The Defendant Rosenberg tried, in the course of an interrogation carried out by the superior officers in charge of the preliminary investigations to claim, without much conviction, it seems to me, that the cultural property in question was intended solely to adorn the collections of the National Socialist Hohen Schulen. We shall see presently, in presenting the text of this interrogation, how we may judge this. But it is a fact which I wish to present now that, from the documents which we possess, at least, it does not seem that the Defendant Rosenberg appropriated works of art, precious stones, or other objects of value for himself. Consequently, in the light of the proceedings as conducted thus far, no accusation of this kind can be brought against him. We shall not say as much for the Defendant Hermann Göring, of whom we shall speak a little later and who, according to the documents that we possess, may be convicted of having appropriated to his own use part of the objects of art taken from the countries of the East and the West.
I shall not dwell on the discussion which might arise about these misappropriations. I shall go straight on to the interrogatory of the Defendant Rosenberg. This is the document that was introduced yesterday by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution, which bears the Exhibit Number RF-1331, and which we use today as Document Number ECH-25.
I think that the Tribunal will easily be able to refer to this interrogatory, but meanwhile I should like very briefly to summarize the essential points which I think should be brought up.
Colonel Hinkel, questioning the Defendant Rosenberg, asked him on what legal grounds such looting could be justified. The Defendant Rosenberg first answered that these seizures were justified by the hostility which certain groups had manifested toward the National Socialist ideology. But a little further on, on Page 4, the Defendant Rosenberg made the following verbatim statement:
“I considered them”—he is referring to the measures which he himself had taken—“a necessity caused by the war and by the reasons which caused the war.”
A few moments later, pressed by Colonel Hinkel, the Defendant Rosenberg invoked the necessity of putting into safekeeping property thus seized, a necessity which will certainly constitute one of the main points of his defense. But Colonel Hinkel replied to the Defendant Rosenberg:
“And so if your idea was to safeguard art objects, it sounds rather strange, doesn’t it, that you were going to safeguard only some art objects and not others?
“On the other hand, with regard to the maintenance of the objects, there were objects at least equal in value to those which had been removed, but to which no one paid any attention.”
Finally, the Defendant Rosenberg admitted that he had very often given no receipt to those concerned, which in itself precluded any idea of eventually returning the property to the legitimate owners.
The truth of the matter is that these were treasures of very considerable value, and the Defendant Rosenberg in the end admitted that he regarded these acquisitions as an accomplished fact. We consider that the fact of having thus removed works of art and objects of value is purely and simply what is known in civil law as misappropriation. These misappropriations were made on a vast scale with the grandiose means which the Third Reich had at its disposal, means which were further facilitated by the intervention of the Army and the Luftwaffe. But it is nonetheless true that the criminal character of these misappropriations remains; and we urge the Tribunal, when it delivers judgment, to declare that it was by fraudulent seizure that the Defendant Rosenberg and his codefendants robbed France and the western countries of all the objects of value and all the art treasures and cultural treasures.
As to what the objects themselves consisted of, Mr. President and Your Honors, I would respectfully refer the Tribunal to the report submitted by the Economic Section yesterday, which was made by Dr. Scholz, the associate of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. This report was submitted by the Economic Section under Exhibit Number RF-1323 (Document Number 1015-PS), and in it the Tribunal will find enumerated everything that the Einsatzstab took out of France. In this connection I shall make an incidental remark in answer to the question that the President asked my colleague yesterday about the Rothschild collections. The President asked my colleague, “Have you proof that certain collections and objects of value were taken from the Rothschild collections?”
I should like, Mr. President, to point out that there are two proofs of this. The first is the immediate result of the Rosenberg interrogation of 23 September 1945. I have just spoken to the Tribunal of the all-important questions put to the Defendant Rosenberg as to the legitimacy and legal basis of these removals. I beg the Tribunal to refer to Page 5 of these minutes. I read from the text the question asked by the American officer in charge of the interrogation, my eminent friend, Colonel Hinkel:
“Question: ‘How do you justify the confiscation of art treasures belonging to the Rothschild family?’ ”—A very precise question. It concerned the art treasures taken from the Rothschild family by Rosenberg’s organization.
“Answer: ‘Still from the same general point of view.’ ”
That means that the Defendant Rosenberg claimed to justify the confiscations made to the detriment of the Rothschilds by the reasons which I had the honor of analyzing to the Tribunal a few moments ago.
A second consequence: The Defendant Rosenberg thus admitted with his own lips that the Rothschild family was among those despoiled. That confession, Mr. President, Your Honors, can be considered as one of the proofs, one of the main proofs. This is the first answer, then, to the question that the President asked yesterday.
The second proof which I wish to present to the Tribunal is the following: I beg the Tribunal to refer to the report by Dr. Scholz mentioned above and produced yesterday in the document book of the Economic Section. This is Exhibit Number RF-1323 (Document Number 1015-PS).
If the Tribunal will kindly refer to it, that is to say, the report by Dr. Scholz, the second paragraph of Page 1, it will find the following statement, “The special staff not only seized a very considerable part of the collection. . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: [Interposing.] As I said the other day, we cannot keep all the books before us; but it seems to me that, as you have shown that the Defendant Rosenberg agreed that this collection had been taken, that is quite sufficient.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I understand perfectly your point of view. I should like respectfully to point out to you that I was to speak immediately after my colleague, and if I had done so you would have had this document book before you. We had a delay of one day, and I apologize for not having thought of asking you to bring this document again this morning.
However, I respectfully ask the Tribunal to be good enough to note this reference which it will easily find. It is a very short passage, which I should like to read to the Tribunal. It will not take very much time.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
M. MOUNIER: This declaration is simply the following:
“The special staff”—that is to say, the Einsatzstab Rosenberg—“not only seized a very considerable portion of the collection which the Rothschilds had left behind in their Paris mansion. . . .”
I shall not read the rest.
Here then, Gentlemen, is an official report which cannot be disputed and which demonstrates, like the previous proof, that the Rothschild collection was among those pillaged.
I do not insist on these facts, which are known to you. It seems to me that the two points on which I have just cast a ray of light suffice to make it clear that illegal seizures—fraudulent seizures—were really operated by the Defendant Rosenberg to the detriment of France and to the detriment, likewise, of the western countries. As for their importance, I do not want to abuse the patience of the Tribunal by quoting