Читать книгу The Nuremberg Trials (Vol.7) - International Military Tribunal - Страница 11

M. FAURE: Gentlemen, in order not to prolong the discussion too much, I should like, if it please the Tribunal, to submit as documents all the documents in my book, but to read and analyze only some of the most important.

I shall then pass over Documents RF-1211, 1212, 1213, and 1214. I should like, however, to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the end of the mimeographed French text. As the letter “K” appeared on the document, the word “Keitel” was written in, quite wrongly. I should like to say that this does not occur in the document. I should like to read this Document Number RF-1215, which is very short:

“Secret—13 May 1942. To the Chief of Area A.

“In accordance with instructions from OKH, Quartermaster General, the words ‘dispatch to the East’ must not be used in announcements referring to the forced evacuation of the population, in order to avoid a defamation of the occupied regions in the East. The same applies to the expression ‘deportation,’ this word being too strongly reminiscent of the banishment to Siberia at the time of the Czars. In all publications and correspondence we must use the phrase ‘dispatch for forced labor.’ ”

Document Number RF-1216, which I offer in evidence now, is another memorandum from Dannecker, dated 10 March 1942. The purpose of this memorandum is defined as “Deportation from France of 5,000 Jews.” The quotation of the title suffices to indicate the subject of the document. Dannecker alludes to a meeting of the Office for Jewish Affairs, a meeting which took place at the RSHA in Berlin on 4 March 1942 at which it was decided that negotiations would be undertaken for the deportation of 5,000 Jews from France. The memorandum specifies Paragraph 4, second sentence:

“Jews of French nationality must be deprived of their nationality before being deported, or at the latest on the day of the deportation itself.”

In a subsequent passage of the document Dannecker explains that the expenses of this deportation would have to be paid by the French Jews, since in the case of impending mass deportations of Jews from Czechoslovakia provisions had been made for the Slovakian Government to pay a sum of 500 marks for each Jew deported and, in addition, to bear the cost of deportation.

I now offer in evidence Document Number RF-1217, which is a memorandum of 15 June 1942 headed “Other Transports of Jews Coming from France.” It is still dealing with the same operation, but I believe it is interesting to submit these documents without reading them, since they show the extremely complex and regular working of this administration whose purpose was to arrest and deport innocent people. The beginning of the memorandum alludes to a new conference held in Berlin on 11 June 1942 and attended by those responsible for the Jewish departments in Brussels and The Hague, as well as by Dannecker himself. In the fourth paragraph on Page 1 of this document I read the last sentence of the paragraph, “Ten percent of Jews unfit for labor may be included in these convoys.” This sentence shows that the purpose of this deportation was not merely to procure labor, even if it involved labor to be exterminated by work.

I should like also to read the fifth paragraph, which contains only one sentence:

“It was agreed that 15,000 Jews should be expelled from Holland, 10,000 from Belgium, and up to 100,000 from France, including the unoccupied zone.”

The last part of the memorandum relates to the technical execution. It alludes first to negotiations with the transport service to obtain the necessary trains. It then alludes to the necessity of inducing the de facto French Government to take steps to deprive of their nationality all Jews resident outside of French territory. This would mean that deported Jews would no longer be considered as French citizens. Lastly the French State was to pay the cost of transport and various expenses connected with the deportation.

I now present Document Number RF-1218, which is a memorandum dated 16 June 1942, entitled “The Transportation of Jews from France: Subject, Order from the SS Obersturmbannführer Eichmann to SS Hauptsturmführer Dannecker, 11 June 1942.” The first three paragraphs of this memorandum show that there was difficulty in transporting deportees, because of the large quantity of railway stock necessary for the preparation of the eastern campaign. I should like to read the last two paragraphs of this letter:

“We are now carrying out a large-scale reorganization of the German transport agencies in France. The main feature of this is that the numerous organizations existing hitherto will be taken over by the Reich Ministry of Transportation, which will be responsible for them. This reorganization, which was ordered without notice, takes a few days to complete. Before that date it is impossible to give approximate information as to whether the transportation of Jews can be carried out in the near future or at a later date, on the scale anticipated, or even partially.”

These remarks seemed to me interesting as defining the responsibility of the Reich Cabinet. Such a large undertaking as the deportation of so many Jews required the intervention of many different administrative services, and we see here that the success of this enterprise depended on the reorganization of transport on the responsibility of the Reich Ministry of Transportation. It is certain that a ministerial department of this kind, which is above all a technical department, intervened to help carry out that general enterprise of deportation.

I now submit Document Number RF-1219 which is a memorandum by Dr. Knochen dated 15 June 1942. This memorandum is entitled, “Technical Execution of New Convoys of Jews from France.” Not to take too much time I shall read only the first paragraph of this memorandum:

“To avoid any conflict with the operation in progress with regard to ‘French workmen for Germany,’ mention will be made only of Jewish resettlement. This version is confirmed by the fact that the convoys may include entire families and therefore the possibility is left open of sending at a later date for the children under 16, who were left behind.”

The remainder of the memorandum, like all these texts, which are so extremely painful from a moral point of view, continues to discuss the question of the deportation of the Jews in round figures as if all these human beings were mere goods and chattels.

I now submit Document Number RF-1220, which is a letter from the German Embassy in Paris, from Dr. Zeitschel, dated 27 June 1942. I should like to read this letter, which is thus expressed:

“Following my conversation with Hauptsturmführer Dannecker on 27 June, during which he stated that he needed, as soon as possible, 50,000 Jews from the free zone for deportation to the East and that something had to be done to support the operations of Darquier de Pellepoix, the Commissioner General on Jewish questions, I immediately informed Ambassador Abetz and Counsellor Rahn of this matter. Counsellor Rahn is to meet President Laval this afternoon and he promised to discuss with him at once the handing over of these 50,000 Jews, demanding at the same time plenary powers for Darquier de Pellepoix, in conformity with the laws already promulgated, and the immediate granting of the credits promised him.

“As unfortunately I shall be away from Paris for a week, I request, in view of the urgency of the question, that Hauptsturmführer Dannecker contact Counsellor Rahn directly, on Monday, 29 June, or Tuesday, 30 June, at the latest, to learn Laval’s reply.”

I thought it useful to read this letter, for it shows the responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Defendant Ribbentrop in this abominable matter of handing over 50,000 Jews as required. It is quite evident that such a step cannot be taken by a counsellor at an embassy unknown to his minister and without the latter’s full knowledge and consent.

I submit now Document Number RF-1221. It is a memorandum dated 26 June 1942 of which I shall give only the title, “Directives for the Deportation of Jews.”

Now I come to Document Number RF-1222, of which I shall also read only the title, “Conference with the Specialists for Jewish Questions of the Security Police, Command of the Section IV-J on 30 June 1942. Deportation to Auschwitz of Jews from the Occupied Territories.”

In this memorandum Dannecker again alludes to the conference which took place at the RSHA, according to which 50,000 Jews were to be transferred. There follows a list of trains, the stations in which they were to be assembled, and a request for reports.

I now submit Document Number RF-1223. It is a memorandum, dated 1 July 1942, summing up a conference between Dannecker and Eichmann, who, as we already know, was in Berlin but had to come to Paris on that occasion. “Subject: Departmental Conference with SS Hauptsturmführer Dannecker, Paris, Concerning the Impending Evacuation from France.” It still deals with the preparation of the great operation envisaged.

I now submit Document Number RF-1224, of which I read only the title and the date, “4 July 1942: Directives for a Major Round-up of Jews in Paris.”

I now offer in evidence Document Number RF-1225, which is a Dannecker memorandum dated 6 July 1942. Subject: “Deportation of Jews from France.” It concerns a conference held with representatives of French authorities. We see in the document the expression “Judenmaterial,” which was translated in a roundabout way by the words “Jewish livestock.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1226. I should like to read, if the Tribunal please, the first paragraph of this document which is very revealing both in regard to the collaboration with the transport services and the horrifying mentality of the Nazi authorities. The memorandum is the sequel to a telephone conversation between the signatory Röthke and the SS Obersturmführer Eichmann at Berlin:

“The SS Obersturmführer Eichmann in Berlin telephoned on 14 July 1942 about 1900 hours. He wished to know why the train provided for the transport of 15 July 1942 had been cancelled. I replied that originally the star bearers in the provinces were to be arrested too but that by virtue of a new agreement with the French Government only stateless Jews were to be arrested to begin with.

“The train due to leave on 15 July 1942 had to be cancelled because, according to information received by the SD Kommando at Bordeaux, there were only 150 stateless Jews in Bordeaux. There was no time to find enough other Jews to fill this train. SS Obersturmführer Eichmann replied that it was a question of prestige. They had to conduct lengthy negotiations about these trains with the Reichsminister of Transportation, which turned out successfully; and now Paris cancels a train. Such a thing had never happened to him before. The matter was highly shameful. He did not wish to report it to SS Gruppenführer Müller right now, for the blame would fall on his own shoulders. He was reflecting whether he would not do without France as an evacuation country altogether.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1227, which gives statistics indicating that up to the 2d of September 1942 27,069 Jews were evacuated and that by the end of October a total figure of 52,069 might be reached. They are anxious to accelerate the pace and to attack also the Jews in the unoccupied zone of France.

I now submit Document Number RF-1228. It is also an account of a conference where there were invited representatives of the French authorities. I should like to read only the last paragraph of this document:

“On the occasion of the meeting which took place on 28 August 1942 in Berlin, it was stated that most of the European countries are much nearer to a final solution of the Jewish problem than France. In fact, these countries began much earlier. We then must catch up with them in many matters between now and 31 October 1942.”

I now submit Document Number RF-1229 without reading it. It is a memorandum by Dr. Knochen on this same subject of deportation dated 31 December 1942.

I now submit Document Number RF-1230, which is a memorandum dated 6 March 1943, headed, “Ref: Present Situation of the Jewish Question in France.” In the first part of this document, the deportations are stated to have reached a total of 49,000 Jews as on 6 March 1943. This is followed by a statement of the nationalities, which are extremely varied, of a certain number of Jews who were deported in addition to the French Jews. Paragraph 3 of this memorandum is headed, “Attitude of the Italians with Regard to the Jewish Question.” I shall read only the first and the last lines of this long paragraph:

“The attitude adopted up to now in the French territory occupied by Italy must be changed by all means if the Jewish problem is to be solved. A few conspicuous cases. . . .”

I break off the quotation here. These conspicuous cases were cases in which the Italians opposed the arrest of Jews in the zone occupied by them.

I now read the last paragraph:

“A.A. has been informed by the RSHA (Eichmann) about proceedings of the Italians.”—A.A. appears to be the initials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and this is confirmed by the following sentence. I continue the quotation—“The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, meant to discuss, in negotiations with the Duce, the attitude adopted by the Italians with regard to the Jewish question. We do not yet know the results of these discussions.”

I shall not submit Documents RF-1231 and RF-1232. I pass then to the last documents which I want to present to the Tribunal. These documents relate more specifically to the deportation of children.

I submit Document Number RF-1233, which is a memorandum by Dannecker dated 21 July 1942. I shall read Paragraph 2:

“The question of deporting children has been examined with SS Obersturmbannführer Eichmann. He decided that as soon as deportations to the Government General could be resumed, convoys of children could be sent by rail. SS Obersturmführer Nowak promised to arrange about six convoys to the Government General at the end of August or the beginning of September, which may comprise all sorts of Jews (also disabled and old Jews).”

Now I offer in evidence Document Number RF-1234. It is a memorandum dated 13 August 1942. Before pointing out the interest of this document I remind the Tribunal that I have already submitted Document Number RF-1219 and in that document there was a formula which I recall, namely, “The possibility is left open of sending at a later date for children under 16 who were left behind.” The Nazis wished to give the impression that they deported entire families at the same time or at least that they did not deport whole trainloads of children. To give this impression, they invented a device which is wholly incredible unless you actually see it in black and white: the mingling of children and adults in definite proportions. I read Paragraph 4 of this Document Number RF-1234:

“The Jews arriving from the unoccupied zone will be mingled at Drancy with Jewish children now at Pithiviers and Beaune-la-Rolande, so that out of a total of 700 at least 500 Jewish adults 300 to 500 Jewish children will be allotted. According to instructions of the Reich Security Main Office, no trains containing Jewish children only are to leave.”

I read the next sentence too:

“Leguay has been told that 13 trainloads of Jews would also leave Drancy in September and that Jewish children from the unoccupied zone could be handed over.”

I now submit the last document of the series dealing with the Jewish question, Document Number RF-1235. I am going to read it, as it is very short.

“6 April 1944, Lyons, 2010 hours. Subject: Home for Jewish Children at Izieu, Ain.

“The home for Jewish children, ‘Child Colony,’ at Izieu (Ain) was raided this morning and a total of 41 children aged from 3 to 13 were apprehended. Moreover, the arrest of the entire Jewish personnel, numbering 10 in all and including 5 women was successfully carried out. Money or other property could not be seized. The convoy for Drancy will leave on 7 April 1944.”

This document also bears a memorandum written by hand and couched in the following terms:

“Matter discussed in the presence of Dr. V. B. and Hauptsturmführer Brunner. Dr. V. B. stated that in cases of this kind, special measures were provided for the billeting of the children by the Obersturmführer Röthke. The Hauptsturmführer Brunner stated that he knew of no such instructions or plans and that on principle he did not approve of such special measures. In this case he would also follow the lines of the usual regulations for deportation. For the moment I made no decision affecting the principle in this respect.”

For me what is even more striking and more horrible than the concrete fact of removing these children is the administrative color given to the proceedings, the report made through official channels, the meeting at which different officials placidly discussed the matter as if it were part of the normal business of the department. All the administrative mechanism of the State—I am speaking of the Nazi State—was set in motion on such an occasion and for such a purpose. It is a perfect illustration of the word used by Dannecker in his report: “The cold manner.”

I now present the Tribunal with a continuation under the same head, including a certain number of documents which have been collected in order to show in accordance with our general line of presentation the perpetual interference of the German administrative services.

As I am a little behind my timetable, I shall give the numbers of only those documents which I should like to offer in evidence and which I have no time to describe. These documents will be numbered Documents RF-1238 to 1249.

I would like to read to the Tribunal only the document which bears the Number RF-1243, which is interesting as showing the organic character and the juridical claims of the German organizations. I shall quote a few sentences from this document:

“In the report made by the Chief of the Administrative Staff on experience concerning the arrest from 7 to 14 December 1941 it was proposed to evade the execution of hostages in the future by having the death sentences passed through court-martial proceedings.”

I shall skip the following two lines and continue:

“The reprisal will be carried out by pronouncing and inflicting capital punishment on prisoners who would normally be sentenced only to imprisonment, or else be acquitted altogether. To influence the discretion of the judge concerning the meting out of punishment for committing murder or sabotage would answer the formalistic legal reasoning of the French.”

I should like now, in the last paragraph of my presentation, to submit documentary evidence in connection with criminal actions of which the Tribunal has not yet been informed and which involve the personal responsibility of certain of the defendants present here. I must remind you that the criminal actions of the Nazis took extremely varied forms which have already been put before the Tribunal at some length. A particularly new and unusual manifestation of this consisted in causing crimes to be committed by organized bands of murderers, who were ordinary criminals, under conditions which made it appear as if these crimes were committed by ordinary bandits or even by resistance organizations which they tried in this way to dishonor.

Such crimes were committed in all the occupied countries; but the precautions taken, with good reason, to camouflage them sometimes make it difficult to trace back the responsibility for these crimes to the ringleaders, the leaders of the Nazi State. We were able to find this evidence in the records of proceedings instituted in Denmark. All the elements are contained in Danish reports of which we were able to get possession only a short time ago.

I can indicate the position very briefly. It concerns a series of murders which were committed in Denmark and which were known as “compensatory” or “clearing” murders. This definition is explained. . . .

Counsel for the Defense tells me that there is an error in translation in the last document which I read—RF-1243. He says that “acquittal” is not the correct translation of “Begnadigung.” As I do not know German, it is quite possible that this error exists and that the word means “pardon.”

THE PRESIDENT: Which part of the document?

M. FAURE: This error really exists. I hope the Tribunal will excuse me, because there is a considerable amount of translation work. I shall read line 14 of Document Number RF-1243: “. . . who would normally be sentenced to imprisonment only or else be acquitted altogether.” According to Counsel for the Defense that should be, “. . . who would normally be sentenced to imprisonment only or else be pardoned.” The construction of the sentence does not seem to be as good when this word is used, which explains the error in translation if there was one. In any case, I think it is sufficient to note the instructions given: The imposition of “capital sentences” in cases where only a sentence of imprisonment would normally have been justified.

To come back to the subject I was discussing, I should like to make the situation clear by reading the definition given in the Danish report. It is found on Page 19 of the supplementary memorandum of the Danish Government. This document was submitted last Saturday under Number RF-901. As it is very bulky, I see that it is not included in the document book but that the passages which I cite can be found in my brief.

The page numbers start again at the end of this brief, and I am now on Page 3 in the last series of numbers. I quote Page 19 of the Danish report:

“From New Year 1944 onwards, a large number of persons, most of them well known, were murdered at intervals which grew steadily shorter. The doorbell would ring, for instance, and one or two men would ask to speak to them. The moment they appeared at the door. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: I do not have it. Is it in this dossier of the administrative and juridical organization of the criminal actions? Under which document?

M. FAURE: It is not in the document book. It is in the dossier of the brief.

THE PRESIDENT: No. In the dossier? Which part of the dossier?

M. FAURE: It is the last part of the dossier. The numbering of the pages starts again after Page 76. If the Tribunal will turn to Page 76, the page numbers begin again after that with Page 1.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have it.

M. FAURE: I read from Page 19 of the report, the extract reproduced on Page 3:

“From New Year 1944 onwards, a large number of persons, most of them well known, were murdered at intervals which grew steadily shorter. The doorbell would ring, for instance, and one or two men would ask to speak to them. The moment they appeared at the door they were shot by these unknown persons. Or, someone would pretend to be ill and go to a doctor during the latter’s consulting hour. When the doctor entered the room, the unknown shot him. At other times, unknown men would force their way into a house and kill the owner in front of his wife and his children, or else a man would be ambushed in the street by civilians and shot.”

I do not need to read the following paragraph. I go on reading at the last paragraph on Page 19:

“As the number of victims increased it was borne in upon the Danes, to their amazement, that there was a certain political motive behind all these murders; for they realized that in one way or another the Germans were the instigators.

“After the capitulation of the German forces in Denmark, investigations by the Danish police established the fact that all these murders, running into hundreds, were in reality committed on the direct orders of the supreme authorities and with the active collaboration of Germans who occupied the highest positions in Denmark.”

I end my quotation here and I shall summarize what follows: The Danish authorities were able to clear up these criminal affairs, 267 in number; and they are analyzed in the official Danish report and the documents attached to it. These acts consisted not only in actual crimes but also in other criminal activities, notably explosions. It was established that all these acts were committed by bands, consisting of Germans and some Danes, who constituted real groups of bandits but who acted, as I am going to prove to you, on orders from the highest quarters.

The Danish report contains in particular the detailed story of the investigation made into the first of these crimes, whose victim was Kaj Munk, the well-known Danish poet and pastor of a parish. The crime was confessed by the men who carried it out.

I summarize the document in order not to take too much time. The pastor was taken from his home, forced into a vehicle, and killed on the highway. His body was found next day with a sign pinned on it with the words, “Swine, you worked for Germany just the same.”

The Tribunal sees how many similar crimes were committed in the vilest possible way. Now one of the first things discovered was that the members of the gangs of bandits who committed these different crimes had all received a personal letter of congratulation from Himmler. The text of this letter, which was found on one of the murderers, constitutes Appendix 14 of the Danish report; and, on the other hand, we have here photostatic copies with Himmler’s signature.

But these extraordinary crimes involve in the most incredible way other persons responsible besides Himmler, himself. The Danish police were able to arrest Günther Pancke, who exercised the functions of Chief of Police in Denmark from 1 November 1943.

The inquiry was established by the tribunal of first instance in Copenhagen and is in the Danish report. It contains an account of the interrogation of Günther Pancke on 25 August 1945. It is necessary for me to read to the Tribunal an extract from this document, which involves several of the defendants. I quote:

“On 30 December 1943 Pancke and Best were present at a meeting at the Führer’s headquarters attended by Hitler, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, General Von Hannecken, Keitel, Jodl, Schmundt, and others. This agrees with Best’s diary for 30 December 1943. There is a copy of this. A representative of the German Foreign Office also attended; but Pancke does not remember his name nor whether the person in question made a speech. During the first part of the meeting, Hitler was in a very bad temper and everything led one to believe that the information that he had obtained concerning the situation in Denmark was rather exaggerated.”

I should like to skip the following page, which is not indispensable and go on to Page 14 of my brief. In the passage which I am omitting, the witness Pancke reports that he and Dr. Best advised that saboteurs be fought in a legal way. He also points out on Page 14 that Hitler—I quote—“ . . . was strongly opposed to the proposals of Pancke and Best, declaring there could be absolutely no question of judging saboteurs before a tribunal.” He then said that such methods would lead to those condemned being considered as heroes.

I resume the quotation on Page 15, Line 3:

“There was only one way of dealing with saboteurs, namely, to kill them, preferably, at the moment when the crime was committed; otherwise, on arrest. Both of them received strict orders from Hitler personally to start compensatory murders. Pancke replied that it was very difficult and dangerous to shoot people on arrest, as they could not be sure when the arrest was made if the person arrested was really a saboteur. Hitler demanded compensatory murders in the proportion of at least five to one. In other words: Five Danes were to die for every German killed.”

The rest of the document shows that General Von Hannecken made a report on the military situation. I shall read this paragraph, Page 16 of my brief:

“Moreover, General Keitel took part in the conversation; but he confined himself to a proposal to reduce food rations in Denmark to the same level as rations in Germany. This proposal was rejected by all the three representatives in Denmark. As a result, the meeting ended with Hitler’s express order to Pancke to start compensatory murders and counter-sabotage. After this meeting, Pancke had a conversation alone with Himmler, who told him that he, Pancke, had now been told by the Führer, himself, how to act and that he thought that he could rely on Pancke to execute the order which he had received. It seemed that up to now he had executed only those of Himmler. Pancke knows that Best had a conversation with Ribbentrop immediately after the meeting, but doesn’t remember the result.”

The document then shows that these compensatory murders were carried out, not in the proportion of five to one, but in the proportion of one for one. It shows that reports on these compensatory murders were sent to Berlin.

I read on Page 18 of my brief, second paragraph:

“Pancke explained that in his opinion these murders were decreed deliberately by the supreme jurisdiction in Germany, as being necessary for the protection of Germans stationed in Denmark and Danes working for Germany; and so Pancke had to obey the order. Bovensiepen stated the facts and made suggestions when subjects of importance were raised. Pancke does not know whether Bovensiepen selected his own subjects in every case or whether in certain cases the subjects were selected by his subalterns; but he, too, said that he was subjected to strong pressure from the military side, especially from General Von Hannecken, although General Von Hannecken was at first opposed to reprisals by terror. Later still more pressure was exercised by Colonel General Lindemann. When soldiers were killed or damage was caused to military objectives, Pancke was immediately asked what steps he had taken and what they were to report to general headquarters, that is, to Hitler himself, from a military point of view. Pancke had to give a satisfactory reply, and he also had to take action.”

I end my quotation here. General Pancke then explains how these terror groups were organized.

I must now say that the Danish police were also able to arrest Dr. Best, the German plenipotentiary, and make an inventory of his papers. Among them they found Dr. Best’s private diary. This diary has one leaf, dated 30 December 1943, which agrees with the information given in the preceding testimony about the meeting held on 30 December 1943 in the Führer’s tea house. This is at Page 21.

“Lunch with Adolf Hitler, Reichsführer Himmler, Dr. Kaltenbrunner, SS Obergruppenführer Mr. Pancke, Field Marshal Keitel, General Jodl, General Von Hannecken, Lieutenant General Schmundt, Brigade Lieutenant Scherff. Lunch and discussions on the Danish question lasted from 1400 to 1630 hours.”

Dr. Best was naturally interrogated on the subject. From official Danish documents, extracts from which are found on Page 23 of my brief, it appears that Dr. Best corroborated the note in his diary dated 30 December which I have cited. With regard to the fundamental questions concerned, here is what Dr. Best says at the bottom of Page 23:

“Dr. Best does not remember whether Hitler, who spoke at considerable length, said anything about compensatory murders being carried out in the proportion of five to one. Himmler and Kaltenbrunner agreed with Hitler. The rest of those present apparently expressed no opinion. The names given by Best agree with Pancke’s list.”—This is on Page 24—“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was not represented, so that Sonnleitner did not attend the conference. After the conference, Dr. Best had a conversation alone with Ribbentrop, to whom he explained what had taken place. Ribbentrop shared his opinion that some protest should be made against such methods but that after all, nothing could be done.”

It is proved, therefore, that the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Keitel, and Jodl were present at a department meeting where it was decided that murder, pure and simple, should be organized in Denmark. The witnesses certainly do not say that the Defendants Keitel and Jodl showed any enthusiasm for this proposal, but it is established that they were present and that they were present in the exercise of their functions along with their subordinate, the military commander of Denmark. This is a question of responsibility for several hundred murders abominable in themselves but undoubtedly constituting only a small part of the crimes implied by the Prosecution and carried out on millions of victims. I think, however, that it is important to learn that the military and diplomatic leaders knew and accepted the systematic organization of acts of banditry and murders committed by professional killers who fled when they had committed their crimes.

The documents which I have just cited are the last of the series which I wanted to present to the Tribunal. I shall not follow them up by commentary. I think that there is so much monotony and at the same time so many shades of variety in the innumerable crimes committed by the Nazis that the human mind finds it difficult to grasp their whole extent. Each of these crimes has in itself all the intensity of horror and reflects the distorted values of the doctrine responsible for them. If it be true that life has any meaning whatsoever, if there is around and within us anything else than “sound and fury,” such a doctrine must be condemned with the men who originated it and directed its enterprises.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us what is proposed for tomorrow?

M. FAURE: Tomorrow, M. Gerthoffer will, if it suits the Tribunal, make a statement on pillage of works of art. A problem is involved here. For at the time when this would normally have been done, we decided to dispense with it, thinking that a reference to the American documents would be sufficient. On consulting our American colleagues, however, it appeared that they themselves relied on that part of the matter being presented by the French Prosecution. So, if the Tribunal does not object to our returning to the subject now, a statement will be presented to this effect.

On the other hand, one of the magistrates of the French Delegation proposes to present a brief which recapitulates systematically the charges against each of the defendants, according to the documents and briefs submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would hope that the exposé on the pillage of objects of art will be quite short because it must be cumulative, because you will remember that we had at some stage of the Trial presented to us 39 books, or 30, or some number of books of objects of art which had been taken away from various parts of Europe and France and all photographed by the Germans themselves; and, therefore, any evidence which would now be given would be cumulative to that spoliation.

M. FAURE: That is why I asked the Tribunal whether it would agree to this procedure; but at any rate, if the Tribunal considers that the statement can be made, it will be only a very short statement which will take about two hours.

DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): If I understood M. Faure correctly, he asked the Tribunal whether the confiscation and plundering of works of art in France would again be dealt with tomorrow. I should like to add that the American Prosecution has already declared before this Tribunal that the question of the plundering of works of art could not be dealt with again. Accordingly, I myself, representing Rosenberg, and my colleague, Dr. Stahmer, representing Göring, took steps to cancel the calling of witnesses whom we had planned to bring. If, however, the French Prosecution intends to submit new material, we must have these witnesses called again. For this reason, I should like to ask the Tribunal to decide whether it is necessary for the confiscation of works of art objects in France to be taken up once more.

THE PRESIDENT: I think defendant’s counsel must be wrong in thinking that the United States counsel said anything which meant that the French Prosecution could not produce evidence with reference to the spoliation of objects of art. I can’t think the United States had any authority to do that and I had understood myself that this part of the Prosecution had been omitted by one of the French Counsel on account of the request of the Tribunal to shorten their argument. Was that not so?

M. FAURE: That is quite true, Mr. President. Your interpretation is exact.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would wish that the presentation should be made, if the French Prosecutors wish it; and it should be made as shortly as possible.

M. FAURE: Thank you.