A I never read or heard anything about that, particularly since the relationship of having two professional judges and two honorary judges that existed for decades already, already before 1933. I remember only of the jury court.
Q Witness, I assume that you are familiar with the rules of procedure of the People's Court. May I in this context ask you whether legal theories or practicing lawyers from the time that the People's Court was instituted mentioned that these rules of procedure endangered the basic privileges of a defendant?
A I never saw anything of that kind.
Q Witness, how often did you correspond with the defendant Nebelung before you met him here in the defendant's dock or how often did you speak to him or have anything to do with him officially in former times?
A I did. not correspond with Nebelung at all. During my activity as Under Secretary I was never in the People's Court and in the Reich Ministry of Justice in 1944 and 1945 I saw Nebelung one single time and on that occasion I met him too.
Q Can you remember, witness, about what time this happened?
A That must have been in the fall of 1944.
Q Perhaps you still remember the month?
A It must have been after the trials, about the 20th of July, that is, I estimate about September or October.
Q Where did you meet him?
A I came into the room of the Minister and there Nebelung was sitting in the room and when I entered there was a rather excited conversation going on, although it had been concluded. Nebelung and the Minister, I noticed, had had an exciting conversation when I entered and Court No. III, Case No. 3.when we had introduced each other Nebelung again started this conversation and he requested than that he be transferred from the People's Court.
Q Did you speak to Thierack about the contents of this conversation subsequently?
A No.
Q Why did you not do that?
A Thierack did not start on his own initiative to tell me what he had discussed with Nebelung and there was no point in asking him about it if he did not start on his own to toll about it.
Q Witness, at that time already, when you met Nebelung, was it known to you or did you later hear about it that the defendant Nebelung was in a sharp contrast to Freisler?
A There were difficulties and differences of opinion between Freisler and Nebelung. That I was told in the Ministry. However, without details.
Q Witness, do you know why the Senate President at the People's Court Nebelung who is a defendant here was transferred to the People's Court?
A I do not know the exact details about that either. I also don't know, I was told but I don't know by whom, in the Ministry I was told, that Nebelung had difficulties with his Gau leader.
Q Did the transfer of Nebelung mean that Nebelung who up to then had been President of the District Court of Appeal in Brunswick, his transfer to a Senate of the People's Court, did that mean demotion?
A I believe yes. I cannot say it was so by dint of his position but at least in regard to his activity.
Q To that extent you thus agree with the statements of the prosecution witness Doebig who spoke about his own transfer as Senate President as a demotion?
A Yes.
Q Thank you very much.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY DR. SCHUBERT: (Attorney for Defendant Oeschey)
Q Herr Klemm, you have told us that you were chief of Division III-C in the Party Chancellory. From your activity there, are you familiar with a regulation which was issued by the deputy of the Fuehrer and according to which Gau legal offices of the Party who were also later called Gau legal consultants, received complaints by Party officers about the administration of justice, attacks on measures taken by the Administration of Justice, criticism of legal opinions and similar matters, and were not allowed to handle these matters directly with the offices of the Administration of Justice but after clarifying these facts had to report immediately to the Party Chancellory?
A. I cannot any more state with certainty whether the Party Chancellery or the Reich Legal Office issued such a regulation, but in the final result it's the same. These offices were forbidden to get in touch directly with the justice authority, especially with the highest Reich authorities. If they planned to do so they were supposed to address themselves to the Party Chancellery. Department III of the Party Chancellery had been reserved the right to be in contact with the highest Reich authorities.
Q. If I understood you correctly, the Gau Legal Offices or the Gau Legal Consultants thus had to make reports of that type to Department III of the Party Chancellery, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct in regard to this regulation, after August '42, after the Reich Legal Office had been abolished.
Q. To whom were the reports addressed before 1942?
A. To the Reich Legal Office in Munich. That was under Frank.
Q. Herr Klemm, if the Reich Legal Office received a report of that nature and thereupon wanted to take further steps with the highest Reich authorities, could it do do directly or did it in turn have to address itself to the Party Chancellery or before that to the Deputy of the Fuehrer?
A. I have to phrase that as follows. The regulation was that the Reich Legal Office had to get in touch with the Staff of the deputy of tho Fuehrer; later, that was the Party Chancellory. In order not to leave it up to the Party Chancellory, however, the Reich Legal Office, and especially Frank, did quite frequently not comply with those regulations although they existed.
Q. Herr Klemm, if reports of that nature arrived, were they then dealt with in the Party Chancellery by you or in any case by your division?
A. That all depended. If they were purely legal questions, they came to me, into the Legal Group III-C. If for example, however, they were concerned with personnel matters of the Administration of Justice then they went to Group III-P.
Q. Herr Klemm, I would like to formulate an example. If a certain sentence of a judge or the jurisdiction of a judge or of a court was attacked, did that then go to your division or through Division III-P?
A. That had to come to me to Group III-C, but that in particular is not a good example for this was not certain. It did happen that such a matter was not referred to Division III but to Division II by the registry office, and Division II then tried, through the local Party office, to influence the judge by means of this mistake. We then had to straighten this out because it belonged in the sphere of Group III-B, the legal group.
Q. One final question, Herr Klemm. Since the summer of 1940, have you ever seen a complaint or report from the Gau Legal Office or the Gau Legal Consultant in Nuernberg? Did you ever receive such a complaint?
A. I came to Munich only in '41 and I never received such a report from the Gau Legal Consultant or the Gau Legal Office in Nuernberg.
Q., I have concluded my examination.
BY DR. ORTH (for defendant Altstoetter):
Q. Witness, what attitude did the defendant Altstoetter have principally on legal questions, in reports to you or to Minister Thierack?
A, I already indicated that before that it was Herr Altstoetter in particular who most energetically represented his point of view against Thierack and he was constantly interested especially in having the law abiding idea preserved and that no interference into the competency of the administration of Justice was to be taken or that we even gave it up voluntarily.
Q. Did Altstoetter, if Thierack did not want to comply with his opinion, give in to the Minister or what did he do in order to make his point of view prevail?
A. The means which Altstoetter used were different ones. I explained already before that either he again tried to inject me into the matter or he again tried two or three more times to report the matter again to the Minister, but frequently it occurred also that he offered Thierack to resign by again becoming a soldier, and thus he would resign as chief of that division.
Q. Do you remember individual cases in which Altstoetter with success opposed the requirements of the Minister or the Party offices?
A. There were several cases and large problems in which Altstoetter offered resistance. I recall one case in particular in which a Fuehrer instruction was concerned which Thierack wanted to obey. Altstoetter, however, opposed it to such an extent that this matter was again discontinued. This was a question of guardianship. The fuehrer had been informed about this matter absolutely one-sidedly by his Chief Miliatry Adjutant, General Burgdorff, who had taken - the part of an acquaintance of his from his officer's circles. On the basis of this one-sided presentation, the decision that Hitler made was wrong. Altstoetter spoke to the Minister for such a long time until he succeeded in having the Minister agree that he could speak with General Burgdorff about the matter, and he also convinced the General so that the General promised him to inform Hitler again. This instruction of Hitler was revoked.
Q. What was Altstoetter's attitude toward the so-called divorce for soldiers missing in action, Vermisstenscheidung?
A. That evoked violent battles with Thierack, They wanted to achieve that a divorce could be pronounced against somebody who was missing in action. Altstoetter was opposed to that idea and resisted it violently. Thierack wanted to make it possible, but Altstoetter succeeded in having this idea revoked. I remember that this is one of the matters in which I had to second Altstoetter's move.
Q. What was Altstoetter's attitude in regard to Himmler's request to appoint a notary for the Lebensborn--for the secret judgment?
A. Altstoetter refused this and also defended this refusal with success.
Q. During your activity as Under-Secretary, did you ever find anything about it that Division II had to deal with NN-cases?
A. No, I never found out about it.
Q. Do you remember that Thierack once required Division VI should issue a special regulation in regard to divorces between Jews and Aryans which were to the disadvantage of the Jews, and what was Altstoetter's attitude in regard to this request?
A. This too was one of those plans of Thierack which was foiled only by the resistance offered by Altstoetter and also to delay the treatment.
Q. Thank you. I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: We will inquire what other defense counsel desire to examine the witness in chief? (no replies) It appears there are no others. We will take our afternoon recess at this time of 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court-room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors, please, this witness started to testify, as I recall, Friday afternoon -- there were a few questions late Friday afternoon; he has testified on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday. During all that time it has been necessary for me to be in the court-room.
Also it is the unfortunate situation of the translation facilities here. It has been impossible for me to have seen any of the document books in connection with his defense by which to possibly measure his testimony. That may not be too serious, but I do respectfully urge the Court, although I understand the Court's interest in an expeditious trial, that I be given until Monday morning to begin the cross examination of this witness.
I have taken -- maybe too voluminous -- but a hundred and some odd pages of long hand notes which I must go through; I believe, otherwise, if I stand here at the podium and try to organize those notes as I cross examine, I am afraid I will delay the Court much beyond its capacity and its patience.
I respectfully ask that I be permitted to begin the cross examination on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf, do you expect to be able to submit some or all of the document books in English by Monday morning?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, unfortunately I am not in a position right now to make a statement. Day after day I have inquired at the Defense Center for my document books, and every time I received the answer that they have no influence either; therefore, I cannot say today whether on Monday I will have the English translations at my disposal. I asked day after day but I was only told that I would just have to wait. I know that the Translation Branch has been very busy at the time; particularly with the closing statements in Case No. I; they had a date line, and the Translation Branch apparently interrupted the work on our case and translated the twenty-four closing statements for Case No. I first.
I regret that very much. I, on my part, have done everything possible in order to produce the documents in time.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. LaFollette, will you be ready to cross examine in any event Monday morning?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may open your cross-examination on Monday morning, and I presume you should reserve also the right to cross examine further when you have seen the English document books?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, I will want to ask that after I finish with what I can do beginning Monday morning, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything else to come before the Tribunal this afternoon?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: There is nothing else that the Prosecution has to present.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until Monday morning at the usual hour, at 9:30.
(Thereupon a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 14 July 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 14 July 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if all of the defendants are present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness, and the defendant Rothenberger, who is absent.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Defendant Rothenberger applied for and received, informally, permission for the defendant Rothenberger to be temporarily absent today in order that he might consult with his counsel. The defendant Rothenberger is therefore excused for today, and this excuse, or this permission to be absent, was conditioned upon the ability of counsel to make arrangements with the proper police authorities for a conference.
The proper notation will be made.
Is the prosecution ready to cross-examine the defendant Klemm?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, there is just one other matter for possibly my convenience. Several times I have been asked by Dr. Marx whether I know anything of the disposition the Tribunal is prepared to make in the matter of Engert. I have advised Dr. Marx that I do not, that I have never seen the reports, but possibly if the Court would care to say anything or could, for the record at this time, it would advise Dr. Marx and save me from being forced to tell him I know nothing.
THE PRESIDENT: In response to the questions which the Tribunal propounded, to the medical experts after their first enigmatic report, they have made a further report and in that report there appears to be considerable discrepancy between the views of the American and German physicians.
The American physicians were of the opinion that the defendant Engert was not in condition presently to be examined in court, and the German physicians were of the opinion that he could be. The Tribunal is not ready to rule upon the matter at this time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The report is in the possession of the Tribunal, and in due time will be made known to counsel for both sides.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: In the meantime, Engert's counsel is responsible for the proper defense of his client.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already made that announcement and that rule continues unless and until it is modified.
HERBERT ENGERT (Resumed) CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. Mr. Klemm, you discussed rather often in your direct examination the constitutional state. I would appreciate it if you would elaborate and give a statement as to what you mean by that term, if you will, please.
A. By "constitutional state" I mean a state in which people act according to the law and according to justice.
Q. You also told us about your experiences as prosecutor and adjutant to Dr. Thierack in Saxony at the time of the Hohenstein case. However, you did not tell us about the facts that you found in that camp in 1934. I would appreciate it if you would tell us that now.
A. We received the denunciation that abuses had occurred in the concentration camp Hohenstein. Thereupon we considered it to be obvious that these criminal deeds had to be prosecuted by a court.
Q. Yes. Excuse me just a minute. I don't mean to interrupt you or to deny you the right to answer. What I am particularly interested in is, what were the facts that you found in the camp?
A. We were told that the inmates were abused and tortured in a sadistic manner.
Q. Who were the inmates of that concentration camp at that time? Were they in there because of race or because of party affiliation; or, who were inmates of concentration camps in Germany in 1934?
A. I don't know that so exactly. I know only that in Hohenstein there were as well inmates who were known as anti-Nazis. However, I also remember one, two, or three cases among those who were abused, who were old National Socialists, who were in this concentration camp, who had opposed any one line or any one political chief. I remember that only because I know that in some cases of abuse it was especially emphasized that they were old party members who had been mistreated. The majority of the inmates in Hohenstein must have been Marxists, that is, Communists, and Social Democrats.
Q. You went to the Netherlands on or about the 1st of July, 1940?
A. Yes.
Q. In your testimony here--I cannot recall the exhibit number, but you elaborated upon a description of the term "Plenipotentiary for the German Reich" as being another term or official definition of the Minister of the Interior. Did that prevail in 1940, that definition of the Minister of the Interior?
A. In connection with my activity in the Netherlands, I spoke merely about the Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands Territories. That was the Minister Seyss-Inquart. I do not recall having spoken about a Plenipotentiary of the Ministry of the Interior, or about anything in that connection. That must have been a misunderstanding, or else I misunderstood your question.
Q. Well, my question was this. You referred to and described a document--and unfortunately I can't lay my hands on it now--which was signed, "Minister, Plenipotentiary for the German Reich". And in your answer to Dr. Schilf you said, "I want to explain that means the Minister of the Interior."
Do you recall that?
A. No. I do not recall what subject you are referring to there. Is that supposed to have been in connection with my activity in the Netherlands?
Q. Oh no; it was some time later, Mr. Klemm.
A. Well then, I would like to ask you in what connection.
Q. I will have to come to it. I recall that you described a signature in that way.
Now, when you went to the Netherlands, where did you go from to the Hague? Where were you when you went to the Hague?
A. I was a soldier, and when I was with the troops I received the order to go to the Netherlands.
Q. Yes. Where were you located? That is what I want to know. Where were you with the troops?
A. At that time my troop unit was in Burgundy, near Dijon; that is, in the center of France.
Q. Did you have any feeling that you were deserting the troops in battle when you went to Holland?
A. Not at all. I had received an order that I was to be declared essential, and the troops also received the order that I was to be detailed to Holland. In other words, it was a military order that I should go to the Netherlands. Moreover, already at that time Marshal Petain had offered an armistice, and the very day after I had been sent away by my commander on the basis of that having been declared essential, the armistic was concluded. In other words, I obeyed a military order.
Q. Yes. Thank you. The shooting had an end in France and Holland when you went to the Hague?
A. About six weeks g*fore that all of the battles had been concluded already in Holland. The German civilian administration had already been established, or rather it was being established. The Germans, the people who had been detailed for the German civilian administration, had already arrived in Holland six weeks before me.
Q. Yes, and you wanted to set up a special civilian and criminal legislation for folk Germans or German nationals within Holland, is that correct?
A. Not I. The Reich Commissar for the occupied Netherlands territories did that. I did not have any authority to issue laws. I only prepared them by drawing up the drafts.
Q. Yes. You prepared the drafts, though, for him?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you said you were interested in having only legal points of view and not political points of view?
A. Yes.
Q. And in these courts which you set up, the ones that had criminal jurisdiction, they had jurisdiction over Germans, as I recall and over Dutch who had committed offenses against German interests. Would you define for me what German interests it was that you made these Dutch responsible for?
A. Outside of this group are all those matters which concerned German military interests. To that extent the jurisdiction of the "Wehrmacht was competent. Before the German civil criminal court came, for example, a Dutchman who had, been involved in a fight with a German who was not a soldier, and for example it became necessary to protect him because of bodily injuries. Then the Dutchman came before the German criminal court if the person who had been injured was a Reich German. That is just an example I want to cite.
Q. When you went to this position at the Hague were you acquainted with Article 4, Section 13, of the Hague treaty with reference to land warfare of the Hague Convention of 18 October 1907, which reads as follows:
"The authority of the legitimate power having, in fact, passed into the occupation of the occupant, the latter shall take all measures in his power to restore and insure as far as possible public order and safety while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in that country."
A. At that time I did not know the exact wording of this Article 4, but the preservation of public order and security was primarily a task of the police. As far as the Administration of Justice had to deal with that problem, I acted in accordance with that directive. I considered it obvious without having to know it in its exact wording. It was even like this, the Netherlands authorities of the Administration partly requested us to undertake the sentencing of some cases against Dutchmen , that we include them in the German jurisdiction so that the Dutch jurisdiction would not have to enter into a conflict of conscience in regard to his own countrymen, but I don't remember individual cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Klemm, what Dutch authorities asked you to do that?
THE WITNESS: That was the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, a Ministerialrat. I don't remember his name any more. I would have called him a Ministerialrat. And I discussed these matters with him frequently. We also discussed this establishment of this German civil criminal jurisdiction with Generalsecretaer Henking and his deputy, whose name was Houykas. We frequently discussed these problems, discussed about them.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Permit me to read to you from Page 16855-16856 of the mimeographed sheets of the findings of the IMT:
"There is no evidence before the Tribunal to justify the contention that the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg were invaded by Germany because their occupation had been planned by England and France. The invasion of Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg was entirely without justification. It was carried out in pursuance of policies long considered and prepared and plainly as an act of aggressive war. The resolve to invade was made without any other consideration than the advancement of the aggressive policies of Germany."
Did you know anything about the reasons for invading Holland at the time you were in the army? I think you said you fought in the west.
A. I was first in the East and later in the West. I did not have the least knowledge about the reasons. Only for about half an hour on that morning when the border to Luxembourg and Belgium was being crossed I head about it on the German radio. They read the note which had been sent, I believe, to Belgium by the German Government. Before that I neither heard anything about it nor did I hear anything about it at the moment we marched into the country except for this radio announcement, nor did I hear anything later about the reasons for it.
Q. In 1923 you were in a Free Corps organization, in the Orgesch, Escherich Organization, Schleswig-Holstein, and from 1929 to 1933 you took training in frontier defense at the infantry school of Dresden. You as a lawyer, I ask you whether or not such organizations certainly in 1923 were prohibited by German law.
A. In 23 my activity in the Free Corps Escherich consisted of the following: I was a student, and during the vacation I was in SchleswigHolstein as a tutor on a farm. On these farms -- this was during the vacation from the University, and on these estates, the farm laborers had formed so-called Red 100 Groups, Hundertschaften, and on every estate for the protection of the family in addition to the proprietor, usually the inspector of the estate, in my case the student who was present there in a capacity of a tutor, had been combined in such a manner that they should protect the family against attacks on the part of these Red groups.
This protection of the estate, I was told, was supposed to help also neighboring estates if anything should happen there. This mutual help had been organized by a man of the Escherich organization. The name of the organization was Orgesch. At that time I was in Schleswig-Holstein for two months and neither before nor after that period did I hear anything about these matters.
Q. Yes, excuse me. You also were in training in the Wehrmacht Reserve in 1936 and 1937, is that correct?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood counsel to ask the witness if he knew that some organization which was mentioned was illegal at the time. I didn't hear any answer to that question.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Well, I -
THE PRESIDENT: Did you want an answer?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would like an answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Then ask for it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought maybe this was one.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. The organization to which you belonged and this Free Corps organization and the training that you took as a pioneer in 1929 and 1930, was that prohibited by German law and by the Versailles Treaty?
A: Whether the Escherisch Organization was illegal or not, I don't know. In Bavaria, for example, the Escherisch Organization appeared quite publicly. Whether at that time German domestic authorities had forbidden it, I don't know. At least I don't recall. Up there in Schleswig-Holstein, that association of the protectors of the family estate owners on some of the large estates was kept secret. In consideration of the overwhelming superiority in numbers of the Marxist organized farm workers, in effect this up there was only a protection of the families on the individual estates. The training which I received in Dresden was a theoretical education and not a practical one.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have answered the question.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q: Now I read to you a notation in your personnel file. It says that the Minister of Interior asked for the deferment of Klemm on the grounds of a Fuehrer order and that you be sent to the Hague. When you went into the Armed Service you were still in the Ministry of Justice, were you not?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: And do you remember that the first request for your deferment was dated the first of June 1940, and that a request was then made by the Deputy of the Fuehrer's staff on the 21 of June 1940 to the Ministry of Justice that he hasten your being sent to the Hague?
A: I don't know anything at all about that. I was a soldier at the time. That I was supposed to go to Holland, I heard it for the first time due to the military order that I was supposed to be deferred and had to go to Holland.
Who caused that and what the negotiations about that were, I never knew.
Q: During the time that you were Assistant Undersecretary in Charge of Personnel, do I understand that you never were interested enough to look at your own personnel files?
A: Of course I looked at them, but at the time when I came to the Netherlands I did not know who really had initiated it, and when I came to the Netherlands I still assumed that the Ministry of Justice had suggested me for the position. Only at a much later time did I find out -- and I believe that I was already one-half to three-quarter years in the Netherlands -- that the civil service machine for the civilian authorities in the Netherlands was bandied by the Minister of Interior, as it had to be organized by the Ministry of Interior as Plenipotentiary for the Reich Administration and that I had in that manner not been suggested by the Ministry of Justice, but the Ministry of Justice had been requested to let me go.
Q: So that the Minister of the Interior who had jurisdiction over the whole German Reich then requested your appointment, and while you were there you set up a special law for folk Germans, is that correct?
A: No, not for folk Germans, but for citizens of the German Reich. They were subject to the German criminal jurisdiction. Netherland citizens were subject to it only when they had violated German interests; for example, if they had stolen something from a member of the German Reich, that is, a German citizen.
Q: I hand you Document NG-584, which is your Personnel Record. First I ask that it be identified as Prosecution's Exhibit 528.
(Personnel record offered to the defendant Klemm) I ask you to turn to the letter in there dated, the Hague, 1940, which is addressed to Dr. Guertner. I read it to you:
"I do appreciate that Klemm is an expert in criminology, as we are not to build up a new jurisdiction in the low countries nor to take over the juridical administration. Our task is the political control and guidance. A special jurisdiction is being scheduled as to criminal cases only. A respective regulation is, so to speak, nearly ready. Dr. Klemm composed that affidavit with a thorough discussion of the facts, and I think it is a good piece of work."
Now will you explain to me at least why you testified here that you were interested only in legal points of view and not political emphasis, when your superior at the Hague says that after you had been there a week he was glad you were there because your job was of a political character.
A: Yes. It says here, "I appreciate particularly that Klemm is a criminal expert because we are not supposed to establish a new jurisdiction in the Netherlands nor take over the Administration of the Netherlands' jurisdiction, but only to supervise it politically and to guide it." This happened thus, that for the Reich Germans and for Netherlanders who had violated German interests, this German criminal jurisdiction was established so that the Dutch judges would not get into conflicts among themselves. In effect, supervision and guidance of the Netherland's jurisdiction did not take place in the subsequent period. This letter, according to the letterhead, was written by the Reich Commissar himself after I had been already in the Netherlands for nine days.