Then we could breathe easily; that was the only thing that permitted us to sleep tranquilly during the night.
That is an average day, a normal day of an average Belgiah during the German occupation. And you naturally understand that we could not consider the type of happiness and felicity when the German troops invaded our country.
QExcuse me, Mr. van der Essen. The only satisfaction that you had to listen to the radio, was punished by a severe penalty; if you were arrested
AYes, you could be imprisoned.
M. FAURE:I thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Are you finished Mr. Faure?
M. FAURE:No more questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT:General Rudenko?
GENERAL RUDENKO:I have no questions.
(There were no questions from the British Prosecution)
THE PRESIDENT:Do any of the Defendants' Counsel wish to ask any questions?
PROFESSOR FRANZEXNER (Counsel for the Defendant Jodl): Yes, sir. BY PROFESSOR EXNER:
QYou have been speaking about the University library at Louvain. Were you yourself in Louvain when the two batteries were firing at the library?
AI was not in Louvain, but I may add this: Louvain was in the battle line, and the population of Louvain were obliged by the military authorities to evacuate the town on the 14th so that the inhabitants of Louvain had left at the time when these events took place, and only paralytic ill persons who could not be cured, who had hidden in their cellars, were there; but what I know concerning these batteries, I found out through interrogation of the two witnesses who were there. The library was not burned from within, but bombed from outside. And these witnesses of whom I speak lived where the batteries were located.
QWere there any Belgian or British troops still left in the town?
AYes, there were Belgian troops. The British had taken over the sector, and when they observed that the building, the library was burning, the first flames in the night of the 16th - 17th, 1;30 in the morning the English troops had left.
They no longer remained. Only a few who were withdrawing, who fired a shot of cannon occasionlly, to give the impression that the sector was still occupied by the British army.
QSo there were still British troops in the town while the bombardment took place?
AThere were no longer any British troops, simply outside on the hills which surrounded Louvain, a few tanks which, as I said, were carrying out necessary maneuvers for withdrawl.
I would like to add a few words and to say to the very honorable Counsel for the Defense that in this testimony, from persons who were in the library - the bailiff and the concierge - they never saw British soliders put their foot in the buildings of the library.
QThat is not surprising. At the time the German batteries fired were there still British batteries firing -- or Belgian batteries?
ANo.
QSo then there was quiet over the town of Louvain; the troops had left; the enemy was not there yet, and the batteries didn't fire?
AThat was the situation -- a paradoxical situation, in which Louvain was : There was a moment when the English had left, when the Germans had not yet arrived and the the population had left, except the few ill persons, the few paralytics, the few people who were behind in cellars, a few persons #10 could not be moved, the commander of the Fire Engine company, the Rector of the University. Among them was my colleague, Mr. Kennog, member of the Academy of Medicine. He himself took over the direction of the city at that time.
QDid you know where these batteries were located, the German batteries?
AYes, indeed. One at the west and one at the north. The only shells which the towers of the library show four from the eastern side and four from the northern side and if there had been British or Belgian batteries the shells would have come from the other side instead.
QCan you tell me anything about the calibre, the size of that battery?
AYes, we observed that these shells entered the library. We saved a few of those shells.
QAnd do you know the name of the person who allegedly was asked by a German officer whether that was really the tower of the University Library?
QDo you know the person yourself? Do you know him?
AI do not know him personally. He is the librarian of the university with whom I had a conversation, and who brought the war crimes commission to question to Mr. Vigneron.
QBut you are a member of that Commission yourself, aren't you?
AI state here, I am ready to declare that I took no active part concerning the library of Louvain just as Monseigneur, the Rector, and the librarian tock no active part concerning the library of Louvain. It was made by an officer of the judicial delegation -- he himself, independently -
upon the order of the public prosecutor of Louvain, and we kept entirely outside of the question.
QHave you seen the official files?
AYes, yes.
QI am surprised they weren't brought here. Tell me why did the director of the library, the person who was immediately suffering after the occupation of the town, -- why did he not go to the Mayor or the mayor to the Commander of the town?
AI don't think I understand the question very well.
QWhen the German Army came, and there was established a commander of the town, why didn't the Mayor of the town, or the Rector of the library -- why didn't they go to the Commander of the town, the commandant, and tell him about that bombardment of the library?
AVery simply because at that time everything was in a complete state of disorder and there was no one in town; there was hardly -
(A short interruption)
THE PRESIDENT:You may go on.
A (Continuing) At that time there was hardly anybody left in the city, and on the other hand as soon as the Germans arrived, and this in a systematic way, it was forbidden formally to enter the library; Belgians were not permitted by the Germans to enter the library. Different German inquiry commissions came to the spot, on the 26th of May, 1940, with an expert, Professor Kellermann, the Technische Hochschule, accompanied by a man of the Party. They examined what had happened and they had appear before them as witnesses the Rector of the university and the librarian. Fromthe very beginning of the inquiry they wished to force the rector of the university to declare and recognize that it was the English who had set fire to the library. And as a proof, this expert showed shells and parts of shells that smelled of gasoline. "This shell must have contained chemical elements which set fire to the library." The rector and the librarian of the -university said, "Where did you find this shell? We went by that spot and it wasn't there when we went by." It was placed there by the German expert. And I shall add, if you will permit me, because this is of considerable importance, that a second commission for an inquiry came in the month of August, 1940, presided over by a very distinguished man, Obergerichstsrat von Boist.
He was accompanied at this time by the expert who had directed the inquiry concerning the firing of the Reichstag. This commission examined everything, and beforethe rector and another witness, a Benedictine monk. They simply mocked at the conclusions of the first commission, and said these conclusions were ridiculous.
(A short interruption)
THE PRESIDENT:You may continue.
A (Continuing) I said that the second commission presided over by von Brisban, assisted by the expert who had examined the matter of the firing of the Reichstag, had declared before Belgian witnesses that the conclusion of the first commission was ridiculous.
QYou have said that thelibrary building had towers. Do you know whether artillery observers had been in these towers?
AWere there artillery observers? At all events, the only thing I can say is that the rector had always refused this -- from the beginning -and he certainly would have opposed any attempt of this kind, knowing that if there were artillery observers in the tower obviously it would have given occasion for the enemy to fire on the library. The rector knew this and he always told me, "We must too very careful, because if the British soldiers or others were in the sector they must not go up in the tower. We must be careful of that." On the other hand, I know by the statements of the janitors that no British soldiers went into the tower. That is certain. As for Belgians, I must say that I don't know.
QIt would not be surprising, would it, if the University library had been hit by German artillery, because it has happened during the war that libraries and universities in Berlin, Leipzig, Munich, Breslau, Cologne, and so on, have been hit. The question is, only if it was done on purpose. Was there any mention, in these inquiries, as to the motive for the German army's hitting that objective.
AThe ever-all testimony which I received seems to indicate that this was the conclusion at which we arrived -- that the motive -- and I will not say for certain, because there is no certainty in that sort of thing -but the motive which is absolutely probable, almost certain, for the des truction of the library was the German's desire to do away with an in-scription which commemorates the Treaty of Versailles.
There was conversation in the University to the effect that this inscription, a testimonial of the defeat of the other war, should be obliterated, and because of that reason they wished to set fire to the library. The inscription read, "Furor Teutonicus." That is not the first time -- I must add -- that the Germans set fire to the University of Louvain.
QYou believe that the commander of that battery knew that?
A- There is very interesting testimony which I would like to submit to the honorable lawyer for the Defense. When the batteries were installed, the two batteries of which I spoke, a few kilometers away, there lived a fiscal agent in a villa at Roosbeek, a few kilometers before Louvain. That afternoon some German officers came there to enjoy his hospitality. They were accompanied by a truck which contained all the radio apparatus which was used to send by wireless orders to the artillery to fire. These officers came into his home and they dined. After a while a violent discussion took place. The officers said, "These Belgians 'cochons' -- excuse that expression -- "they gave us that inscription concerning the library." The inscription he was referring to seemed to be that inscription. All the German officers were absolutely convinced that this inscription said that the library was destroyed by the Germans and was restored by American generosity. It was perfectly possible that the Germans did, because from a discussion among the officers -- the officer in charge of the artillery - we know that they first directed the artillery to cause this monument -
THE PRESIDENT:Too fast:
A (continuing) That was that this inscription or monument might be caused to disappear.
THE PRESIDENT:Go on.
A (continuing) It is quite probable--it is probable that they wished to caused this disappearance.
According to their idea, that was an inscription which was insulting to the German Army and the German people.
That is the testimony which I would like to give to the honorable Counsel for the Defense.
I give it as it is.
AAnd you believe that the captain who commanded that battery would have known about that inscription! I don't believe so. Thank you. BY DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering):
QWitness, answering Professor Exner's question, you have said before that 43 airplanes flew over the library and dropped bombs on it. You were not in the town of Louvain at that time; where did you get that information?
AAs I have already said at the trial, it was not my testimony which I am citing here, because I have none as far as I am concerned; but it is the testimony of the Counsel, David, who had a country house at Kesselleh.
This lawyer arose in the morning to look over the sky, because there was a considerable number of refugees in his home, among them women and children, and airplanes were continually overhead. He went out in the morning to see what was going on and he saw this squadron of airplanes which he counted-and he was a former soldier himself-numbering 43. The 43 planes flew towards the library and arrived south of it exactly at the furthest point from the house of the witness. A bomb fell there and he saw smoke immediately arise from the library. That is the testimony on which I base my statement.
QSo it was just one bomb that hit the library?
AWe must distinguish here, sir, between artillery fire and bombs which are dropped by planes. From a technical point of view, it is certain that an airplane bomb hit the library, because the roof has a metal roofing.
This metallic roofing is quite upright, except in that part where it is profoundly inclined, and we observed these facts and we consulted technicians.
They said, then, that a metallic mass which was thus struck would not have sunk in that way unless it were from an airplane bomb.
It would not have sunk that way from artillery fire.
QHow many bombs altogether were dropped by airplanes?
AHow many bombs? That witness was on a height dominating the city of Louvain, where it was impossible to count exactly all the bombs which these planes dropped.
He only saw the bombs fall. And he saw the smoke which arose from the roof of the library.
That's all I have to say.
QHow many bombs were dropped on the city altogether? How many hits could be found in the city?
AOn this point I can give you no information, but I know the bombs passed above the quarter in a straight line going to the south, the falling of these bombs at that time.
In the bombing of May 10, 1940, there was damage but not very serious to the building of Superior Philosophy and a few other buildings of the University; in addition a certain number of private houses.
QWhen were the bombs dropped, before the artillery fire or afterwards?
AThe bombs were dropped before and afterward. I myself saw in the afternoon, on the 10th of May, 1940, a terrible bombing at that time. Bombs were dropped by a squadron of seven planes. I am not a military technician, but what I saw and these gentlemen saw were two planes which dive-bombed the Tirlemont Bridge. The result of this bombing was that a considerable amount of concrete was destroyed and several hundred persons killed in the afternoon, in the first days, the 10th of May, 1940.
(A recess was taken from 15.20 to 15.40 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other Defense Counsel wish to cross examine?
BY DR.BABEL (Counsel for SS and SA):
QWitness, when did you see the university building last; that is before the attack, the last time before the attack?
AThe last time before the fire, I saw it on the 11th of May 1940.
QThat was before the attack?
ABefore the attack.
QWas it damaged at that time, and in what way? Was the building at that time already damaged and in what way?
AOn the 11th of May there was absolutely nothing to be seen in the library. It remained absolutely intact until the night of the 16th to 17th of May. At the time I left, there was absolutely nothing.
QBesides the staircase and the tower - besides the hit on the tower, could you notice any other hits on the building?
AI don't think so. There were only traces of fire in the tower.
QFrom the fact that only the tower had been hit, couldn't it be thought that the tower and not the building was the target?
AThe tower was struck, I wished solely to speak of the traces that could be seen on the wall and the balcony of the first story and of the face of the clock, but for the rest, there was nothing left to be seen on the building for the simple reason that the building had been completely burned on the inside. On the blackened walls there was nothing to be seen, but it is absolutely certain that either an aviation bomb, but rather, I think, an artillery bomb, hit the building on the northeast corner. There is a very visible trace of a shell. It is here precisely that the fire began. The witnesses who saw the fire from the Abbey of Msgr. Weyenberg I don't quite understand the question of the honorable attorney.
QAfter the fire, when did you see the building for the first time?
AAfter the fire, in the month of July, 1940.
QThat is much later?
AYes, but still in the same condition. Nothing was done. It was still as it was originally.
Q Do you know that after the building had burned, an attempt was made to save the building and to stop the fire?
QThat is absolutely certain - that attempts were made to stop the fire. The Rector of the University, M. Von Boist, told me himself and declared that he had tried to get firemen but the firemen had gone. There were only the chief and two members of the fire corps, and all the watermains had been broken up as a result of the bombardment. There was no water for several days.
QWere there German troops in these attempts to stop the fire? I ask if these attempts to save the building were not also made by German troops?
ANo, no, they were not there yet.
QHow do you know that? You weren't there.
THE PRESIDENT:The translation is not coming through.
QHave you talked to the director on this question, whether German troops had been there to save the building?
AI spoke to the rector and to the librarian, and in my capacity as secretary-general, I discussed all general questions having to do with the University. Particularly on this point, we spoke of it, and he told me in so many words that no soldier of the German Army tried to fight the fire.
QYou also have spoken about the resistance forces. Do you know that the civilian population was asked to resist the German troops?
AWhere? In the Ardennes?
QIn Belgium.
AIn Belgium the resistance was composed essentially of the secret army, which was a military organization and responsible and recognized commanders, carrying arms openly and carrying distinctive badges. They could not be confused with simple Franc-Tireurs.
QDo you know how many German soldiers have been killed by the resistance movement?
AI cannot say, because everywhere in the Ardennes the resistance centered into action with the chief at their head, working, fighting openly, with their distinctive badges. They openly attacked the German troops.
QThat was not my question. I have asked you if you know how many German soldiers became victims of that resistance movement?
AI don't understand what is the bearing of the question of the honorable attorney. Does the honorable Counsel for the Defense mean the events of the Ardennes which I alluded to a while ago, or does he speak in a completely general sense?
QThe witness in his testimony has mentioned a resistance movement, and in reference to that resistance movement, I have asked several questions, and one of these questions was whether the witness knows
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Babel, the witness has already answered the question by saying that he cannot say how many Germans were killed by the resistance movement.
DR. BABEL:But he can affirm that Germans, more or less of them, have been killed by the resistance.
AThere were regular battles, it seems to me.
DR. BABEL:The witness will also be able to confirm that the members of the resistance are today considered heroes in Belgium.
(At this point the sound equipment failed to function)
THE PRESIDENT:Can we go on now? Will you repeat your question?
DR. BABEL:From what we have read in the papers and from what has been brought up here in part, these people who were active in the resistance movement are now considered heroes. At least I could draw that conclusion.
QWitness, you have said, if I understood you correctly, that you lost 18 kilograms weight. What conclusion did you draw from that fact? I could not quite understand it this morning.
AI simply wanted to say that I lost these 15 kilos as a result of the moral anguish which I underwent during the occupation, and, at the question of M. Faure on whether I considered this occupation compatible with the dignity of a free man, I answered No, giving the proof that as a result of this occupation and the anguish, the loss of this weight was sufficiently demonstrative.
QDuring the war, I also, without having been sick, have lost 75 kilos. What conclusion could be drawn from that, in your opinion? (Laughter) THE PRESIDENT:
Go on, Dr. Babel, we are not interested in your experiences.
DR. BABEL:Thank you, sir. That was my last question.
THE PRESIDENT:Does any other Counsel wish to ask any questions?
(No response)
THE PRESIDENT:M. Faure?
M. FAURE:I have no questions.
(The witness was excused)
M. FAURE:I ask the Tribunal kindly to take the presentation document and the document book constituting the end of the chapter on the seizure of sovereignty, which bears the title France.
France, like Belgium, was placed under the regime of the military administration of occupation. There was, on the other hand, in France a diplomatic representation. Finally, it must be noted that the police administration always played an important role there, which became increasingly important and which extended particularly over the period which followed the appointment of General Oberg in 1942.
As concerns this last part of my chapter on the seizure of sovereignty, I should like to limit myself to mentioning a few special features which these usurpations assumed in Franco and certain original procedures which were employed by the Germans in this country, in addition to what has already been abundantly set forth and which will be further treated by me, as concerns the consequences of German activities in France.
I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal to four considerations, First, the German authorities, from the beginning, assumed in France a particular character of sovereignty. I speak of the splitting up of the country into five different zones. This splitting up by the Germans compensated, to a certain extent, for the special situation which resulted for thorn from the existence of a non-occupied French territory.
I have already indicated previously that the Armistice Convention of 22 June, which has already been placed before the Tribunal, provided for the establishment of a line of demarcation between the occupied zone and the so-called non-occupied zone.
It might have been thought at that time that this demarcation accorded chiefly with the necessity of military movements in the occupied zone.
It might be concluded that the separation of the zones would be manifested only through the exercise in the occupied zone of the ordinary rights of an armed force occupation. I have already had occasion to quote before the Tribunal a document, the testimony of M. Leon Noel, which takes into account the verbal assurances given in this respect by General Keitel and by General Jodl, who are the defendants before you bearing these names.
Now, in fact, this demarcation of zones was interpreted and applied with extreme rigor and in a manner that was wholly unforeseen. We have already seen the important consequences of this from the point of view of the economic life of the country. There were also important consequences from the point of view of administration, local administration, which was continually embarrassed in its tasks, and from the point of view of the life of the population, which could only, with great difficulty, circulate between the different parts of the French territory. The Germans first obtained for themselves in this way a means of pressure over the French authorities. This means of pressure was all the more advantageous as it was constantly changing and extremely subtle. The Germans could now relax the rules of separation of the zones, now apply them with greatest severity.
By way of example, I wish to quote an extract from a document, which I present in evidence under the number 1051.
This document is a letter of 20 December 1941 by Schleier of the German Embassy to the French Delegate de Brinon, a letter concerning the giving of passes to the German Civilians who wish to enter into the nonoccupied zone.
The French authority of the de facto government had protested against the fact that the Germans obliged the French authorities to allow any person provided with German passes to enter into the nonoccupied zone where they could go about in a task, particularly of a kind that one can imagine.
The letter which I quote in answer to this French authority, and I wish to mention only the last paragraph, is the second paragraph on page two of this Document No. 1051.
"In case the French Government should have resolved to create difficulties concerning request for passes presented with the approval of the German officers, the latter would no longer be disposed of practising the same broad point of view concerning passes of French Nationals."
But another point to be noted is just what I set out to do with regard to the division of the country. This first division had a basis in the activity of the Armistice Convention, although the basis was contestable, and it is doubtful of the validity. On the other hand, the other divisions which I mention were purely imposed by the Germans without warning of any kind, without notice, and without the enunciation of any pretext in any sense plausible.
I must recall that the first supplementary is the one which separated from the rest of France the Departments of the Haut Rhin, du Bas Rhin, andof the Moselle; in connection with which I have already demonstrated they became the subject of real annexation.
The second division affected the departments of the North, and of the Pas de Calais. These departments in fact were attached to the German Military Administration of Belgium. This factor is known from the published German decrees, and is before the Tribunal in a number of Belgium decrees. Not only did this separation exist from the point of view of the German Military Administration, but it also existed from the point of view of the French Administration. This administration was not excluded in the depart ments under consideration, but its communications with the central ser-vice were extremely difficult.
As I do not wish to develop this point at length, I would like simply to quote a document which will serve as an example, and which I submit as Document No. 1052. This is a letter from the Militarbefelshaber under date of 17 September 1941, which makes known its refusal to re-establish telegraphic and telephonic communications with the rest of France. I quote a single sentence of this letter giving a decision of the High Military Command.
"It is impossible now to honor the request for the establishment of direct telegraphic communication between the Vichy Government and the two Departments of the North."
The third division consisted in the creation within the non-occupied zone a so-called forbidden zone. The conception of this forbidden zone certainly corresponded to the future projects of the Germans as to annexation of certainly a more and extensive portion of France. In this connection I produced documents at the beginning of my presentation. This forbidden zone did not have any special rules of administration, but it required special authorization to enter or to leave it. The return to this zone by persons who had left it in order to seek refuge in other regions was possible only progressively, and with great difficulty. The administrative relation, like the economic relation between the forbidden zone and the other zone, was constantly limited. This fact was unknown.
Nevertheless, I wish to quote still as an example, and I produce this document under No. 1053. It is a letter from the Militarbefelshaber, dated 22 November 1941, addressed to the French Delegation. I shall simply summarize this document by saying that the German command accepted the authorization of the approval of the Minister of the de facto government in order to go into the occupied zone, but refused its authorization to go into the forbidden zone.
In order that the Tribunal will realize the situation of these five zones which I have just explained, I have joined to the Document Book a map of France indicating these separations. This map of France was numbered 1054, but I think it is not necessary for me to produce it as a document properly speaking.
It is intended to enable the Tribunal to follow this extreme splitting up on the one hand of the annexed departments, and, on the other hand the North and the Pas de Calais, and the limits of this department being indicated on the map, annexed to the forbidden zone, which is indicated by the first line; and, finally, the line of demarcation with the unoccupied zone.
This is, by the way, a reproduction of the map which was sold in France and sold in Paris during the occupation.
To conclude this question of the division I shall like to remind the Tribunal that on 11 November 1942, the German Army force invaded the socalled non-occupied zone. The German authorities declared at that time that they didn't intend to establish a military occupation of this zone, and that there would simply be what was called a zone of operation.
The German authorities did not, either, respect this juridical conception that they had imagined. They had not respected the rules of the law of the occupation, and the proof of this violation of law in the socalled operational zone has already been presented under a number of circumstances, and later will be brought up again in the last party of this presentation.
Besides, from this division one can imagine how embarrassing it was for the population, although the area is not enormous for a country whose life is highly centralized. I shall now tell of the second seizure of the power, which consisted in the control by the Germans of the legislative acts of the de facto government.
Naturally, the German military administration, in conformity with this doctrine, never ceased itself to exercise by its own ordinances, the real legislative power in regard to France, On the other hand -- and it is the fact which I am dealing with now in respect to the French Government power -its Sovereignty, the Germans recognized; but in recognizing they exercised a vertible legislative censorship. I shallproduce, however, documents by way of example, and proof of this fact.
First, I shallsubmit under No. 1055 the letter of the Commander-inchief of the Military Affairs in France to the Delegate General of the French Government; Letter dated 29 December 1941. We can observe that the signature on this letter is that of Dr. Best, of whom I spoke this morning In con-nection with Denmark, where he went subsequently and where he was given functions that were both diplomatic and political.
I think it is unnecessary for me to read the text of this letter. I shall simply read the sub-paragraph of the law concerning the French budget of 1942, and the new French law of finances.
The German authorities considered already the fact that they had to occupy themselves with the establishment of a budget of the French de facto government, to which facts they had no relation as to the necessities for their military occupation. Not only did theGermans check the contents of the law prepared by these de facto governments, but they made imperative suggestions. I shall quote no document on this point at this moment, but I shall produce only two in connection with the propaganda and the other in connection with the regime imposed upon the Jews.
The third seizure of sovereignty which the Germans took upon themselves was seized in the intervention of German authority in the treatment and confinement of officials. According to the method which I have already followed, I present by way of an example, documents on this point. The first is a document which will be number 1056, a letter 23 September 1941, from the Commander-in-Chief- von Steuelpnagel to de Brinon.
This letter puts forth a variety of considerations, the reading of which is not indispensable, on the sabotage of harvests, and the difficulties of food supplies I read the last paragraph, page 2, of document 1056.
"Consequently, I demand insistently that a single direction assure the food supplies of the population which does not seem to me possible of realization except under the control of an energetic and competent man who will take in hand the two ministries."
I was, therefore, a case of interference on the very plane of the composition of a ministry, of an authority that was up to then apparently a governmental authority as concerns the approval of appointments.
I produce document 1057, which is a letter of the Military Command of 29 November 1941. I shall simply summarize this document by indicating that the German authorities objected to the appointment of the president of liaison committee of the manufacture of beet sugar. You see how far we are here from military necessities.
I next produce document 1058, which is likewise a letter from the Military Command. It is brief and I shall read it.
"By way of example, I beg you to take the necessary measures in order that the Sub-prefect of St. Quentin, Mr. Planacassagne, be recalled from his functions and replaced as soon as possible by a competent official. Planacassagne is not capable of carrying out his duties."
I shall now quote a text of a more general scope. I produce document 1059, which is a secret circular of 10 May 1942, addressed by the Military Command of the Administrative Staff of all the Chief Commandantures. We find here again the signature of Dr. Best.
"Control of French policy of personnel in the occupied territories.
"The reshuffling of the French Government presents certain possibilities for the exercise of a positive influence on the French personnel policy in the occupied territories, I, therefore, beg you to designate those of the French officials who from the German point of view appear particularly usable whose names may be submitted to the French Government when the question of naming holders of important posts arises."
We thus see this general network of the German control and of the German usurpation.
I now produce document 1060. This document is an interragatory of Otto Abetz, who had the function of German ambassador in France. This interrogatory took place on 17 November 1945 before the Commissioners Berge et Saulas at the General Four Bureau in Paris. This document confirms the German interferences in French administration and it, likewise, gives details on the double control between that of the Militaerbefehlshaber and that of the Gestapo. I quotes:
"The Militaerbefehlshaber in Frankreich, basing itself on the various conventions of Internation Law", -- this is Otto Abetz who is speaking and it is not necessary to say that we in no way accept his conception of International Law -- "considered itself responsible and supreme judge of the maintenance of order and of public security in the occupied zone. On this ground it demanded the right of giving its approval to the appointment or the maintenance of all French officials designated to occupy posts in the occupied zone. That is concerned the officials residing in the free zone who were obliged by reason of their functions to exercise them subsequently in the occupied zone. The Militaerbefehlshaber also stressed the necessity for his approval of their designation. In practice the Militaerbefehlshaber made use of the right thus defined and claimed only at the time of the designation of high officials and solely in the sense of a veto right. That is to say, that it did not intervene in the choice of officials to be designated and contented itself with making observations on certain name proposed. These observations were based on information which the Militaerbefehlshaber received from its regional and local Commandantures from its different administrative and economic officers in Paris and by the police and the Gestapo, which at that time were still under the authority of the Militaerbefehlshaber.
"From 11 November 1942 on this state of things changed because of the occupation of the free zone. The German military authorities in this zone demand. ed their right to give their opinion in regard to the designation of officials in all the cases in which the security of the German Army might be thereby effected. The Gestapo authorities for its part acquired in the two zones an independence in fact with regard to the regional and local military chiefs end with regard to the Militaerbefehlshaber.
It claimed the right to intervene in connection with any appointment which might effect the interests of the carry ing out of their police tasks.
"Having been recalled to Germany from November 1942 to December 1943, I was not myself, a witness of the conflicts which resulted from this state of things and which was to come to the highest degree, the so-called sovereignty of the Vicy Government. The situation was considerably aggravated since the Gestapo demanded in the occupied as well as in the unoccupied zone the right to make the designation of prefects subject to its consent. It even went so far as to propose itself the officials to be designated by the French Government. Seconded by me, the Militaerbefehlshaber continued or took up again the struggle against these abusive demands and succeeded in part in restoring the situation in effect before November 1942."
The document which I have just read constitutes a transition for the fourth consideration which I wished to submit to the Tribunal. I wished by this consideration to insist on the juxtaposition and the collaboration of the various agents of usurpation, that is to say, the military command, the embassy, and the police. For the latter I shall return later to x in the last part of my brief.
With regard to the setting up of the German Embassy in France, I produce before the Tribunal document 1061. This document was in my brief as a judiciary translation of the original. It appears that it constitutes a part of the American documentation No. 3094-PS. It has not, however, as yet been presented to the Tribunal. This involves the official designation of Otto Abetz as ambassador. I should like to read this document 1061.
"Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 3 August 1940.
"In answer to a question of the General Quartermaster, addressed to the High Command of the armed forces and transmitted by the latter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Fuehrer has named Abetz, up to now minister, as ambassador and in accord with my report has decreed the following:
"I Embassador Abetz has the following functions in France: