Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-06-52.05
Last-Modified: 1998/04/20


                                                  [Page 112]
                                                            
and therefore the Tribunal does not consider that it is
properly proved by mere introductions of the document,
without anything on it. 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 Goering 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
acted for the defendant most often, however, under their own
names. The personal collection of the defendant Goering
flourished very considerably. In this regard I submit a
document which becomes RF 1332 and to which my colleague, in
charge of 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, the defendant Ribbentrop in his capacity as
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Page 56). It was von
Ribbentrop who was responsible for the Fuehrer's order of
30th June, 1940, which I presented a short time ago as
Exhibit RF 1301 and which I read to the Tribunal.

Ribbentrop's activities are likewise shown in a letter of
1st June, 1940, addressed by Ambassador Abetz to the
Military Commander of Paris, a copy of which I submit as
Exhibit RF 1334 (Page 56). I submit, furthermore ----

THE PRESIDENT: What is this document, 1334?

M. GERTHOFFER: It is the copy of a letter addressed to the
Military Commander of Paris by Ambassador Abetz (Page 56 of
the statement). I can read it to the Tribunal, if it wishes.
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 mean at the top of the
document, "COL, Bureau of ----"

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 Article 21 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 appear 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, at 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

                                                  [Page 113]
                                                            
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.

M. GERTHOFFER: Exhibit RF 1336 is composed of a series of
orders, of reports of the Army and of the "Einsatzstab." It
was Document 1015-PS, submitted by the prosecutor of the
United States as Exhibit 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
accusations, 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. 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. The last
document which I present to the Tribunal is 160-PS,
contained in the document book as Exhibit RF 1346. Here is
the text. It is extremely brief:

     "14th August, 1944 -- Mission B.
     
     The Heads of Special Missions (`Haupteinsatzfuehrer'),
     Dr. Lohse and Dr. Borchers, of my "Einsatzstab" for the
     occupied territories, are charged with the immediate
     transport from the Jeu de Paume Museum and the Louvre
     depot, by all means still available, of works of art
     taken into safe custody by order of the Fuehrer and
     still stored in Paris,.
     
     The Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich has
     recently, by a personal directive of 13th 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 Heads of Special
     Missions."
     
Whatever the reasons of a legal 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 was in a position
to take all the measures desired. As for the fate reserved
for the National Socialist leaders, the documents produced
have sufficiently shown their intentions and their plans.

                                                  [Page 114]
                                                            
The defence will undoubtedly contest that important
treasures of national works of art from occupied territories
were taken to Germany. If such an argument were presented, I
should answer:

(1) For various reasons, the occupying authorities did not
have the chance to do so, since they barely had time to
collect, to catalog and to transport the numerous art
treasures of which the occupied countries had been
dispossessed.

(2) It is obvious that the occupational authorities
preferably 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 dispose 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 holds good.

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 Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell me what documents FA-20, 21
and so forth, refer to? There is an inscription which is on
these various documents. If you look at Exhibit RF 1333 or
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 Exhibit RF 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 exhibit number, which, for
Document FA-21, was RF 1333.

THE PRESIDENT: Document FA 21 is Exhibit RF 1333.

M. GERTHOFFER: We likewise gave it a number.

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

                                                  [Page 115]
                                                            
M. GERTHOFFER: Yes, it is a section of the French prosecution.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor