Forgotten Trials of the Holocaust. Michael J. Bazyler

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ clear from the comments of the jurors, whose selection was flawed to begin with, that they did not have an open mind and that their expressions to that effect went unnoted by the court.⁶⁴

      When the trial resumed the next day, Laval’s lawyers again asked to be relieved from representing him. They specifically pointed to the broken promise that the investigatory stage would take place over at least twenty-five sessions. In light of the stated need to end the trial before the elections, then just two weeks away, they felt there was not nearly enough time to present a defense that touched on all facets of France’s complex history during the Second World War. Raising the bar, they asked that Laval be given at least the same rights as the “monsters” of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, being tried at the same time by the British in occupied Germany⁶⁵

      Mornet, the prosecutor, responded that the case was not complex. Rather, it was based almost entirely on documents, specifically Laval’s speeches or other public statements that were not disputed and which made France the accomplice of its aggressor and dishonored it in the eyes of the world.⁶⁶ The court then took a recess. On its return, the court announced that it did not have the power to reopen the preliminary investigation. The trial would proceed. Laval could raise whatever defenses he felt were appropriate during the course of the trial.⁶⁷

      The trial continued with Laval representing himself, with his roles as witness and advocate constantly shifting. The prosecution focused on his involvement in the transport of thousands of French men to work in Germany, a major component of the collaboration charge. Laval had repeatedly justified his involvement by noting that he arranged for the release of French prisoners of war in exchange for sending workers to Germany. In a rejoinder, the prosecution alluded to evidence that Laval said that most French prisoners would have to wait until the end of the war to be released.⁶⁸ Agreeing that he signed documents that directed workers to Germany, Laval urged it was important to know why he signed such documents and then restated the moot point that this type of investigation should have been done during the preliminary stage.⁶⁹ In a concession to Laval, the court noted that the charge was not that he was complicit in the creation of the new form of government—the National Assembly had voted overwhelmingly in favor of it—rather, he was liable for abuses that occurred under the new form of government.⁷⁰

      Laval spent much of the balance of the October 5 session going into extraordinary depth and detail with regard to the history of his leadership. One of his lawyers, present, though not participating in the proceedings, commented that “Laval finished up by being terribly verbose and boring. His interminable expositions on the birth of the Vichy regime were listened to by an icy jury, upon whom no argument seemed to have any effect…. [The] hearing which had begun in a high state of excitement ended in somnolence.”⁷¹ Of course, this is precisely why ordinarily an accused should not represent himself. It is difficult to remain objective and perceive events through eyes and ears other than one’s own if one is also the litigant in the case, with a direct and powerful stake in its outcome.

      The following day, October 6, began tranquilly enough. Laval read into evidence correspondence relating to his efforts at having a full preliminary examination and a lengthier trial.⁷² His reiteration of a lost issue seemed to have raised the emotions of everyone in court again. The prosecutor asked about the enactment of laws under the Vichy regime that Laval had signed. Laval replied that the prosecutor had applied these laws without objection at the time. The court then rushed to the defense of the prosecutor by warning Laval of the serious consequences of contempt.⁷³ A dispute then arose when Laval, with his “nonparticipating” lawyers, added they had been deprived of documents. The prosecutor responded that everything they needed to know was in the indictment. The court then asked several questions, and at one point interrupted Laval’s answer by observing that France knew all about what he had done over the four years of the Vichy regime.⁷⁴ Laval observed that the court asked the questions and at the same time answered them.⁷⁵ Several jurors then shouted that “justice would be done,”⁷⁶ and “French justice”⁷⁷—whereupon Laval said he would not answer any further questions. As he did on the trial’s first day, the presiding judge directed the guards to remove Laval from the courtroom. Jurors then shouted out “instigator,” “a bastard,” “twelve bullets,” and “he will never change.”⁷⁸ Laval remarked that this was extraordinary.⁷⁹ The wild scene ended with the disturbingly accurate statement by a juror that Laval had already been judged and France had judged him as well.⁸⁰

      When the trial resumed later in the afternoon, Mongibeaux, the presiding judge, announced that the court had completed the first phase of the case relating to the charge of plotting against the state. It now turned to the second charge: collaboration with the enemy.⁸¹ This was remarkable since no witnesses had yet been called by the prosecution; the entire process had been a dialogue with Laval resulting in a narrowing of the charge, so as not to include the actual creation of the Vichy regime. Laval responded that in light of the way the court had questioned him and the reactions of some of the jurors, he felt he might be the victim of a judicial crime and, therefore, he would remain silent, not wishing to be an accomplice to the process.⁸² The court then directed Mornet to call the first prosecution witness. When Mornet said he had none, Mongibeaux adjourned the proceedings for the day.⁸³ When the trial resumed the next day, Laval was not present.

      The first witness called by the prosecution on the following day was Albert Lebrun, the last president of the Third Republic. Lebrun testified as to Laval’s part in the transition from the Third Republic to the Vichy regime. This was odd since the court had previously indicated that Laval’s part in the transition would not be part of the charge, but only what he had done afterwards. Lebrun testified it was his view that after the collapse of the French army, it would have been better to have a government-in-exile than a French government that would only be endorsing the policies of the occupier.⁸⁴ This was juxtaposed with Laval’s view that to leave France was treasonous.⁸⁵ Lebrun’s testimony ended with a less than ringing endorsement of the prosecution’s position. When asked whether the creation of the new government was an abuse of power, Lebrun answered, “If you say so.”⁸⁶

      The next witness was General Paul André Doyen, director of the French Armistice Commission that formally ended hostilities between Nazi Germany and France in 1940. His testimony was emphatic: Laval’s policy of collaboration in 1940 helped Germany in its fight against England and its allies, and constituted a political crime that dismembered and destroyed France.⁸⁷ Laval’s rebuttal to this evidence came at the end of the proceeding when he pointed out in a written submission that Doyen had not resigned from the chairmanship of the Armistice Commission until June 1941. Laval then asked how Doyen could have participated so long in a policy he condemned so harshly in his testimony.⁸⁸

      Following General Doyen, the prosecution called Henri de Lapommeraye, a former secretary of the dissolved French Senate, who testified that in the fall of 1940, Laval, referring to the new regime, said that “this is how one reverses the Republic.”⁸⁹ De Lapommeraye, however, did not give Mornet everything he wanted. He described conversations during the same period in which Laval said that France was beaten like never before, England would be brought to her knees in six weeks, and to avoid more brutal treatment, it would be necessary to adapt to German institutions.⁹⁰ When the prosecutor asked Mornet whether Laval used the term “national socialism,” the witness responded emphatically: “No, Mr. Laval never used that term in front of me.”⁹¹

      The prosecution then called Maurice Beauchamp, secretary-general to the National Federation of Deported Workers. He represented 400,000 of the 750,000 workers drafted for work in Germany, including 50,000 who had not returned and were presumed dead. Beauchamp described the brutal conditions French workers faced in Germany: they were underfed, underclothed, and exposed to Allied bombardment. Mornet placed into evidence circulars Beauchamp brought with him soliciting workers for work in Germany, signed by Laval.⁹² Upon completion of Beauchamp’s brief testimony, the prosecution СКАЧАТЬ