? Is there any French Government report, anything which could be considered to be, within the meaning of the article of the Charter, an official government document or report or an act or a document set up by the government itself? Unless it comes within Article 21, we are not at liberty to consider it as in evidence; unless there is an affidavit which deals with it.

M. GERTHOFFER: I do not insist on the presentation of this document since the activities of Ribbentrop as Minister for Foreign Affairs proceed from other PS documents which have never been disputed. It is a superfluous piece of evidence. I therefore do not insist on presenting it. It was merely a further piece of evidence, that is all.

THE PRESIDENT: If you find that there is some government report which identifies it, anything which proves that that stamp on it shows that it is a government document within Article 21, then of course, you may renew your application.

M. GERTHOFFER: I think that it is not necessary, Mr. President. There are sufficient other documents. I do not insist. The activities of the Defendant Keitel are also to be borne in mind.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment! You are passing over that document then. Very well.

M. GERTHOFFER: Exhibit Number RF-1336 is composed of a series of orders, of reports of the army and of the Einsatzstab. It was Document Number 1015-PS(k), submitted by the Prosecutor of the United States as Exhibit Number USA-385.

“The directives concerning the co-operation with the Armed Forces will be issued by the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces in agreement with Reichsleiter Rosenberg.”

I shall not insist on the responsibility of the Defendant Keitel. My colleague, who is charged with the individual indictments, will lay special stress on the development of this point, and to expedite the proceedings I shall merely mention the following: The Defendant Seyss-Inquart bears a grave responsibility for the pillaging in Holland of works of art and books.

I thus come to the conclusion of my presentation (Page 64). Whatever the markets, whoever the purchasers where the traffic in works of art is concerned, the motive is the same and the methods are the same. It is difficult to conceive that identical acts of pillaging, committed simultaneously in all the occupied countries of western Europe, were not the result of one single will, a ruthless will to dominate in every sphere, which expressed itself in a desire to invest the most irregular acquisitions with an appearance of legality. This is proved by the numerous declarations of the defendants, such as have been submitted to the Tribunal. A will to dominate the cultural sphere was expressed by the intention to extend the “action” of confiscation to ever fresh fields. A will to despoil the occupied countries manifested itself right up to the very last hours of the occupation. And this will be my last reading to the Tribunal, Document Number 160-PS, entered in the document book under Exhibit Number RF-1346. Here is the text. It is extremely brief:

“14 August 1944—Mission.

“The Chiefs of Special Missions (Haupteinsatzführer), Dr. Lohse and Dr. Borchers, of my Einsatzstab for the occupied territories, are charged with the immediate removal, from the Jeu de Paume Museum and the Louvre depot, of works of art taken into safe custody by order of the Führer and still stored in Paris, by all means of transport still available.

“The Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich has recently, by a personal directive of 13 August 1944, placed the two above-named persons at the disposal of the Einsatzstab until the completion of this operation. It is requested that every possible assistance be rendered to these Chiefs of Special Missions.”

Whatever the reasons of a juridical nature submitted by the Germans to justify the seizures of Jewish property (Page 65), this property has never lost the character of private property; and it has, for this reason, always remained guaranteed by the clauses of the Hague Convention and especially by Article 46. The seizure of this property cannot, in particular, be explained as a measure of protection rendered necessary by circumstances, since, for France at least, the French Administration of Domains was in a position to take all the measures desired. As for the fate reserved for the seizures by the National Socialist leaders, the documents produced have sufficiently shown their intentions and their plans.

The Defense will undoubtedly object that important treasures of national works of art from the occupied territories were not taken to Germany. If such an argument were presented, I should answer:

1. For various reasons the occupying authorities did not have the possibility to do so since they barely had time to centralize, to catalog, and to transport the numerous objects of art of which the occupied countries had been dispossessed. 2. It is obvious that the occupational authorities seized by priority the private works of art which are, generally speaking, easily negotiable even in neutral countries, whereas national works of art are, in a certain sense, outside the commercial sphere and are in any case difficult to negotiate in foreign countries.

It may perhaps be claimed that, a great number of works of art having been recovered, the accusation of removing them no longer applies.

You will consider, Gentlemen, that if many works of art have been recovered by the Allied armies, usually in hiding places, the reprehensible fact held against the defendants nevertheless remains. As a matter of fact these works of art have been recovered against their will and thanks to the victory of the Allied armies. The crime had, therefore, been entirely consummated at the time of their discovery. It is clear from the declaration that it is chiefly works of art belonging to private individuals of Belgian, Dutch, and French nationality, mostly qualified as Jews by the occupying power, which were looted—looted with the obvious intention of gratifying their personal vanity and of obtaining valuable property, viewed from an economic standpoint, contrary to the principles of international law.

These acts of pillage were often accompanied by aggravating circumstances, not the least of which was the constant menace of violence threatening the population of the occupied countries. The looting of works of art, therefore, appears as a form of general economic pillaging and the defendants must answer for this before your high jurisdiction.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell me what Document FA-20, 21, and so forth, refers to? There is an inscription which is on these various documents. If you look at Document RF-1333 or RF-1334, you will see that on the copies that are before us there is an inscription “International Military Tribunal” and then the “French Delegation, the Public Ministry, Economic Section” and then “LVR, Document FA-21” and “Document FA-20.” Now, where is Document FA-21, and where is Document FA-20?

M. GERTHOFFER: It is a serial number referring to the document sent to us. It is 1334 which was rejected by the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what is Document FA-20 or Document FA-21, what does it mean?

M. GERTHOFFER: FA-20 is the serial number which had been given to this document in the series of documents which we received. It is of no importance.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean that it is only a number given by you or that it is a number given by the Economic Section of the. . . ?

M. GERTHOFFER: It is a number given to it by the Economic Section.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then if that is so, if it is the number given to this document by the Economic Section, it does identify the document as a document of a public nature.

M. GERTHOFFER: We had likewise given to the document which I quoted a short time ago, a number which was 1333 for Document FA-21.

THE PRESIDENT: Document FA-21, 1333.

M. GERTHOFFER: We likewise gave it a number.

THE PRESIDENT: I see, the Economic Section is merely a section of the French Prosecution.

M. GERTHOFFER: Yes, it is a section of the French Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier.

M. PIERRE MOUNIER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr. President, your Honors, Gentlemen of the High International Military Tribunal, we have the honor of appearing before your high jurisdiction in order to submit the conclusions of the French Prosecution in connection with the responsibilities individually incurred by the defendants brought before this bar of justice. In pursuance of the allotment of the various tasks incumbent on each of the four nations, resulting both from the Indictment presented in compliance with the Charter of 8 August 1945 and the agreements reached between the four Delegations, the French Prosecution, in its presentation, has particularly applied itself to the study of the war crimes under the third Count of the Indictment, that is, the crimes committed by the defendants in France and in the countries of western Europe during hostilities and during the German occupation. It arises quite naturally that, in the explanations about to follow, the case of some of the defendants will be set aside, although their responsibility will already have been established by the other delegations who are, if I may say so, more interested in the crimes committed by the defendants and which correspond to the first, second, and fourth Counts of the Indictment. The French Prosecution, nevertheless, intends to join in the accusations raised by the other delegations against such of the defendants as concern them directly, especially against the Defendants Von Neurath and Von Ribbentrop. The French Delegation associates itself with the statement presented against them by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The same holds good as far as the Defendants Hess, Kaltenbrunner, Frank, Bormann, Funk, Schacht, Von Papen, Baldur von Schirach, Streicher, Raeder, Dönitz, and Fritzsche are concerned.

On the other hand, Mr. President, your Honors, we should like, in this brief presentation, slightly to deviate from the order of priority in which the defendants appear, both in the Indictment and in the dock, so as to elucidate matters. As a matter of fact it would appear desirable, when presenting some of the chiefs of the National Socialist conspiracy, as viewed from the angle of crimes committed in the West, to show how they materialized their philosophical, political, economic, diplomatic, and finally their military conceptions. Consequently, this order will determine the order in which we shall present the case of these defendants.

On the other hand the defendants, in pursuance of the rule adopted by the Tribunal for governing the proceedings which it intends to follow in this Trial, have not yet given their oral explanations before the Court; and the hearing of the majority of the witnesses, or at least of the more important witnesses, has not yet taken place.

That is why the French Prosecution, with the permission of the Tribunal, reserves the right of completing at a later date its statement regarding the defendants taken individually on the one hand, and the groups accused—according to the expression used by my eminent friend, Prosecutor Boissarie—of “international indignity,” on the other hand.

Needless to say, the final impeachment would be carried out with the utmost sobriety, since the French Delegation is anxious to avoid, as far as possible, any unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings.

An imposing number of documents has been submitted to the Tribunal. Their reading, presented in the first instance for the information of the Tribunal, then for the information of the Defense, and finally, be it said, for that of universal public opinion, has already taken up a very considerable time. That is why, with the permission of the Tribunal, we shall abstain, as far as possible, from presenting the Tribunal with still more copious documents. Sufficient written evidence has already been furnished by the American, British, and French Prosecutions which, when added to those still to be submitted by the Prosecution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, will assure the Tribunal of the defendants’ guilt.

We shall therefore content ourselves, in general, with quoting documents already produced, in order to correlate the facts which we shall bring forward with the evidence already supplied. I should like, however, Mr. President, before approaching the case of the defendants whom I wish to accuse individually, to make a statement of a very general nature. It would be idle to pretend that a certain part of this public opinion—and not the least enlightened part at that—in the Old as well as in the New World, has evinced surprise in seeing this Indictment, which is the foundation of the present proceedings, collectively denounce the criminal character of certain organizations of the Reichsregierung, the Leadership Corps of the National Socialist Party, the SS including the SD, the Gestapo, the SA, the General Staff, and the High Command.

In this connection the Tribunal has been good enough to invite the various prosecutions to present written memoranda in order to establish the validity of the imputations contained in the Indictment. But may I be allowed, before a more complete memorandum is handed to your high jurisdiction, to present to the Tribunal a few ideas which appear to me necessary to be recalled. It appears, as a matter of fact, that this concept of a collective responsibility of the various groups goes hand in hand with the concept of conspiracy constituting the other governing ideas of the Indictment. There is no doubt, as far as this idea of a conspiracy is concerned as featured in the Indictment, that one finds, in the first instance, in the acts of the defendants that mystery which generally accompanies any conspiracy, whatever its nature, and that the various documents already supplied to the Tribunal are sufficient to confirm the existence of all the elements which render it possible for me to state that the defendants, their co-authors, and their accomplices had, in fact, conceived and realized the fraudulent agreement which was to enable them to make an attempt on the peace of the world by means contrary to the laws of war, to international law, and to international morality.

There is no doubt that the Nazi leaders had invested all their meetings with a guise of secrecy, whether these meetings were regular and administrative in nature or whether they were of a casual or of an informal variety. This fact in itself would be normal if one could isolate it from all the others; but added to all the other elements in the case, it clearly shows the guilty intent of the conspirators, for this absolute secrecy alone could imply the use of the criminal means which we shall have to emphasize.

I shall moreover remind the Tribunal that very often, where the orders transmitted were concerned, very often it happened that certain paragraphs had been erased so that no traces could remain. The Defendant Hermann Göring admitted this in the course of the interrogations. Consequently this fact proves the intent not only to act in the greatest secrecy, but also the intent of doing away with every trace of what had happened.

If I were permitted to transpose an expression used during the War of 1914-18, an expression applied to the sinking of certain ships of friendly or allied nations, I should say, where this particular paragraph is concerned, that it was a case of “spurlos versenkt,” that is, sunk without trace.

On the other hand, the proof of this fraudulent agreement is evident from the eminently and evidently criminal nature of the decisions taken in these secret councils for incorporation.

THE PRESIDENT: It is just one, now, would it be convenient for Counsel to break off at this time?

M. MOUNIER: I am at the disposal of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.