Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-05/tgmwc-05-48.07
Last-Modified: 1999/10/05


M. FAURE: Mr. Dodd would like to speak to the Tribunal
concerning a question he wishes to put.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I ask to be heard briefly to inform
this Tribunal that the affiant Andreas Pfaffenberger, whom
the Tribunal directed the prosecution for the United States
to locate, if possible, was located yesterday and he is here
in Nuremberg today. He is available for the cross-
examination which, if I remember correctly, was requested by
Counsel for the defendant Kaltenbrunner.

THE PRESIDENT: Was his affidavit read?

MR. DODD: Yes, your Honour, it was.

THE PRESIDENT: And on the condition that he should be
brought here for cross-examination?

MR. DODD: Yes, Sir. He asked for him to be brought, if I
recall it.

THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel for Kaltenbrunner wish to cross-
examine him now - I mean, not this moment - does he still
wish to cross-examine him?

DR. KAUFFMANN (counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner): I
believe that the defendant Kaltenbrunner does not need the
testimony of this witness. However, I would have to take
this question up with him once more, for up till today it
was not certain that Pfaffenberger would be in court, and if
he is to be cross-examined and to testify, I believe
Kaltenbrunner would have to be present at the hearing.

                                                  [Page 366]


THE PRESIDENT: It seems somewhat unfortunate that this
witness should be brought here for cross-examination and
that then you should be saying that you do not want to cross-
examine him, after reading the affidavit. It seems to me
that the reasonable thing to do would be to make up your
mind whether you do, or do not, want to cross-examine him,
and I should have thought that would have been done and he
would have been brought here, if you wanted to cross-
examine, and not brought here if you did not want to cross-
examine. Anyway, as he has been brought here now, it seems
to me that if you want to cross-examine him you must do so.
Mr. Dodd, can he be kept here for some time?

MR. DODD: He can, your Honour, except that he was in a
concentration camp, for six years, and we have to keep him
here under certain security, and it is somewhat of a
hardship on him to be kept too long. We would like not to
keep him any longer than necessary. We located him with some
difficulty with the help of the United States Forces.

DR. KAUFFMANN: In perhaps two or three days we might wish to
cross-examine; perhaps two or three days.

THE PRESIDENT: I imagine that after the affidavit had been
read, you demanded to cross-examine him and that he has
therefore been produced - well, in those circumstances it
seems to me unreasonable that you should ask that he should
now be kept for two or three days when he is produced. Mr.
Dodd, would it be possible to keep him here until Monday?

MR. DODD: Yes, he can be kept here until Monday.

THE PRESIDENT: We will keep him here until Monday, and you
can cross-examine as you wish. You understand what I mean;
when an affidavit has been put in and one of the defence
counsel said that he wants to cross-examine him, he ought to
inform the prosecution if, after reading and considering the
affidavit, they find that they do not want to cross-examine
him; they ought to inform the prosecution so as to avoid all
the cost and trouble of bringing a witness from some
distance off. Do you follow?

DR. KAUFMANN I will proceed with the cross-examination on
Monday.

THE PRESIDENT Yes.

M. FAURE: Mr. President, I would ask the Tribunal whether
they would agree to hear the witness Emil Reuter at this
point?

(EMIL REUTER, a witness on behalf of the French prosecution
takes the stand.)

THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?

THE WITNESS: Reuter, Emil.

THE PRESIDENT: Emil Reuter, do you swear to speak without
hate nor fear, to speak the truth, all the truth, only the
truth? Raise the right hand and say, "I swear."

(The witness repeated the oath in French.)

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DIRECT EXAMINATION. BY M. FAURE:

Q. M. Reuter, you are a lawyer of the Luxembourg Bar?

A. Yes.

Q. You are President of the Chamber of Deputies in
Luxembourg?

A. Yes.

Q. You had been exercising these functions at the time of
the invasion of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by the German
troops?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you give us any indication on the fact that the
Government of the Reich had, a few days before the invasion
of Luxembourg, given to the Government of the Grand Duchy
assurances of its peaceful intentions?

A. In August 1939 the German Minister for Luxembourg gave to
the Minister

                                                  [Page 367]

of Foreign Affairs of the country a statement according to
which the German Reich, in the event of a European war,
would respect the independence and neutrality of the
country, provided that the Luxembourg Grand Duchy should not
violate its own neutrality. A few days before the invasion,
in May, 1940, the Germans constructed pontoon bridges over
half of the Moselle River which separates the two countries.
An explanation from the German Minister in Luxembourg tried
to represent such construction of pontoon bridges as landing
stages in the interest of navigation. In the general public
opinion, these installations were really of a military
character.

Q. Can you tell us about the situation of public authorities
in Luxembourg, following the departure of Her Royal
Highness, the Grand Duchess, and of her Government?

A. The further administration of the country was ensured by
a government commission which possessed the necessary powers
bestowed upon it by the competent constitutional
authorities. There was, therefore, no lack of authority in
the administration.

Q. Is it not true that the Germans claimed, upon their
arrival in that country, that the Government had failed to
carry out its functions, and that following the departure of
the Government there was no regular authority in the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg?

A. Yes, indeed. Such a declaration was made by the Ministers
of the Reich in Luxembourg before a Parliamentary
Commission.

Q. Do I understand correctly that these statements on the
part of the German authorities did not in fact correspond to
the truth inasmuch as you have told us that there did exist
a higher organism for the administration of the country?

A. This statement did not correspond to the reality. It was
evidently aimed at usurping authority.

Q. M. Reuter, the Germans never proclaimed by law the
annexation of Luxembourg. Do you consider that the measures
adopted by the Germans in that country were equivalent to
annexation?

A. The measures that were taken by the Germans in the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg were obviously equivalent to an
annexation of that country. A few days after the invasion
the leaders of the Reich in Luxembourg stated in public and
official speeches that the annexation by law would occur at
a time which would be freely selected by the Fuehrer. The
proof of this de facto annexation is shown in a clear manner
by the whole series of ordinances which the Germans
published in the Grand Duchy.

Q. The Germans organised a census in Luxembourg. In the form
that was given the inhabitants of Luxembourg to effect the
census, there was one question concerning the native or
usual language, and also another question as to the racial
background of the individual. Are you prepared to assert
that in view of these two questions this census was
considered as having the character of a plebiscite?

A. From the comminatory instructions published by the German
authorities in connection with this census, the political
purpose was obvious; therefore public opinion never
envisaged this census except as a sort of attempt to achieve
a plebiscite camouflaged as a census, a political operation
destined to give a certain justification to the annexation
which was to follow.

Q. The report of the Luxembourg Government does not give any
indication of the statistical results of this census,
specifically with regard to the political question of which
I spoke a moment ago. Would you be kind enough to tell us
why these statistical data are not to be found in any
document?

A. The complete statistical data have never been collected,
because after a partial examination of the first results the
German authorities noted that only an infinitesimal fraction
of the population had answered the two tricky questions

                                                  [Page 368]

in the German sense. The German authorities then preferred
to stop the process, and the forms distributed in the
country for obtaining the answers were never collected.

Q. Do you remember the date of the census?

A. This census must have taken place in 1942.

Q. After the census the Germans realised that there was no
majority, and not even any considerable part of the
population which was desirous of being incorporated into the
German Reich. However, did they continue to apply their
measures of annexation?

A. Measures tending to Germanisation, and later to the
annexation of the country, were continued, and later on they
were even reinforced by further new measures.

Q. Am I to understand, therefore, that during the
application of these measures the Germans could not be
ignorant of the fact that the Luxembourg population was
opposed to them?

A. There can be no doubt at all on this question.

Q. Can you tell us whether it is correct that the German
authorities obliged members of the constabulary force and
the police to take an oath of allegiance to the Chancellor
of the Reich?

A. Yes. This was forced upon the constabulary corps and the
police with very serious threats and punishments.
Recalcitrants were usually deported, if I remember rightly,
to Sachsenhausen, and on the approach of the Russian Army
all or a part of the recalcitrants who were in the camp were
shot (about 150).

Q. Can you tell us anything concerning the transfer - I
believe the Germans call it "Umsiedlung" - of a certain
number of inhabitants and families living in your country?

A. The transplanting was ordered by the German authority of
Luxembourg for elements which appeared to be unfit for
assimilation or unworthy of or undesirable for residence on
the frontiers of the Reich.

Q. Can you indicate the approximate number of people who
were victims of this transplanting?

A. There must have been about 7000 people who were
transplanted in this manner, because we found in Luxembourg
a list mentioning between 2800 and 2900 homes or families.

Q. These indications are based on knowledge you received as
President of the Chamber of Deputies?

A. Not exactly, the list was found in Luxembourg; it is
still deposited there and the office of War Criminals took
cognisance of it, like all the judiciary authorities in
Luxembourg.

Q. Can you state, M. Reuter, how the people who were
transplanted were informed of this measure concerning them,
and how much time they had to get ready?

A. The families to be transplanted were never given notice
in advance, officially at least. About six o'clock in the
morning, the Gestapo rang at the door, and they notified
those who were selected to be ready for departure within one
or two hours with a minimum of luggage. Then they were taken
to the station and put on a train for the camp to which they
were at first to be sent.

Q. Can you tell us whether these measures were applied to
people whom you know personally?

A. I know personally a large number of people who were
transplanted among them members of my own family, a great
number of colleagues of the Chamber of Deputies, many
members of the Bar, many magistrates and so forth.

                                                  [Page 369]

Q. In addition to these transplantations, were there
deportations to concentration camps? This is another
question.

A. Yes, there were deportations to concentration camps which
everyone knew about. The number of such deportations in the
Grand Duchy may be approximately four thousand.

Q. M. Reuter, it has been established, through their
ordinances, that the German authorities prescribed
compulsory military service, - I will not ask you,
therefore, any question on this particular point. However, I
would like to ask you whether you are able to state,
approximately, the number of Luxembourg citizens who were
enrolled in the Germany Army.

A. The young people who were incorporated into the German
Army by force belonged to five classes, beginning with the
class of 1920. The number is about eleven thousand to twelve
thousand, at least. A certain number of them, I think about
one-third, succeeded in avoiding conscription, and became
refractory. Others later deserted the German Army and fled
to other countries.

Q. Can you indicate the approximate number of Luxembourgers
who died as a result of their forced enlistment?

A. At the end of September 1944 we had about two thousand
five hundred dead. Searches have continued and at present, I
think, we have established the names of at least three
thousand.

Q. The sanctions that had been provided to force the
enlistment of the Luxembourgers, were they very severe?

A. These sanctions were extremely severe. First of all, the
young people who were refractory were pursued and hunted by
the police and by the Gestapo. Then they were brought before
various types of Tribunals, in Luxembourg, France, Belgium,
or Germany. Their families were deported; the family fortune
was generally confiscated. The penalties pronounced by the
Tribunals against these young people were likewise very
severe. The death penalty was general, or else imprisonment,
forced labour, deportation to concentration camps. Some of
them were released later on, but there were some who were
shot as hostages after having been released.

Q. I would like to ask one last question. Do you think it is
possible that these measures, which constituted a de facto
annexation of Luxembourg, could have been unknown to the
persons who belonged to the Reich Government, or to the
German High Command?

A. I believe that it is hardly possible that such a
situation could have been unknown to the members of the
Reich and the Supreme Military Authority. My opinion is
based on the following facts: First of all, our young
people, when mobilised by force, frequently protested, at
the time of their arrival in Germany, by invoking the fact
that they were all of Luxembourg nationality, and that they
were the victims of force, so that the military authorities
must have been informed of the situation in the Grand Duchy.

In the second place, several Ministers of the Reich, among
them Thierack, Rust and Ley, visited the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg, and could see for themselves the situation of
the country and the reaction of the population: other high
political personalities of the Reich, such as Bormann and
Sauckel, also paid visits.

Finally there were German decrees and ordinances, concerning
the denationalisation of certain categories of Luxembourg
citizens. These ordinances bore the signature of the
Minister of the Reich. The executive measures implementing
these ordinances were published in the Official Gazette of
the Reich Ministry of the Interior, under the signature of
the Minister of Interior Frick, with the indication that
these instructions were to be communicated to all the
superior Reich authorities.

                                                  [Page 370]

M. FAURE: I thank you. Those are all the questions I have to
put to you.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any member of the defendants'
counsel who wishes to ask the witness any questions? (No
response). Then the witness can retire.

M. FAURE: Mr. President, am I to understand that the witness
will not have to remain any longer at the disposal of the
Tribunal and he may return to his home?

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

M. FAURE: I had stopped my presentation at the end of the
second part. That is to say, I have examined so far, in the
first place, the elimination of the French formation or
culture and, secondly, the imposition of German rules.

(c) Measures for transplantation and colonisation

The German authorities applied, in these annexed
departments, characteristic methods for the transport of
populations. It so happens that, as the witness from
Luxembourg was heard sooner than I had anticipated, the
Tribunal is already informed of the aspect which these
measures of transplantation assumed in the annexed
territories.

The situation which I am about to describe with respect to
Alsace-Lorraine is, indeed, analogous to the situation which
existed with regard to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. The
principal purpose of the application of such methods by the
Germans was to enable them to colonise by bringing German
subjects into the country, who then seized the lands and
property of the inhabitants who had been expelled.

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