The Nuremberg Trials (Vol.7). International Military Tribunal. Читать онлайн. Newlib. NEWLIB.NET

Автор: International Military Tribunal
Издательство: Bookwire
Серия:
Жанр произведения: Языкознание
Год издания: 0
isbn: 4064066381004
Скачать книгу
wholesale pillaging organized on so completely an administrative basis. The pillaging, together with the Einsatzstab, became a recognized institution in the sphere of culture, just as it became a recognized institution in the “Economic Detachments” of the ROGES, whose activities have been exposed before the Tribunal.

      The pillaging of works of art was organized by the highest leaders of the Reich. My colleague of the Prosecution, who has been entrusted with the individual accusations, will return to this matter. I shall content myself with submitting a few more documents and making a few more quotations on this point.

      Alfred Rosenberg was the responsible Chief of the Einsatzstab. The orders emanated from him, as is shown in the course of the interrogatory; he was heard by Colonel Hinkel, and I submit a copy of the interrogatory of 28 September 1945 as Document Number RF-1332.

      The Defendant Göring was the official protector of Staff Rosenberg. He himself wrote to Rosenberg on 21 November 1940, Document Number 1651-PS, a copy of which I submit as Exhibit Number RF-1335, as follows:

      “I have promised to support energetically the work of your staff and to make available to them what they could not obtain so far, namely, means of transport and guard personnel. The air force has received the order to render utmost assistance.”

      There was discovered, in France, a sheet of gilt-edged paper containing, in an unknown writing, instructions issued by Göring in Paris—a date is written in by an unknown handwriting—on 11 February 1941. I submit the original document to the Tribunal, as well as the translation, as Document Number RF-1333:

      “All paintings marked ‘H’ are for the Führer.”

      THE PRESIDENT: I think this has been read already by the United States. Has this been read already?

      M. GERTHOFFER: It has never as yet been read, Mr. President.

      THE PRESIDENT: Then please proceed.

      M. GERTHOFFER: “. . . one case marked ‘AH’ for me. Everything that is marked ‘G’. . . .”

      THE PRESIDENT: Is this identified as a captured document?

      M. GERTHOFFER: It was seized by the French authorities who transmitted it to us.

      THE PRESIDENT: Where is the identification to show this is the document captured by the French authorities?

      M. GERTHOFFER: This document was transmitted to me as it is, with a series of other documents, of which I have only produced a certain number. If the Tribunal wish I can let them have a special authentication for this document.

      THE PRESIDENT: Well, I suppose there is probably a report of the French authorities which sufficiently refers to this document.

      M. GERTHOFFER: The document was sent to me with a series of other documents; since they were extremely numerous, we took those that seemed to be the most important in order to present them to the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal wish, I can obtain an affidavit indicating under what conditions the documents were discovered by the French authorities.

      THE PRESIDENT: You see, the document hasn’t anything on it to indicate that the French Government really found it, nor that they have ever seen it; and therefore the Tribunal does not consider that it is properly proved by mere introductions of the document, without anything on the document. Perhaps you can furnish some supplementary proof.

      M. GERTHOFFER: I can bring an affidavit to the Tribunal in order to have it authenticated.

      THE PRESIDENT: In what way have the other documents been certified?

      M. GERTHOFFER: The other documents were certified as a whole in the covering letter. They were not certified individually. This formality can be carried out subsequently.

      THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we must wait until this is properly identified.

      M. GERTHOFFER: I continue with the reading of my report and I would point out to the Tribunal that in all the occupied countries the Defendant Göring employed a whole group of buyers, the best known of whom were Dr. Lohse, who was a member of the Einsatzstab, and Hofer. Hofer and Lohse (Page 52) acted for the defendant most often, however, under their own names. The personal collection of the Defendant Göring flourished considerably. In this regard I submit a document under Number RF-1332 to which my colleague, in charge of personal and individual accusations, will soon refer.

      Among the principal leaders of the Reich connected with the Einsatzstab (Page 55) Rosenberg had, as his superior in the hierarchy, Ribbentrop in his capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs (Page 56). It was Von Ribbentrop who was responsible for the Führer’s order of 30 June 1940, which I presented a short time ago under Document Number RF-1301, and which I read to the Tribunal.

      Ribbentrop’s activities are likewise shown in a letter of 1 July 1940, addressed by Ambassador Abetz to the Military Commander of Paris, a copy of which I submit under Document RF-1334 (Page 56). I can read it to the Tribunal, if they wish. It shows Ribbentrop’s activities. Here is the letter:

      “I beg you to be good enough to have transmitted by radio. . . .”

      THE PRESIDENT: What does this “COL” at the top of the document mean?

      M. GERTHOFFER: It is the seal of the office which seized the letter.

      THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Government in any way certify this document? You see, we do not know what that stamp on it may mean.

      M. GERTHOFFER: This document was supplied by the General Agency of Studies and Research. It is one of the supplementary services which affixed this seal and registered it under Number 9724.

      THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see what that is; but it does not of itself show that it is a French document, does it? Is there any French Government report, anything which could be considered to be, within the meaning of the article of the Charter, an official government document or report or an act or a document set up by the government itself? Unless it comes within Article 21, we are not at liberty to consider it as in evidence; unless there is an affidavit which deals with it.

      M. GERTHOFFER: I do not insist on the presentation of this document since the activities of Ribbentrop as Minister for Foreign Affairs proceed from other PS documents which have never been disputed. It is a superfluous piece of evidence. I therefore do not insist on presenting it. It was merely a further piece of evidence, that is all.

      THE PRESIDENT: If you find that there is some government report which identifies it, anything which proves that that stamp on it shows that it is a government document within Article 21, then of course, you may renew your application.

      M. GERTHOFFER: I think that it is not necessary, Mr. President. There are sufficient other documents. I do not insist. The activities of the Defendant Keitel are also to be borne in mind.

      THE PRESIDENT: One moment! You are passing over that document then. Very well.

      M. GERTHOFFER: Exhibit Number RF-1336 is composed of a series of orders, of reports of the army and of the Einsatzstab. It was Document Number 1015-PS(k), submitted by the Prosecutor of the United States as Exhibit Number USA-385.

      “The directives concerning the co-operation with the Armed Forces will be issued by the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces in agreement with Reichsleiter Rosenberg.”

      I shall not insist on the responsibility of the Defendant Keitel. My colleague, who is charged with the individual indictments, will lay special stress on the development of this point, and to expedite the proceedings I shall merely mention the following: The Defendant Seyss-Inquart bears a grave responsibility for the pillaging in Holland of works of art and books.

      I thus come to the conclusion of my presentation (Page 64). Whatever the markets, whoever the purchasers where the traffic in works of art is concerned, the motive is the same and the methods are the same. It is difficult to conceive that identical acts of pillaging, committed simultaneously in all the occupied countries of western Europe, were not the result of one single will, a ruthless will to dominate in every sphere, which expressed