“By this detailed study of the material confiscated, an absolutely reliable basis has been afforded for a final and summary account of the entire operation of seizure. The preliminary studies were made in such a way that after formulation of the final report the latter has to be considered, in every respect, as an incontestable document of a historically significant seizure of works of art unique in its kind.”
I come to Page 26 of my brief. Certain of these works of art were considered by the Germans as degenerate, and their admittance into National Socialist territory was forbidden. Theoretically speaking they should have been destroyed; but within the scope of total war economy these pictures, although condemned, were none the less of commercial value and as a means of barter their value was both definite and high. So these pictures, carefully selected from among the great public collections and from private collections, were confiscated; and as already provided for in Section 5 of the decree of 5 November 1940, placed on the French and German art markets. In addition to these condemned pictures, others were set aside as being of lesser interest in the official collections. They formed the object of numerous fraudulent transactions.
We now come to the traffic in works of art. We are not, in this case, dealing with secret and unlawful operations, the personal acts of such-and-such a member of the Rosenberg Service; we are dealing with official operations. Two kinds of operations were currently carried out by the Einsatzstab, that is, exchanges and sales.
Exchanges. On this subject we have, by way of an example, the evidence of M. Gustav Rochlitz, received by the examining judge, M. Frapié, in Paris on 6 January 1946. I submit the evidence as Document Number RF-1317 and shall read a passage to the Tribunal.
“During the years 1941 and 1942 I exchanged various old pictures for 80 modern ones, delivered by Lohse, who always told me that these exchanges were carried out on Göring’s order, and that the pictures received had been intended for Göring. I have since learned that all the pictures given in exchange are contained in the Göring collection. I delivered in exchange about 35 pictures, possibly more.”
These facts are confirmed by the Defendant Rosenberg himself in the last lines of his report of 15 April 1943, filed under Document Number 172-PS already quoted, of which I have entered a copy under Exhibit Number RF-1316. Here is an interesting passage of the report.
“By order of the Reich Marshal a certain number of these works of modern and degenerate French art were favorably bartered with French art dealers for pictures of a recognized artistic value. In this way, 87 works of old Italian, Dutch, and German masters of high and recognized value were acquired on very favorable conditions.”
Numerous works of art, books, and especially pictures, were sold by representatives of Staff Rosenberg. Some were sold in France, others in Germany or Switzerland. The fact that this was a calculated procedure is evident if we consider that the value of these pictures, confiscated under the legally fallacious pretext of keeping them in safe custody, could be realized if they were sold on neutral markets and paid for in foreign currency.
I now consider that I should give you some brief explanations of the justifications offered by the Germans concerning their confiscations. Primarily these justifications are mere quibbles relating to the nature of the seizures. The seizures were only temporary and preservative measures for the safekeeping of the art treasures. Count Metternich, Chief of the Department for the Protection of Works of Art in France from July 1940 to 1942, made this point quite clear in a report, a copy of which has been discovered in France and which I submit as Document Number RF-1318. Here are some brief excerpts from this report, at the bottom of Page 29 of the exposé:
“Shortly after arriving in France, I realized that various departments which did not belong to the Military Administration were interested in removable objects of art.”
And further on, in the same paragraph:
“It has been said that there was no intention of expropriation but that these objects were to be considered as pawns to be used in future peace negotiations. No detailed instructions were given as to how the operations should be carried out; and in particular, no interpretation was given of the term ‘custody’.”
The vague expression “in custody” has been subjected to every variety of interpretation. According to some the seizure was only a temporary measure, although the question of definite appropriation nevertheless remained unclarified. For the Defendant Rosenberg the solution was simple; he expresses it in a letter, previously quoted, of 18 June 1942 addressed to Göring, which I have just submitted under Document Number RF-1314. This is the relevant passage:
“I therefore believe you will be in agreement with me on this point, namely, that art objects of Jewish ownership taken into custody should be considered as seized for the benefit of the NSDAP. With regard to material for research work, the Führer has already decided that these objects, now in the custody of the Einsatzstab, shall become the property of the Hohe Schule. It would be only just and fair that the great art treasures now in custody should one day become the property of the NSDAP. Needless to say, the decision of this question rests with the Führer. However, since the NSDAP has financed a war of 20 years’ standing against Jewry, such a decision would appear permissible.”
And we are justified in saying that these confiscations are now no longer measures of preservation or requisition, but a species of booty which perforce must fall into the hands of a German people triumphing over the Jewish race whom they have outlawed.
In a report justifying their action, demanded by the Army Commander and drawn up on the order of the Defendant Rosenberg by the Chief of the Einsatzstab, Utikal, in November 1941, the latter went so far as to state—I submit this report as Documents RF-1319, RF-1320, and RF-1321; and I quote a brief passage from the attached supplement Number RF-1321, Page 31:
“The German measures of reprisal against the Jews are likewise justified by international law. It is a recognized principle of international law that, in war, reprisals may be taken by resorting to the same procedures and the same concepts as primarily used by the enemy. Since time immemorial the Jews have, in their Jewish laws codified in the Talmud and the Schulchan Aruch, applied the principle that all non-Jews are to be considered as so much cattle, as outlaws; and the property of non-Jews should be dealt with as a thing which has been abandoned, that is to say, as derelict property.”
Thus, Gentlemen, the confiscations of the Einsatzstab were sheltered by this strange interpretation of law. It seems useless to discuss the value of this argument before the Tribunal. The Belgian, Dutch, and French authorities made frequent protests, based on the most elementary principles of international law, but always met with refusals.
It would at any rate be suitable to define the extent of these seizures. It is difficult to give a total estimate, although Rosenberg, himself, on several occasions made an estimate of his booty, especially in a letter to the Treasurer of the Party, Schwarz, 14 November 1940, a document discovered by the Army of the United States and bearing the Document Number 1736-PS, a copy of which I offer in evidence as Exhibit Number RF-1322. At that date Rosenberg already considered that the booty amounted to 500,000,000 Reichsmark.
The documents of the Einsatzstab are sufficiently numerous and precise to allow us to establish certain quantitative data. First, the seizures by the General Staff for Art Treasures. The fundamental document is a report of Dr. Scholz, dated 14 July 1944, which we have just mentioned. This is Document Number 1015-PS, which was presented in part to the Court by Colonel Storey and which I offer in evidence as Exhibit Number RF-1323. From this report I shall extract only some very brief indications concerning the quantities of art objects carried off.
According to this report, 21,903 objects taken from 203 private collections, were removed, notably from, the Rothschild, Alphons Kahn, David Weil, Lévy de Benzion, and the Seligmann brothers collections. According to the same report there were “all told, 29 transports, 137 trucks, and 4,174 cases.”
I shall not quote any further