The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc//tgmwc-05/tgmwc-05-48.02

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-05/tgmwc-05-48.02
Last-Modified: 1999/10/05


M. EDGAR FAURE: Mr. President, Honourable Judges: I have the
honour of delivering to the Tribunal the concluding address
of the French prosecution. This presentation relates more
particularly to the sections lettered I and J of Count No. 3
of the Indictment: "Oath of Allegiance, and Germanisation:"
and on the other hand to section B of Count No. 4,
"Persecutions on Political, Racial and Religious Grounds."

First of all I should like to present in a brief
introduction the general ideas which govern the plan of my
final pleading. The concept of Germanisation has been stated
in the presentation of M. de Menthon. It consists
essentially in imposing upon the inhabitants of occupied
territories forms for their political and social life such
as the Nazis have determined according to their own doctrine
and for their own profit. The combined activities which
carried out Germanisation or which have Germanisation for
their purpose, and which are illegal, have been defined as a
criminal undertaking against humanity. The complete process
of Germanisation was employed in certain territories, to
annex them to the Reich. The Germans intended even before
the end of the war to incorporate these territories within
their own country. These territories, annexed and then
Germanised in an absolute manner, are the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg, the Belgian cantons of Eupen, Malmedy and
Moresnet, and the three French Departments of Haut-Rhin, Bas-
Rhin and the Moselle.

These territories can be considered relatively small in
comparison with the total area of territories occupied by
the Germans.

This, in no wise, mitigates the reprehensible character of
these annexations moreover, we should note at this point two
essential aspects of our subject in the shape of two

The first proposition: The Germans had conceived and
prepared more extensive annexations than those actually
carried out in an official manner. For reasons of
expediency, they did not proceed with these planned
annexations during the time at their disposal.

The second proposition: Annexation, on the other hand, was
not the

                                                  [Page 343]

unique or obligatory procedure of Germanisation. The Germans
discovered that they could employ different and varied means
to achieve their purpose of universal domination. The
selection of means which vary according to circumstances, to
attain and to camouflage an identical result, was
characteristic of what has been called Nazi Machiavellism.
Their conception is technically much more pliable, more
clever and more dangerous than the classical conception of
territorial conquest. In this respect, the most brutal
competitor has over them the advantage of candour.

To begin with I say that the Germans had formulated the plan
to annex more extensive territory. Numerous indications
point to this. I would like to give you only two citations.

The first of these is taken from the documentation collected
by our colleagues of the American prosecution, American
documents which have not yet been submitted to the Tribunal.
I should say in addition that in my final pleading I shall
refer only twice to these very remarkable American
documents. All the other documents which I shall submit will
be new ones belonging to the French prosecution.

The document of which I speak now is 1155-PS of the American
documents, and it appears in the file of documents submitted
to you as Exhibit RF 601, which will become, may it please
the Tribunal, that number in French documentation.

This document is dated Berlin, 20 June 1940. It bears the
notation: "Secret General Staff Document." Its title is:
"Note for the Dossier on the Conference of 19 June 1940. At
Headquarters of General Field Marshal Goering."

The notes which are included in this document reflect,
therefore, the views of the leaders, and not individual
interpretations. I would like to read to the Tribunal only
paragraph 6 of the document, which is to be found on Page 3.
It is the first document:

   "General plans in regard to political development."
   "Luxembourg is to be annexed to the Reich. Norway is to
   become German. Alsace-Lorraine is to be re-incorporated
   into the Reich. An autonomous Breton State is to be
   created. Furthermore, considerations are pending
   concerning Belgium, the special treatment of the Flemish
   in that country, and the creation of a State of

The second citation which I shall submit to the Tribunal on
this point refers to a French document which I submit as
Exhibit RF 602. This document comprises the minutes of the
interrogation of Dr. Globke, for some time assistant of the
Secretary of State in the Ministry of the Interior, Dr.
Stuckart. It is dated 25 September 1945. This interrogation
was taken by Commandant Graf of the French Judiciary

To the minutes has been added a memorandum which was
delivered following the questioning by Dr. Globke. I read a
passage from this interrogation, at the beginning of the
document, paragraph 1.

   "Questions: Have you any knowledge of plans which
   envisage the annexation of other French territories at
   the time of the conclusion of peace (Belfort, Nancy
   Bassin de Briey, the coal fields of the North, the so-
   called "Red Zone," territories attached to the
   Government General of Belgium)?
   Answer: Yes, these plans did exist. They were worked out
   by Dr. Stuckart, upon the personal instruction of the
   Fuehrer, and I have seen them. They were communicated to
   the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the OKW and to the
   Armistice Commission in Wiesbaden. All these documents
   have been destroyed," (at least so said Dr. Globke).
   "The State Secretary Stuckart brought a preliminary
   project to the headquarters of the
                                                  [Page 344]
   Fuehrer" (before the launching of the Russian campaign.
   End of 1940!)
   After examination the Fuehrer thought that this project
   was too moderate, and he gave instructions that it
   should extend to other territories, specifically those
   along the Channel.
   Dr. Stuckart then prepared a second draft, with a map
   attached, on which the approximate borders were
   indicated. I have seen it, and I can show it to you
   roughly on a large-scale map of France. I do not know
   whether this second plan was approved by Hitler."

I now read a passage from the memorandum, appended to the
minutes just cited.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you tell us who Dr. Globke was?

M~ FAURE: Yes, Mr. President, he was the assistant of Dr.
Stuckart who was Secretary of State in the Ministry of the
Interior. He styled himself in his interrogation "Officer in
charge of matters. concerning Alsace-Lorraine and
Luxembourg, in the Ministry of the Interior, since 1940."

I now read a passage from the attached memorandum. This
appears in your document book immediately after the passage
I have just read. Still under RF 602, I am now reading
paragraph 6 of the memorandum in question; it is the
beginning of the document before you.

   "The project of moving the Franco-German border was
   elaborated upon in the Ministry of Interior by the State
   Secretary von  Stuckart, upon an order given him
   personally by Hitler. This plan envisaged that the
   territories in the North  and the East of France which,
   for so-called historical or political, racial,
   geographical reasons or any other reason whatsoever,
   could be considered as not belonging to Western, but to
   Central Europe, were to be given back to Germany. A
   first draft was submitted to Hitler at his Headquarters
   and it was approved by him in full. Hitler nevertheless
   wanted an enlargement ..."

THE PRESIDENT: The typing of these documents has got mixed,
because our copy of this part of the document after
translation into English reads, "After examination, the
Fuehrer found this project too moderate and ordered it to
extend to other territories, notably to the length of the
Channel." I think there must be a miscopying there, if what
you read is right.

M. FAURE: I ask the Tribunal to excuse me. There is indeed a
paragraph which has been, omitted. In the file which is
entitled "Presentation," and which is before you the
citation is reproduced in its entirety. If the Tribunal is
willing -

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could give us a corrected copy
afterwards. If you continue your reading now, perhaps you
could let the Tribunal have the corrected copy afterwards.

M. FAURE: I shall not fail to do that, Mr. President.

DR. STAHMER (Counsel for defendant Goering): The defence has
not received these documents at all! Consequently, even
today we are not in a position to follow the presentation.
Above all, we are not in a position to check individually
whether the formal suppositions for the validity of those
documents really exist.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, is that correct, that none of these
documents have been deposited in the Defence Information

M. FAURE: They have been deposited, Mr. President. They were
deposited with two photostat copies in the document centre
of the defendants' counsel. Moreover, before I complete my
statement, I am sure that the defence counsel will have all
opportunity to study this very brief document and to make
any observations which they may desire, but I can give you
formal assurance that those documents were delivered.

                                                  [Page 345]

THE PRESIDENT: What assurance can you give me that the
orders which the Tribunal has given have been carried out?

M. FAURE: The documents have been delivered to the defence
counsel in accordance with instructions and two photostat
copies have been delivered in the document room of the
defence. These documents are, moreover, in the German
language, which should greatly facilitate the task of the
defence counsel, as the interrogation was taken in the
German language by an officer of the French Judiciary

THE PRESIDENT: You have heard what M. Faure has said.

DR. STAHMER: I should certainly not raise any objections if
these documents really were in our document room and at our
disposal. This morning I and several others looked into the
matter and made an effort to determine whether the documents
were really there. We could not find out. Dr. Steinhauer and
I went there; we could not find the documents. I shall go
there again to see whether they may not have come in the

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has stated on a variety of
occasions that they attach a great importance to the
documents being deposited in the defendants' Information
Centre and copies supplied in accordance with the
regulations which they have laid down. Whether that has been
done on this occasion, is disputed by Dr. Stahmer. The
Tribunal proposes therefore to have the matter investigated
as soon as possible and to see exactly whether the rules
have been carried out or not. And in future they
hope that they will be carried out with the greatest
strictness. In the meantime, I think it will be most
convenient for you to continue.

M. FAURE: The defendants' counsel tells me that the
documents are in the defence counsel room, but they have not
yet been distributed. It can be seen, therefore, that the
orders were fully respected, but because of the burden of
work it may be that the defence may not individually have
received these documents. In any event, I am prepared to
submit immediately to the defence counsel mainly concerned
with this, photostat copies which will enable them to follow
my reading of the documents, which, incidentally, are quite

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will have the facts
investigated. And in the meantime, you can continue. The
Marshal of the Court will immediately find out and report to
the Tribunal what the facts are, about the deposition of the
documents and the time at which they were deposited. In the
meantime you can continue, and we shall be glad if you will
assist the defendants' counsel by giving them any copies you
may have available.

M. FAURE: I was referring, then, to Exhibit RF 602, the
attached memorandum. - If the Tribunal wishes to follow the
reading of this document will it kindly take the book
entitled "Expose" or "Presentation," and turn to Page 6
thereof. The passage which I am now coming to is the last
paragraph of Page 6.

THE PRESIDENT: Is this expose entitled "Luxembourg" or

M. FAURE: It is entitled "Introduction."

THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, the document entitled "Introduction"
on the last  page.

M. FAURE: Mr. President, you indicated to me a while ago
that in the document book a sentence had been skipped. I was
therefore asking you to take the file called "Expose" where
this sentence is included, the same citation being
reproduced in the two files in order to avoid the
consequences of similar errors.

"Introduction-Espose," Page 6, third and last paragraph, I
am continuing;

   "A first draft was submitted to Hitler at his
   headquarters and it was approved by him as a whole.
   Hitler, however, expressed his desire to

                                                  [Page 346]

   see allocated to Germany parts of more extensive areas
   of territory, in particular along the Channel coast. The
   final draft was to serve as the basis for future
   discussions with the administrative departments of the
   Governments concerned. These discussions did not take
   place. The approximate outline of the frontier which was
   considered then started from the mouth of the Somme,
   went Eastward along the Northern edge of the Parisian
   Basin and Champagne, up to the Argonne, then curved to
   the South, crossing Burgundy, next Franche Comte, and
   finally reaching the Lake of Geneva. Various solutions
   were suggested for a few districts."

These German plans were indicated on several occasions by
specific measures having to do with the territories in
question, measures which might be designated pre-annexation

I come now to the second proposition which I referred to a
while ago. With or without annexation, the Germans had in
mind to take and maintain under their domination all the
occupied countries. As a matter of fact, their determination
was to Germanise and to Nazify all of Western Europe and
even the African Continent. This intention appears from the
very fact of the conspiracy which has been laid bare so
completely before the Tribunal by my colleagues of the
American prosecution. It will also be shown by its
applications the most important of which will be retraced in
this concluding address.

I merely want to recall to the Tribunal this general point:
that the plan for Germanic predominance is defined according
to the German interpretation itself in a public diplomatic
document, which is the Tripartite Pact of 27 September 1940
between Germany, Italy and Japan. In this connection I would
like to quote before the Tribunal a few sentences of a
comment made upon this treaty by an official German author,
von Freytagh-Loringhoven, a member of the Reichstag, who
wrote a book on German foreign policy from 1933 to 1941.
This book was published in a French translation in Paris at
the editing house of Sorlot, during the occupation.

I do not intend to submit this as a document, but merely as
a quotation from a published work, a book, which is here in
your hands. I am reading from Page 311:

   "This treaty granted to Germany and Italy a dominant
   position in the new European order, and it accorded
   Japan a similar role in the area of Eastern Asia."

I am now omitting a sentence that has no significance.

   "At first glance, one could realise that the Tripartite
   Pact had in mind a double purpose."

I shall omit the following sentence which is without
interest, and I go to the sentence dealing with the second

   "Moreover, it entrusted the signatory parties with a
   mission for the future, that is to say, the
   establishment of a new order in Europe and in Eastern
   "Without seeking to lessen the importance of the first
   purpose, there can be no doubt that this second purpose,
   dealing with the future, involved vaster projects and
   was, in fact, the principal one. For the first time in
   an international treaty, in the Tripartite Pact, the
   terms of "Space" and "Orientation" were used, linking
   one with the other."

I now go to Page 314 where the author makes a remark which
appears to me to be significant:

   "Now, the Tripartite Pact places a clear delimitation of
   the wider spaces created by nature on our globe. The
   concept of space, it is true, is employed explicitly
   only for the Far East, but it is clear that it is
   equally applicable to Europe and that within this
   conception Africa is comprised
                                                  [Page 347]
   The latter - that is Africa - is certainly politically
   and economically a complement, or, if you like, an annex
   of Europe. Moreover, it is obvious that the Tripartite
   Pact fixes the limits of the two great regions or spaces
   reserved for the partners, that the Pact tacitly
   recognises the third area, that is Eurasia, properly
   speaking, and that it omits the fourth, the American
   Continent, thus leaving the latter to its own destiny.
   In this way the whole surface of the globe is included,
   and an idea which as yet had not been considered except
   in theory, is given the significance of a political
   principle derived from International Law."

I have felt that this text was of interest because, on the
one hand, it clarifies the fact that the African Continent
is itself included in the space reserved to the German
claimants and, on the other, it states that the government
of such an immense space by Germany constitutes
International Law. This pretence of acting juridically is
one of the characteristics of the undertaking to Germanise
the world from 1940 to 1945. It is undoubtedly one of the
reasons which inspired Nazi Germany to proceed only on rare
occasions by the annexation of territories.

Annexation is not indispensable for the domination of a
great area. It can be replaced by other methods which
correspond rather accurately to the usual term of

(A recess was taken)

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.