the Hague Convention. I shall read this text to you. It is to be found in the fourth convention. Article 50.
"No collective, pecuniary, or other penalty may be decreed against populations by reason of individual acts for which they could not be considered responsible as a whole." themselves to making this a dead letter, and erecting as a right, as law, the systematic violation of the Hague Convention. I shall describe to you how the General Staff formed its pseudo-law on hostages; a pseudo-law which in France found its definitive expression in the hostage code of Stuelpnagel. I shall show in passing which are the Defendants who are chiefly responsible for these crimes. Defendant Goering, the OKW justifies the taking of hostages, as is proved by the extract of Document No. 1585-PS, which I propose to read to you. This document is dated Berlin, 15 February 1940. It bears the mention, "Supreme Command of the Army, Secret, To the Minister of the Reich of Aviation; Supreme Command of the Air Army. Subject: Arrest of Hostages.
"According to the opinion of the OKW, the arrest of hostages is justified in all cases in which the security of the troops requires it for the execution of orders received. In most cases it will be necessary to have recourse to it in the case of resistance or hostility on the part of the populations of the occupied regions, with the qualification nevertheless that the troops shall be in combat or in a situation such that there exists no other way of assuring security."
The fourth paragraph: "As to the choice of hostages, their arrest shall take place only if hostile factions of the population have an interest in their not being executed. The hostages shall then be chosen in groups of the population from which a hostile attitude may be expected. The arrest of hostages shall be carried out among persons whose fate may influence the leaders."
This document is submitted by the French Delegation under No.267.
Here is, furthermore, a paragraph from an instruction, F-508, from the Commander-in-Chief of the land Army in France, administrative section, signed "Stroccius," 12 September 1940, three months after the beginning of the occupation. The hostages are defined therein in the following manner. I quote page two, number fours:
"Hostages are inhabitants of the country who guarantee with their lives the faultless attitude of the population. The responsibility for their fate is thus placed into the hands of their compatriots. Hereafter the population must be solely threatened with seeing the hostages made responsible for unfriendly acts of any individual. Only French citizens may be taken as hostages. The hostages can be made responsible only for actions committed after their arrest and after the public proclamation." of 26 March 1941, signed Stuelpnagel. This ordinance annuls five previous ordinances of the 12th of September 1914. This has been discussed in numerous texts, and two General Staff orders, whose dates are indicated at the head of the document, 2 November and 13 February, page two, "General occasions. If acts of violence are committed by the inhabitants of the country against the members of the occupation army.
"If offices and installations of the army are damaged or destroyed, or if any other attack is directed against the security of German services or units, and according to circumstances, the population of the locality of the crime or the neighboring region can be considered as responsible or coresponsible for its acts of sabotage, and measures of prevention and of repression may be ordered, by which the civil population is to be terrorized in the future, and it will be prevented from committing or provoking or allowing similar acts. The population is to be treated as co-responsible in actions of sabotage of individuals if as a result of its general attitude toward the German armed forces it has favored hostile or unfriendly acts of any individuals; if by its passive resistance in the course of investigation of previous acts of sabotage it has encouraged ill-intentioned elements to similar acts; or, furthermore, if it has created a favorable atmosphere for opposition to the German occupation.
All measures must be taken in such a way as to make their execution possible. Threats without execution give the effect of weakness." I submit these two documents under Nos. 268 and 269 in the French document book.
Until now we don't find any trace in these German texts of affirmation which led one to think that the taking of hostages constitutes a right for the occupying forces; but here is a German text which in an explicit manner formulates this idea. It is cited in your book of documents F-507, dated Brussels, 18 April 1944. It comes from the Chief Judge with the military Commander-in-Chief in Belgium and in the North of France, and it is addressed to the German Armistice Commission in Wiesbaden.
Its subject is the execution of eight terrorists in Lille, the 22nd of September, 1943. The reference - Document of Lille. I shall read to you from the middle of the second paragraph of the text:
"I maintain my point of view, namely, that the measures 1944" -- there is a typographical error; it is '43 -- "rest Commission.
The Armistice Commission is in a position to regarding hostages."
Innocent pepple become hostages. They answer with their lives for the attitude of their fellow-citizens in regard to the German Army. If a violation is committed to which they are completely strangers, they are subject to a collective penalty which may entail the death penalty. This is the awful rule imposed by the German High Command in spite of the protests of the German Armistice Commission. I say this was the thesis imposed by the German command, and I here wish to give the proof of this. already been read, which has been submitted by my American colleagues under Mo. 389-PS, which I shall merely comment on. This order applies to all the regions of the West and the Northwest, as the list of addressees indicates; all the military commanders of the countries then occupied by Germany -France, Belgium, Norway, Holland, Denmark, Eastern Territories, Ukraine, Serbia, Salonica, southern part of Greece, Crete. This order was applied during the whole duration of the war. e have a text of 1944 which refer to it. This order of Keitel's, Chief of the OKW, is dictated by a violent spirit of anti-Communist repression. It is aimed at all kinds of repression with regard to the civilian population. This order which applies even to commanders, whose troops are stationed in the West, indicates to them, points out to them, that in all cases in which assaults are committed against the German Army it is necessary to establish -- I read the second paragraph of the text -- it must be established that it is a mass movement which is involved, directed by Moscow, according to a total plan, to which may also be imputed the isolated actions of minor importance which may occur in regions which have remained quiet until then.
fifty to one hundred Communists for each German soldier killed. This is a political idea which we shall meet again constantly in all the manifestations of German terrorism. inspiration, if not of Communist essence. The Germans thereby hoped to eliminate from the resistance the nationalists considered hostile to Communism but the Nazis also pursued another aim: they still hoped, and especially did they hope, to divide France and the other conquered countries of the West into two hostile factions, and to put one of these factions at their service under the pretext of anti-Communism,
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off for ten minutes:
(A recess was taken from 1120 to 1130 hours.)
M. DUBOST: We had reached the order of the 16th Of September, 1941, signed by the Defendant Keitel, which germinates, as I explained to you, through the question of hostages. The order of the 24th of September, 1941, of Keitel confirmed this. We submit it as No. 271, as you will find it in your document book, RS 554. I shall read to you the first paragraph: Wehrmacht, there was published September 16 1941, a regulation relative to the revolutionary movements in occupied countries. The regulation was addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, directed to the attention of Ambassador Ritter. The regulation also treats the question of capital punishment in military tribunals. The result is that henceforth the most severe measures must be taken in occupied territories.
prior to the aggression of Germany against Russia. It is necessary to remind the Tribunal of this document again, because it shows premeditation of the German Command and the Nazi Government to divide the occupied countries, to withdraw the patriotic characteristics from the partisans, and to substitute a political characteristic which it never had. You will find on page 2, 4th paragraph of the document, the following sentence: who habitually fought against our troops, this time we must add an element of the civilian population, particularly dangerous, destroying all established order and carrying out the judeo-bolshevistic propaganda. There is no doubt that everywhere where they are able they utilize against the German Army in combat and while pacifying the country, the weapon of disintegration and of traps." End of the quotation. the German High Command. It expresses the general doctrine of all German headquarters staffs. Now, it is Keitel who presided over the formation of these Party doctrines. It is he who ordered this policy. He is not only then a man of war under the orders of his government; he is also a Nazi politician whose acts or whose actions arethose of a war leader and also the actions of a politician who serves the policy of the Nazi Party. This is proved by the document which I have just read to you -- a general who is also a politician, where both politics and the direction of the war mingle together into one preoccupation. That does not seem surprising for those who know the German line of thought, who never separated war and politics.
This is doubly important. This constitutes a direct charge which is overwhelming against Keitel. It is he who made the General Staff of the German Army. You will see this in this document -- that the indictment of Keitel is justified, for the German General Staff dipped into criminal politics of the German Cabinet. in his order of September 30, 1941, better known in France under the code name for hostages, which specifies and recapitulates previous orders, notably that of the 23rd of August, 1941, This order of September 30, 1941, is of major importance.
In order to present the circumstances under which the French hostages were subject, I shall be obliged to give you large extracts. It defines, in paragraph 3, the category of Frenchmen who will be considered as hostages. I shall read this document, which I submit before this Tribunal under the No. 274. The first paragraph, after the heading "Seizure of Hostages":
"August 22, 1941:
"I have had the following communication published: The morning of August 21, 1941, a member of the German Army was a victim in Paris of attempted murder and he died thereof. I decided, consequently, first, that all Frenchmen actually in custody for whatever cause he may be, in a German office or in behalf of a German office, will be considered from August 23 on as hostages. Among these hostages a certain number will be shot subsequently, relative to the seriousness of the act committed.
"Secondly, September 19, 1941, I ordered by a memorandum to the Ambassador of the French Government attached to the military commander-inchief inFrance that after September 19, 1941, all Frenchmen of male sex who were in custody for communistic or anarchistic activity, whether in custody by the French offices or who will be found in the future, must be put by these French authorities in custody.
According to my note or memorandum of August 22, 1941, and according to my order of September 19.
1941, the following persons are consequently hostages:
"(a) All Frenchmen who are presently in custody of the German authorities for any reason whatsoever; for instance, arrested by the police, protective custody, andpunitive custody;
"(b) All Frenchmen who are in custody of the French authorities in France for the German authorities. To this group belong -
"(aa) All Frenchmen who have been arrested by the French authorities for anarchistic or communistic activities;
"(bb) All Frenchmen who must fulfill a penalty which deprives them of liberty under the control of the French authorities at the request of German military tribunals;
"(cc) All Frenchmen who, upon the request of the German authorities, were arrested by the French authorities or will be kept in custody or who shall be handed over to French authorities by the German authorities with the mission to keep them imprisoned.
"(c) The inhabitants of the countries which belong 'to no state and who have been living for a long time in France shall be considered as Frenchmen according to my proclamation of August 22, 1941.
"Thirdly, the freeing of prisoners: Persons who were not in custody August 22, 1941, and September 19, 1941, but who were arrested later or who will be arrested, in the measure that the preceding documentations do not concern them, will not be considered as hostages. The freeing of prisoners who are imprisoned after the fulfillment of the penalty, by an order for freeing them or for any other reason, will not be affected by my proclamation of August 22, 1941. Those persons who are released cannot be considered as hostages in the measure in which these persons are imprisoned by the French authorities for communistic and anarchistic activity, their liberation is possible, as I have informed the French Government, only with my approval."
At the end of this paragraph you will read this sentence;
"Among these groups of Frenchmen who may be exploited by the German military command, we may, if an incident happens, make a list of those hostages who are to be executed immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Which paragraph are you reading?
M. DUBOST: I shall read all the text, if you will permit me to do it, sir.
Paragraph 4.: "If an event takes place which renders necessary, in accordance with my proclamation of August 22, 1941"--
THE PRESIDENT: You are still reading which paragraph?
M. DUBOST: Paragraph 6, page 4:
"If an event takes place which makes it necessary, according to my proclamation of August 22, 1941 to shoot hostages, the execution must immediately follow the order. The leaders in the various districts, must, consequently, select within their district, among all the prisoners, those who particularly may be selected for execution and place them on a list of hostages. These lists of hostages serve as a basis for proposals which must be made in the case of execution.
"According to observations made up to now, we admit that those who commit crimes come from terroristic circles and communistic or anarchistic circles. The leaders of the various districts, have, consequently, to choose immediately among those in custody the persons who, because of their prior communistic or anarchistic attitude or because of their functions in similar organizations must be considered first of all as suitable for execution.
"In the selection we must take account of the fact that the repressive efficacy of the execution of hostages is all the greater, as the authors of the crime, upon the persons who, in France and in foreign countries, bear the spiritual responsibility of those who issue orders or who are propagandists for action of sabotage and terrorism; that such persons who are known shall be executed.
"Experience proves that those who issue orders, and political circles which have an interest in such crimes, scorn the life of the petty accomplices. But, on the other hand, they protect to the maximum degree the life of the former officials who are known. Consequently, we must place at the head of the list: (a) Former deputies and officials of Communist or Anarchist organizations."
Permit me to make a commentary, gentlemen. There never were any anarchistic organizations among the parliamentary personages, and this paragraph (a) could only mean former deputies and officials of the Communist Party.
We know, moreover, that some were executed by the Germans as hostages.
"(b) Persons -- intellectuals -- who had made an effort to disseminate Communistic thought by word of mouth or by writing.
"(c) Persons who, because of their attitude, have shown their dangerous activity.
"(d) Persons who collaborated in the distribution of pamphlets.
One idea is dominant in this selections "We must punish the elite." In conformity with paragraph (b), we shall see that the Germans shot, in 1941 and 1942, in Paris and in the provincial cities, numerous intellectuals. I shall come back to these executions later, and I shall give you examples of German atrocities committed in relation to the German policy of executing hostages in France.
I return to the text now:
"Secondly, a list of hostages taken amojg deGaullist prisoners is to be established according to the same directives.
"Thirdly, Germans 'of the blood' having French nationality, who are imprisoned because of their communistic activies may be included in the list. Their German origin must be pointed out in the form which is joined to this directive.
"Persons who have been condemned to death but who have been pardoned, may be placed on these lists.
"Fifth, in the list for each district 150 persons, and for the commander of greater Paris from 300 to 400 persons, must be put on the list. As far as possible, we must find, among the people living in the district where the crimes were committed, the leaders of the districts. There must then be put upon the list persons whose last residence or domicile was in their district."
Last paragraph of the fifth section:
"We must take account especially of new arrests and new freeing of prisoners or hostages.
"If an instance occurs which makes necessary the execution of hostages, according to my proclamation of August 22, 1941, the district leader in which the instance occurs should select from the list of hostages persons whose executions he wishes to propose to me. During this selection he must, as far as possible, select persons belonging to a circle which probably contains guilty persons."
"For executions, persons may not be proposed who are in custody at the time of the crime.
"The proposal must give the number of the persons who are proposed for execution, the number among which the order was commanded, and the names of those for which the order was given."
I read now at the very end of Paragraph VIII:
"At the time of the internment or burial of the bodies, we must avoid, through a common grave of a considerable number of persons in the same cemetery that shrines for pilgrims may thus be created which, now or later, a become centers for the propagation of anti-German propaganda. For that reason, as far as possible, the burial must take place in different localities."
Belgium an order of Falkenhausen of 17 September 1941, which you will find on page 6 of the official report on Belgium, No. 643, which I shall submit under the number 275.
I beg your pardon, gentlemen. I have sent for the German text to hand over to the interpreters. If you will permit me, I shall read you the translation in French. If you consider it necessary, we shall subsequently give the time for the German interpreter to read the German text,
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Belgian document in substantially the same terms as the document you have just read?
M. DUBOST: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then I don't think you need to read that.
M. DUBOST: As you wish. Seyss-Inquart which related to Holland, I think that going back to a good number of these documents which are in your document book, you may exhaust those elements which may convict the defendants, which confirm only what I have already read in the ordinance of Suelpnagel. the Navy, dated 30 December 1944 from Keitel, which you will find in the Document Book, C-48. I read the conclusion of paragraph 1:
"Any workman in a work yard should know that any act of sabotage occurring within his sphere of activity will bring about for him personally, or for his relatives, the most serious consequences."
Page 2, of Document 810-PS:
"In the fourth place, I have received a teletype from Field MarshalGeneral Keitel requesting the publication of an ordinance according to which the immediate responsibility of relatives would be considered, those relatives being considered collectively responsible for acts of sabotage resulting in these industrial undertakings."
Note the phrase which follows. He condemns Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that in Belgium, in Holland, in Norway, and in Denmark there were similar orders or decrees with reference to hostages?
M. DUBOST: Of course, Mr. President, in the reading for Belgium, Norway, Holland -- for Belgium, for instance, you will find this at page 6, Document 683, which is the official document of the Belgian Minister of Justice:
"In the fifth place"-
THE PRESIDENT: Which page?
M. DUBOST: Page 6 of the French text.
THE PRESIDENT: But what is the number of the document?
M. DUBOST: Number 683.
"Brussels, 29 November 1941"---at the top of the first page, to the right. "A decree of Falkenhausen, 17 September, 1941." Paragraph 5, in the middle of the page:
"In the future, the population must expect that any attack on the German Army or the German Police, in the event that the guilty are not arrested, a number of hostages proportionate to the gravity of the offense shall be taken, and, in the event the person dies, will be shot. All those in custody in Belgium will be considered immediately as suitable for hostages."
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't want you to read these documents if they are substantially in the same form as the document you have already read.
M. DUBOST: They are about in the same form, Mr. President. I submitted them because they constituted the proof of the systematic repitition of the same methods to arrive at the same end, to wit, to cause terror to reign in all occupied countries. systematically used in all the Western regions, naturally I shall spare you the reading of these documents, which are monotonous, and which repeat substantially the documents which relate to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you had better give us references to
M. DUBOST: I repeat, for Belgium it is 683, page 6, decree of principal war criminals.
The second document is C-46, which corres
THE PRESIDENT: C-46?
M. DUBOST: Yes, corresponding to UK-42, 24 November, 1942,
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
M. DUBOST: It is within the official report of Holland, 224-A.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you sure it is C-46 and not C-48? I don't seem to have C-46; I only have C-48.
M. DUBOST: C-46, UK-42. It is also listed as UK-42 in your document book.
You will find in the corner to the left the
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
M. DUBOST: For Holland, 224-A.
"For the destruction or the deterioration of forests and community in the territory in which these acts took place.
The taken on private property and that houses--"
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I don't know where you are reading.
Which paragraph are you reading?
M. DUBOST: This document has not been bound with the official "The population of these communities must expect that reprisals will be destroyed."
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, are you reading from C-46?
M. DUBOST: I have only submitted C-46; I am not reading from it.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you reading from some other document?
M. DUBOST: I quote now another document, the notice or warning
THE PRESIDENT: And that is what number?
M. DUBOST: Number 152 in the document book concerning German
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, are you now proposing to read from some document which is not in our document book?
M. DUBOST: I shall read it tomorrow, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you will read it tomorrow.
M. DUBOST: For Norway and for Denmark we have several hostages was followed.
We have, notably, document C-48, from which policy of the execution of hostages is total.
Notice was given that
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 1594?
M. DUBOST: Yes, I quote:
"In this letter we find a chart of the execution of hostages which took place up to this time in the sector over which I had charge. For a great part of the cases, especially for the most serious, the authors were subsequently arrested and were condemned. This result is in no wise susceptible to bringing about any mitigation of facts which were less intimidating, as far as the law is concerned, to the prejudice of the population. Any abyss which had been created in the population between the communists and the remainder of the population was filled. All circles were filled with a hatred against the occupation forces. An important element of hatred was the enemy propoganda. The result was that all sorts of general repercussions resulted which were of an inopportune nature.
"Signed: Falkenhausen." in the third paragraph of the third sheet. Elsewhere I wish to point out the following:
"In several cases the authors of aggression and sabotage"-
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a moment. We haven't found the document yet.
M. DUBOST: 1587-PS, fourth sheet.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, these documents are not all numbered, so that they are very difficult to find.
M. DUBOST: The fourth page, third paragraph. Elsewhere in this document from the same general I wish to point out the following:
"In several cases the authors of aggression or acts of sabotage were discovered when the hostages had already been shot, shortly after the criminal acts had been committed, in conformity with the instructions that had been received. Elsewhere, the true authors often didn't belong to the same circles as the hostages. Unquestionably in such cases the execution of hostages does not inspire terror but indifference on the part of the population, which had been passive up to that time. It thus negatively in regard to the occupying power was favorable to the English agents, who were often instigators of these acts. It is then necessary to prolong the delays in the hope that we may arrest the culpable or guilty persons, and also to get the greatest cooperation in the struggle against these terroristic activities.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know what the date of that document was?
M. DUBOST: It is after the 16th September 1941. We don't have the exact date. The document is appended to another document, whose date is illegible, but it is after the order of Keitel in regard to the execution of hostages. It concerns the application of this order of Keitel.
"After the execution of the hostages who had been considered guilty, this fact had awakened the resentment of the population." the monthly report of the commander of the Wehrmacht in Holland--the report for the month of August, 1942, a new notice or warning from Keitel:
"Special political situation: On the occasion of an attempt against the train which contained soldiers on leave, and which was to arrive according to schedule at Rotterdam, a Dutch guard was seriously wounded because he touched a wire which was connected with an explosive charge, and thus was wounded as a result of the explosion. In the Dutch press the following repressive measures were announced. The term of the fixed day for the arrest of authors of crimes, with the collaboration of the population, is fixed at 14 August to midnight. A reward of 100,000 florins was fixed for a denounciation, which would remain confidential. In the event the authors of this crime were not arrested within the fixed day, the threat was given to execute hostages who watched over Dutch railway lines. Despite this summons, the author of the crime was not discovered and could not be found anywhere. Accordingly, the following hostages who had for several weeks been in custody as hostages were shot upon the order of the Chief of the SS and of the police."
I pass over the enumeration of the names. I am at the following paragraph and I read:
THE PRESIDENT: Will you read, not the names but the offices?
M. DUBOST: Ruys Wil lem, General Director at Rotterdam; Comte E.O.G. Limburg-Stirum; M. Baelde Robert, a Rotterdam jurist; Bennkers, Christoffel, former General Inspector of the Police at Rotterdam; Baron Alexandre Schimmel Pennik.
One paragraph further on:
"Public opinion was particularly impressed by the execution of these hostages. The report of the 6th of June expressed the opinion that from the beginning of the occupation no attempt against the Germans was more deeply felt.
Num erous anonymous letters, even signed letters, sent to the commander of the Wehrmacht, who was considered as responsible for this unheard of event, showed the diverse feelings among the general public. Since that hateful insult, or devout conspiracy, they were asked not to have recourse to such extreme measures.
"We have found among that correspondence reproaches for petty infractions, reproaches which had a serious foundation and which make one reflect that despite all that happened there might have been some possibility of a German-Dutch agreement, and that now all that had been spoiled. Such methods simply were of benefit to the communists, who must rejoice that they succeeded., when they were alone the true saboteurs and had accomplished a useful purpose which had placed them in a position of having people in other circles executed. Such a repudiation among the German-Hollanders, such hatred, has never been observed to that time.
"Signed: Schneider, Captain." neither the General Staff nor Keitel ever gave any order to the contrary. The order of 16 September, 1941, always remained in force. I shall show you examples of the execution of hostages in France and a number of other facts which I will utilize, dated in 1942, 1943, and even 1944.
(Whereupon at 1245 hours the Tribunal adjourned to 1400 hours.)
Military Tribunal, in the matter of: The 1946, 1400-1700.
Lord Justice Lawrence
COURT OFFICER: If your Honor please, the defendants Kaltenbrunner and Streicher will continue to be absent during this afternoon's session.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please put on your earphones? that you were citing, and also the Tribunal understands that the interpreters had some difficulty because the document books -- except the one that is before me -- have no indications of the "PS" or other numbers, and the documents themselves are not numbered in order. Therefore it is extremely difficult for members of the Tribunal to find documents, and it is also extremely difficult for the interpreters to find any document which may be before them. indicate what the document is, and then give both the interpreters and the Tribunal some time in which they may find the document and then indicate exactly which part of the document you are going to read -- that is to say, whether it is the beginning of the document or the first paragraph or the second, and so on. But you must bear with us if we find some difficulty in following you in the documents.
M. DUBOST: I had finished this morning presenting the general rules which prevailed during five years of occupation in the matter of the execution of numerous hostages in our occupied countries of the West. I brought you the proof, the evidence, by reading a series of official German documents -- that the highest authorities of the Army, of the Party and of the Government of the Nazi Regime had deliberately chosen to practice a terroristic policy through the seizure of hostages. me to be necessary to say exactly wherein this policy consisted, in the light of the texts which I have quoted.
According to the circumstances, people belonging by choice or ethnically to the vanguished nations were apprehended and held as a guarantee for the maintenance of order in a given sector, or after a given incident of which the enemy army had been the victim. They were apprehended and held in lieu of obtaining the carrying out by the vanguished population of acts determined by the occupying authority, such as denunciation, payment of collective fines, the handing over of perpetrators of assaults committed against the German Army, the handing over of political adversaries, and these persons thus arrested were very often massacred subsequently by way of reprisal. who is a human being becomes a private guarantor subjected to seizure determined by the enemy. How contrary this is to the rule of individual liberty, of human dignity! All the members of the German Government are jointly responsible for this iniquitous concept and for the applications that were made of this concept in our vanguished countries. No member of the German Government can reject the responsibility attaching to subordinates by claiming that they merely executed clearly determined orders with an excess of zeal. I have shown you that upon many occasions, on the contrary, the persons who carried out the orders reported to the chiefs the moral consequences of the application of the terroristic policy of hostages. And we know that in no case were contrary orders given. We know that always the original orders were maintained. executions of hostages. For our single country of France there were 29,660 executed. This is proved in Document RF-420, dated Paris, 21 December 1945, the original of which shall be submitted under No. 266 to your Tribunal. It is at the beginning of the document book -- that is the second. You see there in detail, Region by Region, the number of the hostages who were executed for the Region of: