Читать книгу The Nuremberg Trials (Vol.7) - International Military Tribunal - Страница 21

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, Your Honors, considering the strictly limited time at my disposal, I shall be compelled, in dealing with the Defendant Göring, 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 Göring 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 Göring 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.

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 Völkischer 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 Göring 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 Führer 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 L-166), cited by the French Prosecution, 31 January 1946, under Exhibit Number RF-377.

In fact, Göring saw Hitler between 20 and 22 May 1944. The Air Force General, Korten, sent the Defendant Keitel a memorandum pointing out that Hitler had decided that enemy airmen who were shot down should be put to death without trial if they had participated in acts described as terroristic. This is Document Number 731-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1407), which we submit to the Court in the form of a photostatic copy. I ask the Tribunal’s permission not to read this document. I think the Tribunal will prefer to read it for themselves. However, I am at their disposal if they wish me to read it.

THE PRESIDENT: No; it has already been put in, has it not?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President.

In consequence, an agreement was made with the OKW that Himmler, Göring, and Ribbentrop should be consulted on the measures to be taken in this matter. Ribbentrop proposed that any attack upon German cities should be considered as an act of terrorism. General Warlimont also, in the name of the OKW, proposed two means: Lynching and what he called Sonderbehandlung or special treatment, which consisted in delivering the parties concerned to the Sicherheitsdienst where they were subjected to diverse treatments, one of the most notorious being the well known Kugel action, of which the Tribunal has already heard and which was simply a way of doing away with those in question. Document Number 735-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1452) was submitted to this effect on 9 January 1946.

On 17 June 1944 Keitel wrote to Göring to ask him to approve the definition of acts of terrorism drawn up by Warlimont. On 19 June 1944 Göring replied through his aide-de-camp that the population should be forbidden to act as it had done against enemy airmen and that these enemy airmen should be brought to trial, since the Allied Governments had forbidden their airmen to commit acts of terrorism. I refer here to Document Number 732-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1405.

Consequently, I draw the Tribunal’s attention to this document, dated 26 June 1944, where Reich Marshal Göring declared that he would support the taking of judicial action against these airmen. Remember this date, 19 June 1944, because it is important.

But on 26 June 1944 the Defendant Göring’s aide-de-camp telephoned to the OKW headquarters staff, who had insisted upon a definite reply, and notified them that his chief, Reich Marshal Göring, was in agreement with their definition of acts of terrorism and the procedure proposed which, as I recall it, included two alternatives: The handing over of those in question for Sonderbehandlung or their immediate execution. I refer to Document Numbers 733-PS and 740-PS, cited on 30 January 1946 by the French Prosecution, under the Exhibit Numbers RF-374 and RF-375 (Exhibit Numbers RF-1423 and RF-1424).

In a memorandum dated 4 July 1944 Hitler made it known that since the British and the Americans had bombed small towns of no military importance as a reprisal for V-1, he was asking the German radio and press to announce that all enemy airmen shot down in an attack of that kind would be put to death as soon as they were caught. Such are the facts found in these absolutely irrefutable documents, and if I cited in detail the reply made on 19 June 1944 by the Defendant Göring, or to be more exact, by his aide-de-camp, it is because I am anxious to introduce into the proceedings the documents concerning this question in their entirety.

But I see that in spite of the existence of the order of 19 June 1944 I am obliged to infer the full responsibility of the Defendant Hermann Göring.

In fact, the Defendant Hermann Göring states that he never agreed to these measures, and that Captain Breuer, who telephoned to the General Staff of the OKW, acted—according to the Defendant Göring—without having previously consulted him. Göring added, in the statements which he made, that he could not be held responsible for all the absurd or insignificant actions carried out by his subordinates.

But, Gentlemen, without even reference to the famous Leadership Principle—for I see no reason to apply German law to the accused in any way—the Defendant Göring is in any case responsible in his capacity as leader. Responsibility begins with authority. Moreover, what did he do to stop the massacre of airmen by people whom he had ordered to do the opposite, according to orders which it was forbidden to formulate in writing?

Even if we consider the position which he takes up in the order dated 19 June 1944, to which I have referred as establishing accurately his views at that date on the massacre of airmen and parachutists, we are compelled to see that at that date, 19 June 1944, even in Germany, the most shortsighted knew that the German forces would soon succumb to the weight of the Allied Armies.

Allied aviators were put to death in Germany throughout the war. Moreover, if the Defendant Hermann Göring maintains that the letter of 19 June 1944 was written by his aide-de-camp, he is obliged to admit that the letter of 26 June 1944, also written by the aide-de-camp, can be imputed to him, although signed by one of his subordinates. We consider, then, that this document signed by an aide-de-camp involves Göring as much as if he had signed it himself.

Mr. President and Gentlemen, I shall not enlarge upon the responsibility of the Defendant Göring for compulsory labor, but I respectfully beg the Court to refer in due course to certain rays of illumination that I have tried to indicate in this brief in order to clarify the position of the defendant in this matter.

I shall make no further mention of the employment of prisoners of war and internees from concentration camps, which I detailed on Page 10 of my brief. I should like simply to say a word concerning economic pillaging and the pillaging of art treasures. These questions are dealt with at the bottom of Page 11 of my brief.

Concerning economic pillage, Gentlemen, I shall not stress the considerable part played by the Defendant Göring as leader of the Four Year Plan in all the measures which contributed to strip literally all the western countries of their substance. I shall simply point out one fact which, I believe, has not yet been brought to your knowledge but which is found in the next to the last subheading on Page 12. This fact is the following: After the Armistice in 1940, the Defendant Göring had brought about through Roechling, the official sequestrator, the cession to the Hermann Göring Werke of all the factories of Lorraine belonging to the family of Wendel.

This is connected with all the operations of economic pillaging about which the Economic Section of the French Prosecution have already informed the Court. With regard to this, the Court will not fail to realize that the Defendant Göring shares jointly with the Defendants Rosenberg, Ribbentrop, and Seyss-Inquart—for the Netherlands—the responsibility for this spoliation.

With regard to the pillaging of works of art, Gentlemen, we have documents which permit us to draw our conclusions with regard to this matter which is obviously an unpleasant one for a man who has occupied the position of the Defendant Göring, namely, that a part of the works of art and objects of value which were pillaged from the western countries were reserved for him without any kind of compensation. I shall not discuss the exact meaning of this act in municipal law; I leave it to the Tribunal to apply the proper legal terms for this matter, when it delivers its judgment. But what I should like to say today is that the appropriation of works of art by the Defendant Hermann Göring for his private purposes is proved in documents which cannot be contested and which have already been submitted to the Tribunal. I refer particularly to Exhibit Number USA-368 (Document Number 141-PS) submitted on 18 December 1945. This document was submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution under the Exhibit Number RF-1309.

I may rapidly recall that this document prescribes that works of art brought to the Louvre are to be classified in a certain way:

“Firstly, those works of art of which the Führer reserved the right to dispose of himself. Secondly, those works of art destined to complete the collection of the Reich Marshal”—et cetera.

I won’t read the rest of the document.

What followed these levies or these privative appropriations? Did the Defendant Göring pay anything for these? The opposite seems to be the case; for in the interrogation of the Defendant Rosenberg, which was given under the Exhibit Number RF-1332 and to which I referred in the course of the hearing, it is pointed out that the Defendant Göring made his selection from the works of art assembled by Rosenberg’s staff and made no corresponding payment to the Reich treasury.

Not to abuse the patience of the Tribunal, I respectfully beg it to go back to Page 10 of the transcript previously cited, where it will see the part played by the Defendant Göring in the appropriation of works of art, and the fact that no money was paid in compensation.

I simply emphasize, in passing, that at the top of Page 11 you will find this statement, in reply to a question asked by Colonel Hinkel. Colonel Hinkel said this to him.

THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to Page 10 and Page 11 of which document?

M. MOUNIER: Page 11, Mr. President, of Document Number ECH-25, which was submitted yesterday under the Exhibit Number RF-1331, by my colleague M. Gerthoffer. It is not there, for reasons which I have already pointed out to the Tribunal.

Colonel Hinkel, at the bottom of Page 10, asked the following question:

“Well, doesn’t that letter state in the last paragraph that you don’t think that Göring should pay for these articles that he had selected because he was going to put these articles in an art gallery?”

The reply of the Defendant Rosenberg:

“Not exactly. I would like to add the following:”—which I consider important—“I was rather uneasy when at the outset I heard art treasures which the Einsatzstab had sent to Germany. . . .”

That is all, Gentlemen, I won’t say anything more. I merely want to point out to you the annoyance which the chief of the Einsatzstab himself felt on learning this fact.

Mr. President, Gentlemen, in regard to the participation of the Defendant Göring in Crimes against Humanity, particularly the concentration camps, I shall not insist; but I shall ask the Tribunal, when they have time, to refer to a few paragraphs in which I briefly recall the question. But there is a document which, as far as I know, has not been submitted to the Tribunal and which I should like to submit today. It concerns pseudo-medical experiments which I believe have not yet been discussed.

You have frequently been told of Dr. Rascher’s experiments in the exposure of certain persons to alternate heat and cold, but there is a question which I treat on Page 17 of my brief and which concerns the document which I submit today as Exhibit Number RF-1427. This is a document which originally had the Number L-170. It is a report made by Major Leo Alexander of the United States Army, on an institution known as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. Major Leo Alexander, at the time of the defeat of Germany by the Allied Forces, had to conduct certain investigations. He conducted one in connection with experiments made by Dr. Rascher and another in connection with these carried out in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. This report which I submit to the Tribunal is entitled, “Neuropathology in Wartime Germany.” This Kaiser Wilhelm Institut was an institute designed for cerebral research. This institution had formerly been in Berlin-Buch (Page 18 in my brief) and was split up into three establishments, the first in Munich—I pass over the one in Munich—the third in Göttingen. The second, the one which interests me, was established at Dillenburg, in Hessen-Nassau, where there was a department for special pathology directed by Dr. Hallervorden. What is interesting, Mr. President. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Could we see the original?

M. MOUNIER: The original? Here it is, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Is the series “L” referred to in Major Coogan’s affidavit?

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I should like to point out that this Number L-170 is the same as that referring to that same Major Leo Alexander’s document book concerning the experiments of Dr. Rascher. It is the same number. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: As this document has already been produced in evidence in the series “L”—it is L-170 I think—the Tribunal will treat it for the moment as being in evidence and will further consider its admissibility.

M. MOUNIER: Yes, sir. At all events, I should like to remind the President, who has certainly noticed it, that I reproduce in this brief, which has already been communicated to the Defense, the passage which I regard as relevant to my brief. The passage is quoted in full in my brief.

THE PRESIDENT: [Turning to Dr. Stahmer.] Yes, we will listen to you in a few minutes.

[Turning to M. Mounier.] Which passage do you wish to refer to?

M. MOUNIER: Pages 20 and 21 in my brief.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, do you wish to read them?

M. MOUNIER: I accept the decision of the Tribunal. If the Court considers this reading superfluous, I shall limit myself to pointing out that what I find striking in this document is the manner in which Dr. Hallervorden ordered the delivery of brains for examination when he says:

“ ‘I had heard that they were going to do that.’ ”—That is, to say, to kill some sick people in different establishments by means of carbon-monoxide.—Dr. Hallervorden explained to his American interrogator, Major Alexander.

“ ‘. . . I went up to them and told them “Look here now, boys, if you are going to kill all these people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized.

“ ‘They asked me, “How many can you examine?” and so I told them an unlimited number—the more the better. I gave them the fixatives, jars and boxes, and instructions for removing and fixing the brains. . . .’ ”

I call the attention of the Tribunal to the truly horrible nature of the measures taken in regard to the people who were to be killed merely to have their brains examined, for they were, so he said,

“ ‘. . . selected from the various wards of the institutions according to an excessively simple and quick method. Most institutions did not have enough physicians, and what physicians there were were either too busy or did not care, and they delegated the selection to the nurses and attendants. Whoever looked sick or was otherwise a problem patient from the nurses’ or attendants’ point of view, was put on a list and was transported to the killing center. The worst thing about this business was that it produced a certain brutalization of the nursing personnel. They got to simply picking out those whom they did not like, and the doctors had so many patients that they did not even know them, and put their names on the list.’ ”

I shall stop my citation there, Mr. President, but what I should like to do subsequently, unless the Tribunal is going to call upon Dr. Stahmer to speak. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we are now going to hear what Dr. Stahmer wants to say.

DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for the Defendant Göring): I am sorry that I must contradict what has just been said, for there is no proof that these things took place or that the Defendant Göring is responsible. The Defendant Göring states that he was quite unaware of these events and that he had nothing whatever to do with matters of that kind. As far as I know, the Prosecution itself. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I have to interrupt you, Dr. Stahmer. You will have a full opportunity of presenting arguments to us to show that the evidence which is adduced, which is brought forward now against the Defendant Göring, has really no reference to him. You will have a full opportunity to do that at the appropriate stage when you present the defense. The only question we are considering now, the technical question, is whether this document is a document which is admissible. We are considering it, of course, but it is not the appropriate time for you to present your argument that the document does not refer to Göring and that Göring had no knowledge of it. That will be your defense. It isn’t an objection to the admissibility of the document. It is an argument to show that Göring didn’t know anything about the document and didn’t know anything about the experiments.

Do you understand what I mean?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I only wanted, by introducing. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Mounier, continue.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I take leave to point out to you that my friend, Mr. Elwyn Jones, has just pointed out to me that this is admitted as proof in view of the conditions under which it was submitted. This is the document entitled, “Neuropathology and Neurophysiology, including Electroencephalography, in Wartime Germany.” Besides this reference is found in the English copy which I submitted in the modest document book which I submitted to the Tribunal just now. I should like to tell you, Mr. President, in citing this short passage. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe the Tribunal had better keep the original document for the present.

M. MOUNIER: My aim, Mr. President, in citing this short passage, is to demonstrate the truly atrocious way in which they treated people in order to procure the necessary material for these so-called experiments. According to the Prosecution this relates to Hermann Göring, for the Tribunal will take into account the fact that these experiments were made for the purpose of obtaining information of a scientific or pseudo-scientific nature concerning the effects upon the brains of airmen of all the accidents which might happen to them.

These experiments are connected with those of Dr. Rascher, concerning which some correspondence took place. The Defendant Hermann Göring cannot have been ignorant of this correspondence, for it directly concerned the Air Force, which he commanded. I cite, for instance, a letter dated 24 October 1942, which was addressed by Himmler to Dr. Rascher and which I submit to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Number RF-1409 (Document Number 1609-PS).

To save the time of the Tribunal I shall not read this letter. I shall simply refer to another document which has already been cited as Document Number 343-PS. It was submitted by the American Prosecution as Exhibit Number USA-463, 20 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1428), and it is a letter which proves that as early as 20 May 1942 Field Marshal Milch was charged by the Defendant Göring with the task of transmitting to the SS his special thanks for the aid which they had given the Luftwaffe with these pseudo-medical experiments. Consequently, we consider that in this respect the responsibility of the Defendant Hermann Göring is clearly established.

Mr. President and Gentlemen, I have concluded the points concerning the Defendant Hermann Göring to which I wanted to draw the attention of the Tribunal. There is a conclusion in my brief against the Defendant Hermann Göring. With the permission of the Tribunal I shall not read it. I shall say that this conclusion is an extract from an old book dating from 1669, which is certainly known to everyone in Germany at least. Its title is Simplizius Simplizissimus by Grimmelshausen. It is a work in which persons are seen invoking dreams. Unfortunately the realization seems to have been achieved by the National Socialist regime.

I now go on to the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, whose case concerns most particularly our friends in the Netherlands on behalf of whom France is acting as counsel.

Consequently, Mr. President and Gentlemen, as regards the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, the French Prosecution is going to outline as briefly as possible both in the name of the Netherlands Government and in its own name the separate charges against this defendant. The part played by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, his participation in the annexation of Austria, were carefully studied during the course of this Trial. But it is his operations in Holland which deserve to be thrown into special relief today.

On 13 May 1940 the Netherlands Government left Holland for a friendly Allied country. Its presence there was indicative of its firm determination not to yield up in any way its sovereign rights.

On 29 May 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, who had the rank of Reich Minister without Portfolio, was appointed Reich Commissioner for the occupied Netherlands. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart has therefore been considered responsible, by virtue of his functions, for all the acts committed by the so-called German Civil Government from that date up to the capitulation of the German Army. The speeches which he made afford evidence that he was invested not only with purely administrative functions but also with political authority.

It is, therefore, useless for him to try, as he did when he was interrogated by my friend Mr. Thomas Dodd, to maintain that in Holland he was nothing more than an official empowered to put his seal on orders, in the same way that in Austria earlier he was practically only a telegraph operator. This interrogation is dated 18 September 1945, Pages 20 to 22. I do not insist further, as I did not wish to produce these interrogations in order to avoid wasting the time of the Court with the numerous interrogations which would have had to be cited in cross-examination, and these documents will really remain for the edification of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, has the interrogation been put in?

M. MOUNIER: No, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as a matter of technical procedure. . . .

M. MOUNIER: I know in advance that you cannot accept this as proof already constituted in your eyes, considering the rule. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it can be given if the rule is complied with.

M. MOUNIER: My intention, Mr. President, is the following—to state. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, I think you are misunderstanding me. Under the article the prosecutors have got the right to interrogate any of the defendants, and this was an interrogation of one of the defendants.

If the Prosecution choose to do so, they can offer their interrogation in evidence. If they do not choose to do so, they need not do so. Under such circumstances the interrogation is not in evidence, and need not be furnished to the defendant until it is.

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President, I have not alluded to these statements made by the defendant. I simply wish to point out that when the defendant of whom I am now speaking is cross-examined, we shall be able to confront him with the statements he made, or, at least, I hope so.

With the permission of the Court I shall first take up the subject of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s terrorist activities. These are shown by the following measures:

First, a whole system of collective fines. In March 1941 he established a system of collective fines which were imposed upon the Dutch cities where he thought that elements of the resistance movement existed. Thus the city of Amsterdam had to pay a fine of two and a half million.

The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also established a system of hostages. On 18 May 1942 he published a proclamation announcing the arrest of 450 persons in important official positions, who were only suspected of being in relation with the resistance movement.

In fact, the defendant has admitted before Mr. Dodd. . . . No, I stop, Mr. President, I did not submit these interrogations. I shall pass over this passage and only point it out in a general way, and I beg the Court not to consider this fact as an infringement of the Charter. I am simply pointing out to the Court that in this case, too, the Defendant Seyss-Inquart tried to hide behind the shadow of the Reich Chancellor, the shadow of the Führer, Hitler.

By the decree of 7 July 1942, the defendant ordered that the German tribunals, the judges of which he himself appointed, were to try not only the German citizens in Holland, but also citizens suspected of activities hostile to the Reich, to the Nazi Party, or to the German people.

At the same time the Defendant Seyss-Inquart introduced the death penalty for those who had not properly performed the security jobs assigned them by the Wehrmacht or the Security Police or who had failed to inform the German command posts of all criminal projects directed against the occupation forces which came to their knowledge.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you were citing then a proclamation dated 18 May 1942. You did not give us any number as yet.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I ought to say that I am referring in a general way to the official report of the Netherlands Government (Document Number RF-1429). The government submitted a report. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Is it stated there?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Did that also apply to the document of 7 July 1942 that you just spoke of?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also appointed the SS Obergruppenführer Rauter, General Commissioner for Security. The latter is responsible for the murder of thousands of Dutchmen executed with the passive consent of Seyss-Inquart, inasmuch as Rauter’s appointment was always maintained and was never terminated.

On the other hand, the Netherlands Government charges the Defendant Seyss-Inquart with the creation of a whole series of exceptional courts. In May 1943 he established summary police jurisdiction, and in fact through an ordinance issued by Hitler, Dutch prisoners of war who had been freed shortly after the cessation of hostilities were once more interned. A tough resistance showed itself in the Dutch factories and the newly established summary jurisdiction sentenced several Dutch citizens who were executed. Moreover, Seyss-Inquart did not fail to boast of all these terrorist measures at a meeting of Dutch collaborators and claimed responsibility for them.

The Defendant Seyss-Inquart was Hitler’s supreme representative in Holland. He should be considered as responsible, along with the Defendant Sauckel, for the mass deportation of workers from Holland to the Reich between 1940 and 1945. Whether or not the German military authorities played any part themselves in the mobilization of labor, Sauckel’s officials in Holland were normally placed under the authority of the Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, and he must be considered as responsible for their actions. It was the Defendant Seyss-Inquart who signed the decree of the Reich Commissioner, Number 26 of 1942, which is found in the official Dutch report, in an official publication ordering the compulsory transport of Dutch labor to Germany. Those who would not work for Germany got nothing to eat; the occupation authorities even went so far as to make huge roundups in the streets of Rotterdam and The Hague in order to procure labor for the fortifications of the Wehrmacht.

In regard to economic pillage during the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s period of office as Commissioner, the Dutch economic system was plundered like that of the other occupied countries. In the winter of 1941-42 woollen goods were requisitioned by order of Seyss-Inquart for the German Army on the Eastern front. In 1943 textiles and every-day household articles were requisitioned for the benefit of the bombed-out German population. Under what the occupation authorities called the “Action Böhm,” people of the Netherlands were compelled to sell wines and various objects destined to form gifts for the German population for the celebration of Christmas 1943.

The same thing happened with regard to the organization of the black market, for, in order to carry out the Four Year Plan, Seyss-Inquart gave the Defendant Göring and the Defendant Speer competent assistance in the pillage of the Dutch economic system. We can say in this way that a huge black market was fostered and maintained. The Four Year Plan utilized “snatchers” for these alleged purchases but when Dutch prosecutors tried to intervene they were prevented from doing so by the German police.

In 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued an ordinance permitting the German authorities in Holland to confiscate the property of all persons who could be accused of hostile activities against the German Reich. The property of the royal family was, on the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s orders, confiscated by the General Commission for Security. The occupation troops could help themselves to everything that was of use to them.

This pillage was manifested in a particularly cruel manner by the abuses which went on in connection with the requisition of food products.

In fact, the official report of the Dutch Government and the document already submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution under Document Number RF-139 (Exhibit Number RF-139), and Document Number RF-140 (Exhibit Number RF-140) show that, from the very beginning of the occupation, food stocks were systematically removed with the consent of Seyss-Inquart—as was also the case with agricultural produce, which was transported to Germany. When a railway strike broke out in the north in September 1944, soon after the liberation of southern Holland, Seyss-Inquart, in order to break the strike, gave orders that no food stocks were to be moved from the northeast to the West. As a result of this, it was impossible to establish food stocks in the West.

Consequently, Seyss-Inquart must also be held responsible for the famine which ensued during the winter of 1944-45, causing the death of some 25,000 Dutchmen.

In regard to works of art, the pillage was carried on in the same way. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart must be considered responsible for organizing the removal of works of art from Holland, since he expressly called in his friend, Dr. Mühlmann, who was a specialist in this branch.

In this connection I refer to the document submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution under Document Numbers RF-1343 and RF-1344. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued a whole series of measures contrary to international law which did considerable harm to the Netherlands.

In 1941 the Dutch authorities had established a currency control system which allowed them to keep track of purchases made with German money, either of goods or public funds, with the aim of preventing abuses which would lead to the plundering of Holland’s wealth in the form of materials or of currency.

On 31 March 1941 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart abolished the “currency” frontier existing between the Reich and the occupied Dutch territory. By so doing, he paved the way for all the abuses committed in monetary matters by the occupying power, in addition to the impossible sums demanded by Germany to defray the expenses of occupation: 500 million Reichsmark on 24 March 1941.

The frontier control between Dutch occupied territory and Germany was also abolished by order of Göring, in order to expedite the pillage of the Netherlands’ economic system. When the war began to go badly for the Wehrmacht, especially after 1 September 1944, the destruction became systematic. The objectives aimed at by the Germans in the Netherlands were the following: First, to demolish or put out of action factories, shipyards, basins and docks, port installations, mines, bridges, railway equipment. Second, to flood the western parts of Holland. Third, to seize raw materials, semi-manufactured products, manufactured goods and machines, sometimes by requisitioning, sometimes in return for payment in money, but in many cases simply by force of arms. Fourth, to break open safe-deposits containing securities, diamonds, et cetera, and to take illegal possession of these. The result of these measures, responsibility for which devolves wholly or to a great extent on the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, was to throw Holland into a state of unspeakable and undeserved misery.

I have now concluded, Mr. President, the case of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, how long a time do you anticipate you will take this afternoon, because I understand that the case against the Defendant Hess will be presented afterwards; and it is important that he should finish that day, so that the Chief Prosecutor may have a full day for his opening statement.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, both yesterday and today I have yielded most willingly to the wishes of the Tribunal. I understand perfectly your anxiety to expedite the trial as much as possible, and in view of this, I shortened the remarks which I was going to make to you this morning. For this reason, too, I state in the name of the French Prosecution that I shall now forego the presentation of the cases of the other defendants, which were on the schedule. I merely ask the Tribunal to refer to the files which we have submitted, except in the case of Keitel and Jodl. If it please the Court, my friend and colleague, M. Quatre, will make a few remarks about these two defendants at the beginning of this afternoon’s session. He will try to make them as short as possible. In that way the British Delegation will have the two hours which it needs to present the case of Hess.

Consequently, may it please the Court, M. Quatre will take the floor for an hour at two o’clock and then give way to the British Delegation.

THE PRESIDENT: Another question that I would like to ask you, M. Mounier, as to the documents against the other defendants, other than Keitel and Jodl, have they been furnished to the defendants concerned in them?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, they have, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.