But all in all, it had the usual forms of a military struggle, quiet reigned.
Only later, as the struggle continued and expanded, especially when the struggle against Russia was added, when on the opposite side a new centre of leadership had been created, then at that time in the countries of the west which had been quiet until then and where no serious events had taken place, an absolute change was brought about by the resistance movement.
Raids, attacks on German officers and so on, hand grenades and bombs thrown into localities where German officers or soldiers were present. Bombs were even thrown in places where there were women -- Red Cross nurses. Auto-cars were attacked, lines of communication cut, rails were blasted, and this in increasing measure. warfare, such a war represented a great difficulty. When serial warfare was added, entirely new possibilities and methods were developed. Might after night a large number of planes came over and dropped a tremendous quantity of explosives and arms, directives, etc., for this resistance movement, in order to reinforce and increase it. The German Intelligence was quite successful, by means of radio measures of deception, to get a large number of these materials into their own hands; but sufficient amounts were left which fell into the hands of the resistance movement. also of large extent. As to this, documents can be submitted. Of course -
MR. JUST ICE JACKSON: If the Tribunal please, I am very reluctant to interrupt this examination, but I should like to ask if the Tribunal will avail itself of the Charter provision to require from Counsel a statement as to how this is relevant to the charges which we are engaged in trying. is this, as I see it: It raises a question which involves a great deal of time, if time is an important element in this proceeding. actions taken by partisan groups within occupied territories which were very annoying, objectionable and injurious to the would-be conqueror. It is sought to introduce testimony as to what partisans did toward the German occupying forces, on the theory of reprisal, then I respectfully submit that Counsel is proceeding in reverse order, that is to say, if the Defense says, "Yes, we did commit certain atrocities; we did shoot hostages; we did violate is not, under the Hague Convention relevant but then at least we might have that question presented.
would be justified, it has no place, I submit, in the case. If it is offered on the basis of establishing a theory of reprisal, our first inquiry is, What is it that reprisals were for? In other words, the doctrine of reprisal can only be invoked when you first admit that you committed certain definite acts of violation of international law. Then your question is whether you were justified. I submit that it might shorten, and certainly would clarify this proceeding, if counsel would definitely state what acts it is on the part of the German occupying force that he is directing this testimony, as I suppose, to excuse it, and that unless there is some theory of reprisal pointed out with sufficient definiteness, so that we may identify the violations on Germany's part for which she is seeking excuse by way of reprisal, this testimony is not helpful in deciding the ultimate question. Of course they resisted. The question is whether acts of the character we have shown can be excused by way of reprisal, and if so, there must be an admission of those acts and the doctrine of reprisal must be set forth, it seems to me, much more specifically.
D., STAHMER: Unfortunately, I did not understand all of the statement, but I believe that for the following reasons what we have discussed up to now is relevant: in large numbers and were killed, and it is said that this was a violation;
at any rate, the motives which led to the taking of hostages have not, up to now, been discussed, at least not sufficiently, and to clarify this question, which is 30 important for the decisions in this trial, it is in my opinion absolutely necessary to explain that these decrees concerning the arrest and the treatment of hostages were called for by the attitude of the resistance movement and the actions of the resistance movement. Therefore, in my opinion it could be said with justification that the actions of the resistance movement were the cause for +he measures which had to be taken later by the German military authorities, much to their regret.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May I say one word in answer to Doctor Stahmer's offer, if it be an offer? seems to me to lead us very far afield. If he is invoking the international law doctrine of reprisal, then he has to meet the conditions of that doctrine. Article 2 of the Geneva Convention of the 27th of July 1929 provides specifically that measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. He therefore must relate it to some one ether than prisoners of war. Under the doctrine of reprisal, as we understand it, any act which is claimed to be justified as a reprisal must be related to a specific end continuing violation of international law on the other side. That is, it is not every casual and incidental violation which justifies wholesale reprisal. If it were, then international law would have no foundation, for a breach on one side, however unimportant, would completely absolve the other from any rules of warfare. must follow within a reasonable time and it must be related reasonably to the offense which it is sought to prevent. That is, you can't by way of reprisal engage in wholesale slaughter in order to vindicate a single murder. Next it must be shown as to the reprisal that a pretest was made, as a basis for invoking reprisal. You cannot engage in reprisals without notice. The reprisal must be noticed and there must be notification by a responsible party of the government. national law cannot be shielded as a reprisal. The specific acts must be reprisals for specific acts under the conditions I have pointed out.
You cannot vindicate a reign of terror under the doctrine of reprisal; and so I respectfully submit that the offer of Doctor Stahmer to inquire into the motives of Goering individually or of all defendants collectively, or of Germany, does not meet any legal test. It might be pointed out to the Court by way of mitigation of sentence after conviction, but is not a proper consideration on the question of guilt or innocence of the charges which we have brought to the bar.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, I understood you to agree that this sort of evidence might be relevant in mitigation of sentence?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If your Honors find the defendants guilty, then it comes to the question of sentence, as in our practice. You might find almost anything that a defendant saw fit to urge relevant to the sentence, but I don't take it that Doctor Stahmer is now dealing with the question of offers relevant to that subject. If it is I should consent that any plea for leniency be heard, of course. It is offered, as I understand it, on the question of guilt.
THE PRESIDENT: That may be so, but the Tribunal may consider it more convenient to hear the evidence new. The Charter, as far as I see, hasn't provided for any evidence to be given after sentence of sentence is pronounced. Therefore any evidence which would have to be given in mitigation would have to be given now.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The difficulty with that, I should think, would be this: that a defendant may very well be found guilty on some count but not on others. That would require mitigation at this time of the question of sentence, two-thirds of which might be irrelevant because he might not be found guilty on more than one count. may be presumed to have some knowledge of. In our procedure the question of guilt is tried first.
The question of sentence is a separate subject, to be determined after the verdict. I should think that would be the logical way to proceed here. I do not understand that this -- and I think Doctor Stahmer confirms my view -- is offered on the question of sentence.
I don't think he concedes he has reached that point yet.
DR. STAHMER: May I speak briefly on this? to a large extent, by organizing partisan groups. The struggle against these actions could only be carried out by reprisals. As Justice Jackson has explained, it is correct that certain conditions prevailed for reprisals, but I believe-
THE PRESIDENT (interposing): You agree that the conditions which Mr. Justice Jackson stated are accurately stated?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, but we have to deal here, in my opinion, with the fact of an emergency,an emergency which was created by action of the partisans in violation of international law, and this condition of emergency permitted commanders of the army to take general measures in order to remove these conditions which had been brought about in violation of international law. Therefore, at any rate, these facts are of importance and are relevant concerning the question of verdict.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not propose to hear an unlimited number of defendants' Counsel, but I observe that Dr. Exner is there, and they are prepared to hear one other Counsel; if Counsel wish, Dr. Exner, upon the subject.
DR. EXNER(Counsel for Defendant Jodl): May it please the Tribunal, indeed, we are all interested in that question of reprisals, and I would like to say a few words. believe that I understand something about it. Reprisals are among the most disputed terms of international law. One can say that only on one point is there absolute certainty. That is the point which Justice Jackson has mentioned as the first one. Reprisals against prisoners of war are not permitted. Everything else is matter for dispute and not at all accepted in international law. It is not correct that it would be the practice among all states, and therefore international law, that a protest is a prerequisite for taking reprisals. Neither is it correct that there has been a so-called sensible connection. It was asserted that there must be a connection in time and a relation of proportion ought to be between the violation and the reprisals, and there are experts on international law who assert it and say that there should be a demand, but existing international law, in the sense that an agreement has been made to that effect or that it would be a law -- that is not the case. international law by the other side, we can never take reprisals against prisoners of war. However, every other form of reprisal is admissible. say that it has been asserted that at this time we should not speak about the reasons for mitigation. I would like to remind the Court that we are only permitted to make one address, and if in this speech which takes place before the decision has been reached about the question of guilt we are not permitted to speak about mitigation, then we would not have any opportunity to speak about it at all.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that the evidence is admissible
BY DR. STAHMER:
Q Will you please continue?
must be considered as excesses. I only wanted to set forth how it and not understandable.
Explanations or expressions made through situation were carried out by others.
That was and is my answer to the question why the relations in France had two different aspects of war; be brought forth in a regular war.
And in a case like that special in France in order to help French agriculture?
of the witness Koerner, whose testimony I can only confirm. By that the period of occupation helped, developed and increased.
A large countries?
the circulation of money could be regulated to keep it in its proper limits and channels and to keep the currency of the country under control; in other words, similar to the procedure that is being used, in cur occupied zones of Germany today, in which there was a regulation regarding art objects. Are you familiar with this or shall I refresh your memory?
A I remember this document very distinctly. It has played an important role, these art objects which were taken to the Louvre and later into the exhibition hall. We were concerned with, these objects of art which were Jewish property but without masters and had left the country; that is, the art objects that left the country and had been confiscated. This order was not issued by me. I did not knew this order. It was the Fuehrer's Decree. Then, when I was at Paris. I heard of this order and heard further that it was the intention of these art objects in the main -- that is, as far as they had museum value -- to put them into the museum at Linz which the Fuehrer contemplated erecting at Linz. I personally will confess that I am interested but not ineverything that was to be transported to Southern Germany. I personally, for quite sometime previous to this incident, had decided and had made my intention known to the Finance Ministry, that after the war or some other period of time which I considered opportune, that the objects of art which I had in my possession, either through purchase, through gifts, r through inheritance, that these art objects would be taken and given as a grant to the German people, and I had the intention to institute or to erect this gallery or museum in a different way from what museums had been constructed in prior days -- for the development of this gallery was put up at Karinhall and according to the historical background, these paints and objects of art were to be presented and shown according to the historical background. Preparations had been taken along those lines but because of the outbreak of the war, work could rot be completed. Paintings, statutes, an other objects of art were to be included in this collection and this collection was to be completed. Then, when I saw the course of events and heard that these objects, which I mentioned prior, were to be transported, to Linz -- there were some which were not of museum value and were to be used for a subordinate purpose -- I had the intention, and I fully admit that, that I had a passion for collecting things of all sorts and I said that after these things are confiscated and are to remain so, I wish to have a snail part, I wish to buy a small portion of them, so that I may include them into this gallery which I intended to establish in Northern Germany.
The Fuehrer agreed to this with one condition, that he himself would like to see at least the reproductions of these objects which I wanted, and in many cases it occurred that he wished to earmark these paintings for himself, that is, not for himself but his museum, and that I had to give them back; but from the beginning, I wanted to have a clear preparation or a clear differentiation that those objects which I wanted to have for my own galleries, wanted to buy the things for this gallery, I was willing to pay for those objects; therefore, I established for that an export of art, and a Frenchman, a professor, whose name I don't recall. He was a Frenchman, who had been in Germany, and a man to whom I never talked to before. This man was to estimate the value of these objects. I would then utter my view whether I was interested, whether the price was too high, or whether I would not want to buy the paintings or whether I would wish to buy them and pay the price.
A part of this collection was treated in such a way, but part of this collection was transported back and forth, that is, they were sent to the Fuehrer.
They did not remain with me and after we had reached some understanding, payment was to take place. In this document, in this decree, which I called a "preliminary decree" and which the Fuehrer would have had to approve, I emphasized that all those objects which were to be paid for, that is, things which were not of museum value, were to be sold at auction to French or German businesses or people who were interested and that the monies taken in this way was to go to the families of French people killed in the war. Then I inquired repeatedly where I was to send this money and that in collaboration with French officers, a bank account could and should be established for this purpose. In order to establish this account, the amount of money was always available at my bank even until the end and one day when I inquired again into this matter, I received an answer which surprised me. The answer was that the Reichsschatzmeister was not interested in these monies. I at once wrote on this matter and my secretary can verify this by oath, that I could not understand how the treasurer, the Reichsschatzmeister of the Party, how he was concerned and that I wanted to know the French authorities to whom I could have this account transferred and in this case, the Party, that is, the Party Treasurer, had no authority to dictate to me whether I should pay or not, whether I was myself desirable of making the payment then after this, after France had been occupied, I demanded to know just where I could have these monies transferred. In summarizing and concluding, I wish to stave that I considered these things confiscated for the Reich, as according to the decree, and I believed myself to be justified in purchasing some of these objects, especially since I told not only some of the officials but some of the other people and have never concealed the matter that these objects of art, about the ones I mentioned and already in my possession, were to be used and collected in the gallery of my own desire, which I have already mentioned. straight also. Among these confiscated paintings were some of the modern school -- pictures which I personally did not like and do not like but, as I was told, these pictures were desired in French commercial channels and in answer to that, I stated that as for as I am concerned, even these pictures may be estimated as to value, may be purchased, so that they may be exchanged against old masters, the ones that I an interested in.
I never exerted any pressure in this direction or in this connection, I was only interested as to whether the price that was asked of me was too high and then I was not interested in the offer or I was interested in the offer. I was chiefly interested in whether the offer was sincere and real, but I wish to state again that this was a matter of exchange and I did not use any pressure. After I purchased these objects, I used some of them as well as some of my own and which I had in my prior possession, and used then for general museum trading. That means, one museum was interested in one picture and I was interested, for my gallery, in another picture which was in the possession of the museum and then we traded, and these trading measures often took place with art dealers of foreign countries but not only pictures and objects of art were concerned. I offered in the open market in Germany, Italy, and in other countries, and purchased other objects of art or some that I had in my possession. At this opportunity, I would like to add that independently of the buying, I would like purchasing of these confiscated objects. I, also, in France and other countries, before and after the war, that is, during the war, I would like to say, that on the open market I bought both objects of art and I may add that the situation was as follows, that if I came to Rome, or Florence, or perhaps Paris, or into the Dutch countries, if the people had known in advance that I was coming, in the very shortest time I would have had a dearth of offers, of written offers of every circle, that is, art dealers and private, and that these offers were always present.
There were several misleading offers of some objects that were real and genuine, however, and I was interested, and in the open market I purchased a number of art objects in the course of the year, and professionally did I buy such from private people of whom I had offered some private purchasers.
the beginning I was cheated as soon as it was known that I was interested, and fifty to one-hundred percent were added to the price, and this is the price I had to pay in answer to this question. measures to protect these things? to those especially in the hands of the State museums. Sofar as these State Museums were concerned, I did not confiscate a single article, or in any way remove a single article, There were two trading mediums with the De Louvre on an entirely voluntary basis, and in that case I traded a figurine which is known in art as "La Belle Allemagne." The statue of "La Belle Allemagne" had originated in Germany, and another figurine I had, which had been in my possession for many years, I traded this figure in my possession and other objects or pictures for that statute. protect objects of art wherever destruction was concerned, and to protect them against bombings, and against the rigors of battle, and I remember that when the Directors of the Louvre told me that most of the things had just been put into the rooms of the Loire Castle, then I was concerned when increasing bomb attacks came, and that upon their request, and if they wish it, and if it were necessary, I would advise them to put these articles into safe keeping, and then they told me they had not the transport facilities. international monuments, churches, and anything that is not portable, and in this connection I would like to say, perhaps at no time or another did I issue an order which because of purely military consideration brought about the innercontradiction within myself. I had told flyers repeatedly and strongly, and that under no conditions that all Gothic or other Cathedrals of the French cities were to be protected, and were not to be attacked. They were not to be attacked, even if the mortality and units of troops were concentrated, and, I decreed that if the attack had to be made by the precise Stuka unit which were to be used, that every Frenchman who was present at the time would have to agree that curies, pictures or articles, for instance, in Anions, Chartre, and other cities, that the Cathedrals should be protected, and windows had to be taken cut, and put in safe keeping, but the houses surrounding the Cathedrals were the victims of the attack That was without exception.
That just a small city of Bouvais, where a large Cathedral had been spared of historical value, where the historical value had been determined, they were spared, and contrast that to the scene which later on took place in Germany, and I say the French Government repeatedly appreciated that, and told me of their appreciation in this respect, I have no other comment on that point. black market in France?
A Colonel Veltjens was a colonel in the Reserves. He was a flyer in the first World War, and had entered business after the first World War. Therefore, he was not in the capacity of a colonel, but of a business man. He was not only functioning in the operation of the black market in France, but of Belgium and Holland, and it came about in the following manner.
In a certain period during the occupation it was reported to me that certain things in which I was interested in the direction of war economy had been and were being obtained only in the black market. I then knew the concept of the black market which I learned for the first time. I knew that copper, tin, and other vital metals might be avialable, but they had been buried in the mines of Holland, and had been concealed in other countries, also, but if money were available these objects could be resurrected, but on the basis of confiscatory Decree, which was their view, the raw material would be available to us. At that time, and at every other time, I was interested only in final victory, and that my intents was governed by this determination which was more important to my being able of copper and tin to purchase, as, for example, to get them at any price, no matter what the price might be, rather than not to have them. I did not even have an idea or opinion that the high prices might not be justified, but I told the government it makes no difference what the influence is in it, the Gentian armaments is interested and is in need at all times to get these things, that that is the most important. How you can get them by any means does not matter. If you get them through confiscation, that is all the better. If we are to pay a good deal of money to get them that way, then you will have to do that. The unpleasant thing was that other officers without my knowledge, as the French prosecution showed quite correctly, that the other occupants tried to get the same material also. This rivalry was within our own group, and I now gave Veltjens the sole authority to be the only one to go arena the people to get these materials and n this basis I authorized Veltjens to control these activities, and to eliminate other opponents who were interested in getting the same material; that we might aim, although it is very hard, to combat the black market activities, and we can see that is the only way of doing this thin ugh many reasons. Afterwards, even Veltjans and his organization had been prohibited in the black market, to prevent it, and on special request of Minister President Laval, but even with that can say we could not do away with the black market, and to this end and source, as confirmation of my view, the French prosecution showed that the black market source was too prolonged; that is is still providing after the war and so far as I knew how it is still flourishing in Germany.
These are things which during and after a war arises, and still arises during strict measures due itself to the great demand, and of no supply.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, The Tribunal understands from you that the witness would probably -- that the defendant would, probably finish his examination in chief at midday today. Tell me how how much longer you think the defendant will be with his testimony.
MR. STAHMER: I had counted on being able to conclude my questioning, but there were several interruptions, and I hope to conclude during the course of the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: There was no interruption with the exception of that one interruption with reference to Justice Jackson's objection to reprisals. There was no other interruption that I remember.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, there was after the technical disturbance. Your Honor, to which I am referring.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the Tribunal will sit tomorrow morning from ten to one.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours)
BY DR. STAHMER:
Q What were the reasons that led to the attack on Yugoslavia?
Yugoslavian Government. It was part of my foreign policy undertaken but also to come to a close understanding politically.
This was intervene frequently and at times also with Italy.
My intervention into anything but friendly relations.
It is regrettable that Prime directed into the war.
At the time when the signing of that agreement in Greece, also to Greece.
In spite of that agreement we had a pact heard about the background power, the Putsch.
A short time later we the purpose of their undertaking had been.
The new Yugoslav Government in that direction.
Before the Simowitsch incident it is probable that, At the same time, it was evident that Yugoslavia, under the new government, only tried to gain time for her deployment, because during the very same night of the putsch the official orders for mobilization were issued to the Yugoslav Army.
would stick to the agreement, the maneuver was easily to be understood. The situation was the following: if I remember correctly, in October or September 1940. Germany had not been informed of this venture. The Fuehrer was informed by myself, and I had only found out about the incident, and then probably through the foreign office, and immediately he turned back his train on the way from France to Berlin in order to meet the Duce at Florence. why the Fuehrer wanted to talk to him and, if I can remember correctly, the order to the Italian Army to march from Albania to Greece was issued sooner by about 48 hours. It is a fact that the Fuehrer, in his concern to prevent an expansion of the conflict in the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean unde all circumstances, wanted to urge the Duce to forego such plans, which were not necessary but only taken for reasons of prestige.
When the meeting took place at 10 o'clock in the morning and the Fuehrer had mentioned this point of view, Mussolini declared that since 6 o'clock on that morning the Italiantroops had already been advancing through Greece and, in his opinion, would shortly reach Athens. circumstances, also, the relations to Turkey would be seriously endangered, and again an area of war would be created, and he did not mention at that time that finally Italy would have to call Germany for help. Thus was the situation at the beginning of the attack against Yugoslavia. unfavorable situation. Thus, only a part of the Yugoslav Army could succeed to get behind the Italian position. Then Italy would not only be eliminated there, but a considerable part of the Italian forces would have been destroyed.