On the other hand, one of the magistrates of the French Delegation proposes to present a brief which recapitulates systematically the charges against each of the defendants, according to the documents and briefs submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would hope that the exposé on the pillage of objects of art will be quite short because it must be cumulative, because you will remember that we had at some stage of the Trial presented to us 39 books, or 30, or some number of books of objects of art which had been taken away from various parts of Europe and France and all photographed by the Germans themselves; and, therefore, any evidence which would now be given would be cumulative to that spoliation.
M. FAURE: That is why I asked the Tribunal whether it would agree to this procedure; but at any rate, if the Tribunal considers that the statement can be made, it will be only a very short statement which will take about two hours.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): If I understood M. Faure correctly, he asked the Tribunal whether the confiscation and plundering of works of art in France would again be dealt with tomorrow. I should like to add that the American Prosecution has already declared before this Tribunal that the question of the plundering of works of art could not be dealt with again. Accordingly, I myself, representing Rosenberg, and my colleague, Dr. Stahmer, representing Göring, took steps to cancel the calling of witnesses whom we had planned to bring. If, however, the French Prosecution intends to submit new material, we must have these witnesses called again. For this reason, I should like to ask the Tribunal to decide whether it is necessary for the confiscation of works of art objects in France to be taken up once more.
THE PRESIDENT: I think defendant’s counsel must be wrong in thinking that the United States counsel said anything which meant that the French Prosecution could not produce evidence with reference to the spoliation of objects of art. I can’t think the United States had any authority to do that and I had understood myself that this part of the Prosecution had been omitted by one of the French Counsel on account of the request of the Tribunal to shorten their argument. Was that not so?
M. FAURE: That is quite true, Mr. President. Your interpretation is exact.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal would wish that the presentation should be made, if the French Prosecutors wish it; and it should be made as shortly as possible.
M. FAURE: Thank you.
FIFTY-SECOND DAY
Wednesday, 6 February 1946
Morning Session
M. FAURE: If it please the Tribunal, M. Gerthoffer will now present the brief concerning the pillage of works of art.
M. CHARLES GERTHOFFER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): The Economic Section of the French Delegation had prepared a report on the pillage of works of art in the occupied countries of western Europe.
We had thought, at the session of 22 January last, of waiving the presentation of this statement in order to expedite the proceedings, while holding ourselves at the disposal of the Tribunal should they consider the presentation necessary. However, since then—on 31 January—the American Prosecutor was good enough to inform us that the Defendant Rosenberg intended to maintain that the artistic treasures were collected only in order to be “protected.”
We consider, from the documents which we are holding at the disposal of the Court, that this cannot be a question of protection only but that this was genuine spoliation; and I am at the Tribunal’s disposal to prove this, in a statement which I shall make as brief as possible, while offering in evidence the documents which we had already collected. If the Tribunal wish, I can make this very brief statement. In any case, I am at the disposal of the Tribunal.
Mr. President, Gentlemen, the pillage of works of art has a cultural significance to which I shall not refer again since it was the subject of a statement presented by Colonel Storey on 18 December 1945. I shall simply regard the subject from the economic point of view in order to complete the report on the general spoliation of the western European countries.
As the Tribunal will realize, the leaders of the Reich primarily and systematically seized works of art belonging to private individuals, mostly under the pretext that these individuals were Jews, thus procuring for themselves very valuable means of exchange. In Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France picture galleries, public as well as private collections, ancient furniture, china, and jewelry were stolen.
It was not a question of individual looting, of pillaging by soldiers, such as is encountered in all wars and of which we still find examples; this campaign of plunder was carried out in a systematic and disciplined manner. The methods introduced varied in character. Personal judgment and personal initiative could be exercised only insofar as they contributed to the execution of plans already elaborated by the National Socialist leaders before the month of June 1940.
The official organization for pillaging was primarily Minister Rosenberg’s Einsatzstab for the occupied territories of western Europe and the Netherlands. If this organization was not the sole agent, it was the most important one. Colonel Storey has already drawn the attention of the Tribunal to this criminal behavior.
The urge to seize works of art, as well as material wealth, underlies the policy of National Socialist expansion. The behavior in Poland of the Defendant Frank has already given sufficient proof of this. The idea of protecting this valuable booty arose at the time of the invasion of western Europe. From the very beginning, in their haste and their desire to seize as much as they could, several parallel authorities would carry out the confiscations, firstly by the military authorities, either indirectly, as in Holland through the special services of the Devisenschutzkommando or directly as in France through the Department for the Protection of Works of Art. Further, the same mission was entrusted simultaneously to the civil authorities, whether represented by the German Embassy in Paris or, in Holland, the Office for Enemy Property under the auspices of the Reich Commissioner. This plurality of control, moreover, did not end with the establishment of the Rosenberg Staff.
This is the first phase in the pillage of works of art. According to official correspondence, as well as to the statements of Otto Abetz, the initiative may be attributed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, beginning with the Defendant Ribbentrop. The first phase lasted from the entrance of the Germans into the countries of western Europe until October 1940.
The second phase opened with the arrival of Einsatzstab Rosenberg which appeared on the scene under the aegis of the Defendant Göring. From now on this Einsatzstab must be considered primarily responsible for the organized pillage.
Towards July 1942 a third phase opens in the history of the Staff Rosenberg. The person primarily responsible is the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg. The activities of this staff did not cease in Europe until the liberation. One part of the archives of the Rosenberg services fell into the hands of the French armies; another part, which had been sent to Füssen, was seized by the American Army which also picked up the archives of the Defendant Rosenberg. This is the origin of the PS documents submitted to the Tribunal.
The seizure of works of art began with the entrance of the German troops into Holland, Belgium, and France. In Paris, as from the month of June, there was an Embassy service directed by Dr. Von Kunsberg