Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-05/tgmwc-05-48.04
Last-Modified: 1999/10/05

I should like to make one citation of an article which is
particularly significant, published in the "Dernieres
Nouvelles de Strasbourg" on the 30 March 1943. This is not
introduced as a document; it is merely a quotation of a
published article. When we read this article, we think it at
first a joke, but we see, subsequently, that it is quite
serious, because actual reprisals are there extolled against
people who sabotaged the German language.

I cite:

  "Germans greet one another with ' Heil Hitler.' We do not
  want any more French greetings, which we still hear
  constantly in a thousand different forms. The elegant
  salutation 'Bonjour' is not made for the rough Alsatian
  throats, accustomed to the German tongue since the
  distant epoch of Osfried von Weissenburg. The Alsation
  hurts our ears when he says 'beschurr!' When he says 'Au
  Revoir', the French think they are listening to an Arabic
  word, which sounds like 'arwar.' Sometimes they say 'Adje
  ' (Adieu).
  
  These phonetic monstrosities which disfigure our
  beautiful Alsatian Germanic dialect resemble a thistle in
  a flower bed. Let us weed them out! They are not worthy
  of Alsace. Do you believe feminine susceptibility is
  wounded by saying 'Frau' instead of 'Madame'?  We are
  sure that Alsatians will drop the habit of linguistic
  whims so that the authorities will not have to use
  rigorous measures against saboteurs of the German
  language."

After this attack on the language, the National Socialists
attack music. This is the purpose of a decree of 1st March
1941, signed by Dressler, the Chief of Administration for
Alsace, Department of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.

This is Exhibit RF 704, published in the German Official
Journal (Verordnungsblatt) Page 170, of the year 1941. I
shall cite only the title of this decree: "Concerning
Undesirable and Unwholesome Music." The first lines are:

  "Musical works contrary to the cultural will of National
  Socialists will be placed on a list of undesirable and
  unwholesome music, by the Department for Public
  Enlightenment and Propaganda."

After music, now, we have the question of headgear. In this
regulation the ridiculous constantly disputes supremacy with
the odious. I would almost like to ask the Tribunal to
pardon me, but, truly, nothing in this is invented by us.

Here is Exhibit RF 705. It is a decree of December 13, 1941,
published in the Official Bulletin of 1941, Page 744. It
concerns the wearing of French berets (Basque: berets in
Alsace).

I read only the first paragraph:

  "The wearing of French berets (Basque berets) is
  forbidden in Alsace. Under this prohibition are included
  all berets which by form or appearance resemble French
  berets."

I may add that any violation of this decree was punishable
by fine or prison.

The leaders also undertook a long struggle against French
flags which the inhabitants kept in their homes. I cite as
an example Exhibit RF 706, a German administrative document
which we found in the archives of the Gau Administration of
Strasbourg. It is dated 19 February 1941. I read three
paragraphs of this document.

   "The Gauleiter desires that through the organisation of
   Block and Zellenleiter (Section Heads) it be recommended
   to the Alsatian population
   
                                                  [Page 353]
   
   that they unstitch French flags which they still have in
   their possession and use them in an adequate way for
   household needs.
   
   By the 1st of May next no French flag should be in
   private hands. This operation must be carried out in the
   following way. The Blockleiter (Section heads) will
   visit the houses one by one and recommend that the
   families use flags for household needs.
   
   It must also be pointed out that after the 1st of May
   next we will draw the proper conclusion concerning the
   attitude of proprietors or householders in whose homes
   we still find French flags in private hands."

The following document, submitted as Exhibit RF 707, is also
an administrative memorandum on the same subject, dated
Strasbourg, April 26, 1941, of which I should like to read
only the last sentence:

   "If, after 1st June 1941, Alsatians still are found to
   have French flags in their possession, they will have to
   spend one year in a concentration camp."

The Nazis feared French influence to such a degree that they
even took a special measure to prevent the coming to Alsace
of French workers among the labourers brought into this
territory for compulsory labour service. This is the purpose
of a memorandum of the 7 September 1942 of the civil
administration in Alsace, submitted as Exhibit RF 708, which
was also found in the archives of the Gauleiteung of
Strasbourg. I read the first few lines:

   "Given the general situation of the labour market, the
   Chief of the Civil Administration has decided that
   foreign labour from all European countries could, in the
   future, be used in Alsace. There is an exception,
   however, for French and Belgians, who cannot be employed
   in Alsace."

The German undertaking against the French sentiment of
Alsatians.

THE PRESIDENT: The translation which came through to me was
"must." It came through that the foreign workers of all
countries of Europe must in the future, be used. The word is
"pouvait." That does not mean "must," does it? It is
"pouvait." Does that not mean "could?"

M. FAURE: "Could," according to necessity; the interesting
aspect is that those who are French may not work there, even
if labour is needed in Alsace.

The German undertaking against the French sentiments of the
Alsatians found its complementary aspect in the attempt also
to destroy anything which might be an indication of Alsace
belonging to the Motherland, France. I shall cite one
example in relation to this point. This is our Document RF
709.

It is a letter of the German Ambassador in Paris, May 7,
1941, which is reproduced in a memorandum of the General
Delegation of the French Government, found in the archives
of the government. I read this Document 709, which is short:

   "The German Embassy has the honour to point out the
   following to the General Delegation of the French
   Government in occupied territory.
   
   The German Embassy has been informed that in a series of
   reports on a theme concerning the Fatherland, a French
   radio station in the nonoccupied territory, on 16 or 17
   April 1941, about 21 hours, is said to have made a
   broadcast about the village of Brumath."

   As Brumath, near Strasbourg, is in a German language
   territory, the German Ambassador requests that they
   inform him if such a broadcast was actually made."

There exist numerous protests of this kind, which
fortunately have often had an anecdotic character. We must
now cite two especially serious cases, for they included
assault, flagrant violations of sovereignty, and even
crimes.

The first case concerns the seizure and profanation of the
treasure of the cathedral of Strasbourg. I shall submit,
concerning this subject, Exhibit

                                                  [Page 354]

RF 710, which is a letter of protest of 14 August 1943,
written by General Berard, President of the French
delegation of the Armistice Commission. I read the beginning
of the letter and repeat that the date is 14 August 1943:

   "Dear General,
   
   From the beginning of the war, the treasure of
   Strasbourg Cathedral and the property of certain
   parishes of this diocese had been entrusted by
   Monsiegneur Ruch, Bishop of Strasbourg, to the Beaux-
   Arts Department. This Department had put them in a safe
   place in the castles of Hautefort and of Bourdeilles in
   Dordogne, where they still were on the date of 20 May
   1943.
   
   The treasures and this property included in particular,
   the pontificalia reserved for the exclusive use of the
   Bishop, several of which were his personal property; the
   relics of saints; and vessels or objects for the
   performance of ceremonies.
   
   After having sought on several occasions, but in vain,
   to obtain the consent of Monseigneur Ruch, the
   Ministerial Counsellor Kraft on the 20th of May,
   requested not only the prefect of Dordogne, but also the
   director of religious matters, for authority to remove
   the objects deposited. Faced with the refusal of these
   high officials, he declared that the repatriation to
   Alsace of the property of the Catholic Church would be
   entrusted to the Sicherheitspolizei.
   
   As a result, at dawn on 21 May, the castles of Hautefort
   and Bourdeilles were entered and occupied by troops,
   despite the protests of the guardian. The sacred objects
   were placed in trucks and taken to an unknown
   destination.
   
   This seizure, moreover, was extended to consecrated
   vases, vessels and ceremonial objects, and the relics of
   saints worshipped by the faithful. The seizure of these
   sacred objects by laymen not legally authorised, and the
   conditions under which the operation was carried out,
   aroused the emotion and unanimous reprobation of the
   faithful"

Relative to this document I would like to emphasise to the
Tribunal one fact which we shall find frequently hereafter,
and which is, in our opinion, very important in this trial.
It is the constant collaboration of different or diverse
German administrations. Thus, the Tribunal must through this
document, see that Ministerial Counsellor Kraft, belonging
to the civilian service dealing with national education,
appeals to the police of the SS to obtain objects which he
cannot obtain through his own efforts.

The second case which I would like to cite concerns the
University of Strasbourg.

From the beginning of the war, the University of Strasbourg,
which was one of the finest in France, had withdrawn to
Clermont-Ferrand to continue its teaching there. After the
occupation of Alsace, and since this occupation really meant
annexation, it was not reinstated in Strasbourg but remained
in its city of refuge. The Nazis expressed their great
disapproval of this in numerous, threatening memoranda.

We would like to submit Exhibit RF 711 relative to this. In
this we shall again come across the Ministerial Counsellor,
Herbert Kraft, about whom I spoke in the preceding document.
The document which is an original memorandum signed by
Kraft, was found in the archives of the German Embassy.

In this memorandum, which is dated 4 July 1941, Counsellor
Kraft expresses his disappointment at the result of steps
which he had undertaken with the rector of the University of
Strasbourg, M. Danjon.

I believe that it is adequate if I read a very short passage
of this memorandum in order to show the insolence and the
threatening methods which the Germans

                                                  [Page 355]

used, even in that part of France which was not yet
occupied. The passage which I am going to read will be the
last paragraph on page 2. Mr. Kraft relates the end of his
conversation with the rector. I cite:

   " I cut the conversation short, arose, and asked him if,
   by chance, the decisions of Admiral Darlan did not
   represent for him an order from his government. As I
   went out I added, 'I hope that they will arrest you.' He
   ran after me, made me repeat my remark, and as I went
   off he said to me, ironically, that it would be for him
   a great honour."

This document gives an amusing impression, but the matter as
a whole was very serious.

The 15 June 1943, the German Embassy wrote a note which I
submit as Exhibit RF 712. This is an extract from the
archives of the High Court and has been certified by the
clerk of that jurisdiction. Here is the text. I shall not
read the beginning of it.

   "The German Embassy feels that it is extremely desirable
   to find a solution of the affair of the University of
   Strasbourg at Clermont-Ferrand.
   
   We would be happy to learn that no further publication
   would appear under the heading 'University of
   Strasbourg' so that new disagreements
   may not result from publications of that kind.
   
   The German Embassy has taken note of the fact that the
   Ministry of National Education can no longer fill vacant
   professorial chairs.
   
   We request that in the future no examination certificate
   mentioning 'University of Strasbourg' be awarded."

I must, in concluding this subject of the University of
Strasbourg, point out to the Tribunal a fact which is
notorious. On Thursday, 25 November 1943, the German police
took possession of the buildings of the University of
Strasbourg in Clermont-Ferrand, arrested the professors and
students, screened them, and deported a great number of
persons. During this operation, they even shot at two
professors; one was killed and the other seriously wounded.

I will be able to produce a document relative to this, but I
think that is not indispensable since there is not any proof
for the prosecution that these murders were committed under
orders which definitely show governmental responsibility.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, did you say that you had or had not
got proof of the facts that you have just stated about the
seizure of the property of the university?

M. FAURE: I said just this, Mr. President: We consider that
these facts are facts of public knowledge, because of the
interpretation which was given by the Tribunal. I have
considered that it would be better to prove it by a
document. As this document was not added to my file at that
time, it will be submitted as an appendix. I am going to
read a passage of this document, but I should like to
explain that it is not found in its proper place as I added
it to the brief after the statement of the Tribunal the
other day on
the interpretation of facts of "public knowledge."

THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.

Tomorrow being Saturday, the Tribunal will sit from 1000
o'clock in the morning until 0100 o'clock. We will then
adjourn.

DR. KAUFFMANN (Counsel for the defendant Kaltenbrunner): It
was said that this afternoon there will be a witness. I
would like to ask that this testimony be postponed to
another day. I believe that we have reached a so-called
silent agreement that we will be notified in advance as to
whether there will be witnesses and what the subject of
their evidence will be.

I do not know whether there will be cross-examination, but
the possibility exists, of course, and pertinent questions
can only be put when we know, first of all, who the witness
is to be, and secondly, what the subject will be on which
the witness is to be cross-examined, just a clue perhaps.

                                                  [Page 356]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think it is necessary
to postpone the evidence of this witness. As a matter of
courtesy on the part of the prosecution, it would be well,
perhaps, that the subject matter - not necessarily the name,
but the subject matter upon which the witness is to give
evidence - should be communicated to the defence so that
they may prepare themselves upon that subject matter for any
cross-examination.

I understand that this afternoon you propose to call a
witness who will deal with the circumstances in respect to
the German occupation of Luxembourg. That is right, is it
not?

M. FAURE: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you will give the defendant's counsel
the subject matter upon which they can prepare themselves
for cross-examination. I am told that this subject matter
has already been communicated to the defendants and is on
their bulletin board at the present moment.

(A recess was taken)

MARSHAL OF THE COURT: May it please the Court, I desire to
announce that the defendants Kaltenbrunner, Seyss-Inquart
and Streicher will be absent from this afternoon's session
on account of illness.

THE PRESIDENT: The question which was raised this morning
about certain documents has been investigated, and the
Tribunal understands that the documents were placed in the
defence counsel's Information Centre yesterday, but it may
be that the misunderstanding arose owing to those documents
not having been in any way indexed, and it would, I think,
be very helpful to the defence counsel if prosecuting
counsel could, with the documents, deposit also some sort of
index which would enable the defence counsel to find them.

M. FAURE: It is understood that we shall present a table of
contents of the documents to the German defence.

THE PRESIDENT: I think if you could, yes.

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