THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
M. DEBENEST: "Attempts were made to make the University of Leyden a national socialist university by appointing national socialist professors. However, these attempts failed as a result of the firm attitude taken by the professors and by the students. The professors even presented their collective resignation in the month of May, 1943, and as there was no reaction to it, they presented it a second time, and in the month of September, at Leyden University."
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, this defendant has already said, has he not? This is Leyden University that you are speaking about, is it not?
M. DEBENEST: Yes, Mr. President, Layden University. That is definitely as I understood it that there has been a question of a creation of a National Socialist school in Leyden.
That he had not put this project into effect. On the other hand, it appears from this document that it was not of his will, but that it was a result of an application by the teachers. That is what I wanted to bring out.
WITNESS: May I comment on that? BY M. DEBENEST: only in this document. I repeat my assertion that upon an inspection of the University, it was found that only three professors were National Socialists. This did not mean, by any means, that the University was National Socialistic, and this document shows clearly what my attitude was. I did nothing at all against the gesture of resignation of the Professors. The second attempt was also unanswered. That arrest occurred then, in connection with the fact that part of the Professors were otherwise suspected, and these Professors, were sent to Michelgestell, that's this transit camp in which the members played golf.
Q Then that was a coincidence?
A I did not even say that. After the second attempt, we certainly investigated it. forced labor? orders for exemption of all students. Technical students were given exemption and University students who were actually studying were not in the labor commitment either. regulation. It is the regulation of 11 March 1943, No. 27. "Each student who, after the putting into effect of the present regulation and who, under the conditions of Paragraph 1, have successfully passed the final examination, or a similar test, are compelled to take work for a determined period under the labor commitment."
Is that your ordnance?
A Does it say labor service?
Q I haven't got the German version in front of me. It is regulation No. 27.
A Ordnance 27. May I ask what paragraph it is?
A That is correct. It says, "Students who have taken the final examina tion, that is, who are no longer studying but are finished, and Members of the same age groups shall be drafted for labor commitments, and those exempted by me now have to make up for this labor commitment."
A I don't recall any obstacles.
Q Good. Will you please lock at the following decree, that is, No. 28 which is a decree of Secretary General Van Damm. This decree imposes upon the students the furnishing of a declaration of loyalty.
A Yes, that's correct.
Q What were the consequences?
A The consequences were not understandable for me. The Universities were, at that time, the seat of anti-German activities. I demanded that this declaration be given by the university students, which in effect was that they uphold the laws in effect in the occupied Netherland territories, that they would avoid any actions against the German Reich, the Wehrmacht, and of the Netherlands authorities, and that they would not interfere with public order at the University. ment. Those who did make it were able to continue their studies without any interruption. But the Dutch professors, by way of sabotage, refused to give them any instructions. happened to them? age groups which had been drafted for labor commitments by me, they were drafted.
Q Did you not make applicable to the University student the Fuehrer principle?
But I gave the director of the University greater power because I demanded greater responsibility from him.
Q Very well then. A certain National Socialist propaganda, was there not such a thing in the Universities? and report to lectures organized by the Party.
A I don't know, butit is possible. of teaching and you also interfered so that the cultural life of people of the Netherlands was hindered? not true? obligatory and that you never imposed payment of dues?
A That is not correct. Belonging to the trade chambers, I issued an order that the head of the chambers call upon the members to pay their dues. I refused to conclude, from the failure to pay dues, that a person was no longer a member of the Chamber, and consequently, of this trade, or to collect the dues by way of court action. manner with the medical profession?
A I was thinking of the medical Chamber. Certain circles demanded that the members who did not pay their dues would be prohibited from carrying out their profession, or at least, the dates should be collected through court pressure. I told these gentlemen, as it was not possible to convince the members, not to assert any force.
Q What were these circles?
Q Was it not the NSB for instance?
A In what connection?
Q Always talking of -- Wasn't it yourself who said that certain circles had demanded the payment of contributions? I am asking, what circles? I am not quite clear about the point of the question.
Q I am just asking you to say exactly what you mean by circles. It is you yourself, who used circles, unless it is a mistranslation.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, the Tribunal thinks really, that you are spending too much time on these small subjects. We have spent the whole afternoon on these various measures which the defendant introduced in the Netherlands. We spoke already of his own admission that he was offering no force of administration in the Netherlands. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q Did you not also take part in the persecution of the churches?
A I don't know whether the measures could be called "persecution of the church", but I took measures concerning the churches.
Q What measures in particular? What measures? fiscation of various Netherlands cloisters. One of them was turned into a German school and the church building was torn down. tion camps? Is that correct?
A I do not understand. Please speak more slowly. a concentration camp. Is that right?
A No, I did not say that. I saidonly that in the Jewish camp at Westerborg there were Catholic and Protestant Jews, who were visited on Sundays by a clergyman from outside. I do not believe that at the concentration camps under the German Police clergymen were allowed to visit.
Q Just one question as regards the press. Did the press attain a certain--I repeat, a certain--liberty during the time of the occupation?
A From my point of view, much to little. The press was under fairly strict control of the Propaganda Ministry. The editors were employed on the basis of judgment by the Netherlands Propaganda Ministry. I believe that it is a matter of course for an occupying power that for such an important instrument one takes only people who have a certain positive attitude. I would have wished that these men could have been given much more freedom of speech, and I believe that I can say that so far as I exerted any influence, this was done, but the Reichs Commissioner in the Netherlands was not almighty.
Q Were there no reprisal measures taken against a certain newspaper?
THE PRESIDENT: We might get on a little bit more quickly. There is a very long pause between the question and the answer.
THE WITNESS: I must first recall the circumstances, I do not know these questions. They cover a period of five years. I must think ever carefully what actually happened in individual cases. For example, I can say No, but immediately I am sure that the answer is wrong. For example, reprisalsI know that once in the Hague the office of a newspaper was blown up. That was a measure instituted by the Security Police. That was the seat of an illegal propaganda group. BY M. DEBENEST: Who was the initiator of this measure? question correctly. The Security Police told me that a number of Jews had themselves sterilized by Jewish doctors and that thereupon these Jews were relieved of all limitations and of the wearing of the Jewish Star.
These were not Jews who otherwise would have been evacuated, but they were to remain in Holland, but under restrictions.
I asked the Higher SS and Police Leader to invesitgate the matter. He informed me that this was a very serious operation in the case of women, and thereupon I asked the Higher SS and Police Chief, at least in the case of women, to forbid this action. Then the Christian churches protested to me. I answered the Christian Churches. I assume you have the letter in your files. I described the state of affairs. I pointed out expressly that no compylsion would be exerted here. Shortly thereafter this action was finished. As I heard, the Christian churches informed the Jews, and when they were sure that no compulsion would be exerted on them, they no longer submitted themselves to this operation. I myself gave back their property to the Jews in question, and the matter was ended, although I must say today that the further away one is from this period of time, the less understandable it is.
Q But was it you who had the idea of this sterilization? which I shall submit under Number RF1526. It is an affidavit of Hildegard Kunze an agent of the RSHA. Third Paragraph:
"I remember that either in this report or in another report he suggested that all Jews who were authorized to remain in Holland should be sterilized." report in the third paragraph is the one that she mentions in paragraph (2) and which she ascribes to me. It is out of the question that she saw any report from me wherein I made such a suggestion. The case was reported to me as a fact by the Security Police, as a fact which had already come about or which was in progress.
Q So you contend that it was not you but the police. In any case you tolerated it?
AAs far as the male Jews were concerned, I tolerated it for a time; that is true. It was made clear to me that no direct compulsion was exerted on these Jews, no threat of their disadvantage.
THE PRESIDENT: We might adjourn for ten minutes.
BY M. DEBENEST: work in Germany? people to work in Germany, and I testified to that yesterday.
Q Perfect. I will therefore passs on to another subject.
Didn't you also introduce certain legislative clauses as far as nationalization was concerned?
A You mean the Netherlands people? to concentration camps in Germany of Dutch citizens? To what extent did you participate in this, and how did you participate in it? Staatsbuergerschaft.
A Quite a few Dutch reported and volunteered for the Waffen SS. It was the intention of the Fuehrer to give them German citizenship. However, with that they would have lost their Dutch citizenship, and that was something they certainly did not want to happen. Therefore, I issued a decree that when the acquisition of German citizenship was taking place, the Dutch citizenship was not lost for a year, during which time the person involved could make his decision. mine. few minutes ago. Did you take part in arresting, interning, and deporting to concentration camps Dutch citizens, and under what conditions? camp was exclusively a matter for the police. I do not recall a single instance in which I induced the police to put any Dutchmen into a German concentration camp. Of course, it may have happened that I gave the German police the task of taking Dutchmen to Herzogenbosch, especially at the time when the Netherlands courts were very lenient with people dealt on the black market, and who dealt in black market meat.
At that time I demanded their internment in a concentration camp for two or three months' duration. may be assured that I will tell you everything exactly as it is in my memory.
Q No, no; your answer is sufficient.
Did you ever participate in the seizure of hostages and in their execution? took place in the year 1942. As to that occasion I actually testified to my participation. The so-called shooting of hostage, beginning with July of 1944, was not actually a shooting of hostages, but it was rather an execution which had been transferred to the police on the basis of a Fuehrer decree.
I myself never gave the command for any single shooting. But I would like to repeat: If, for instance, I called the attention of the police to the fact that in any certain locality of the Netherlands an illegal resistance movement was rising rapidly, and gave the police instructions to check and investigate the case, it was perfectly obvious to me that the leaders of the resistance movement could be arrested by the police and, on the basis of the Fuehrer decree, these people would be shot.
even in a difficult situation, so that those who were guilty -- that is, legally guilty and not morally, because if morally I would have acted the same way as you would have -- those who were guilty were not to be put before a tribunal or a court. does deal with hostages who were shot following an attempt which was made against the railway at Rotterdam.
Q Who selected these hostages? Police Leader submitted this list to me. As I testified yesterday, I asked why he selected the people that he did and he explained that to me. Then, in checking the matter over, I crossed off the names of fathers who had several children. I returned the list to the Higher SS and Police Leader and asked him to see that my attitude and suggestions were taken into consideration in the execution of this decree. of several children were not shot.
Q How many hostages were selected in this manner?
A I cannot recall that today, perhaps twelve to fifteen. Out of that number, five were left over; that is, five remained. That was the number, which could have been decreased from the original figure of 50 or 25. these hostages. It is document F-886, which becomes RF-1527. This is a statement made by General Christiansen, or rather, it is a copy of a statement made by General Christiansen, which was taken from an affidavit of the head of the Dutch Delegation. statement?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the original?
M.DEBENEST: Mr. President, I just said that this was but the copy of a statement, which comes from an affidavit of the head of the Dutch Delegation. If the Tribunal desires, we can certainly have the original submitted as soon as we have received it.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, there is no certificate at all identifying the copy, is there?
M. DEBENEST: But I thought, Mr. President, that an affidavit of the representative of the Dutch Delegation in Nurnberg was appended to it. I beg your pardon. The certificate is to be found on the original. It was not stencilled, but the original does have that affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: What are you going to prove by this affidavit? About the hostages?
M. DEBENEST: Yes, Mr. President. There is no doubt that the defendant himself selected and appointed these hostages.
THE PRESIDENT: In what proceedings was the affidavit made?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, it was during the proceedings which were taken against General Christiansen in the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you say it is admissible under the Charter?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, I believe that we have already submitted documents of this nature -- that is, copies -- to the Tribunal, copies which have been certified as being copies of an original which is being kept in the country where it originated.
THE PRESIDENT: If the original from which the copy was taken were a document which is admissible under the Charter, that would probably be so, if there were an authentic certificate saying it was a true copy of a document which is admissible under the Charter. But is this document admissible under the Charter?
M. DEBENEST: But, Mr. President, I believe that it is admissible because this is nothing else but an affidavit. It is an affidavit which has been received under absolutely regular conditions in the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT: And you havn't got a German edition of it?
M. DEBENEST: Yes, Mr. President, this document has been translated into German. I have had it translated into German.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Debenest, this appears to be a document which is in Dutch, and General Christiansen, who gave the evidence, was a German, was he not?
M. DEBENEST: No, Mr. President, the one which is submitted as an original is in Dutch.
THE PRESIDENT: The original is in Dutch, is it?
M. DEBENEST: The original is in Dutch. Well, at least according to the information that I have. Yes, the original is in the Dutch language.
THE PRESIDENT: And what was the affidavit given in, what proceeding?
M. DEBENEST: In Dutch, with interpreters.
THE PRESIDENT: I mean what proceeding, before what court?
M. DEBENEST: I suppose before a military Dutch Tribunal. Yes, before a military Dutch Tribunal.
M. DUVOST: May it please the Tribunal -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Dubost.
M. DUBOST: This document is an excerpt from criminal proceedings which were carried out against General Christiansen upon the request of the Dutch Government, and the Minister of Justice of the Netherlands has let us have an extract of the report which was taken in the Netherlands under regular conditions during the proceedings which were carried on against General Christiansen in that country. The text was, therefore, made in the Dutch language.
THE PRESIDENT: This deposition, this affidavit is in Dutch. Now General Christiansen, is he a Dutchman?
M. DUBOST: General Christensen is a German; he is a German.
THE PRESIDENT: Why does he give his evidence in Dutch? Why isn't the German copy here? You see, we have a certificate here from a Colonel, who is said to represent the government of the Netherlands, that this document is a true copy of General Christiansen's evidence. Well, the document which we have here is in Dutch, and if General Christiansen gave his evidence in German, then it can't be a true copy and it is subject to the translation in Dutch. What do you say to tha
M. DUBOST: The deposition made by General Christiansen was received through an interpreter in conformity with the Dutch proceedings and was transcribed in Dutch. It is not possible for a Dutch Tribunal to receive minutes in a foreign language.
These are established in the Dutch language.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, may I just say a few words in this connection, please? I know, for I am connected with the defense counsel for General Christiansen, that there was a court martial proceeding on the part of the English instituted against him. I have misgivings about his document, since it is not confirmed, and we can not judge whether the interpreter who interpreted from German into Dutch was a suitable and adequate interpreter; and also, since in this manner I do not have the opportunity, as a defense counsel, to take General Christiansen into cross examination and hear him that way. It seems to me that through the mere submission of this document, the rights of the defense have been damaged.
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, I have just been informed that General Christiansen is right now in detention at Arnhem and he is imprisoned by the Dutch authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Debenest, the Tribunal will admit the document if you get a certificate from the court who tried General Christiansen. But the only certificate you have at present that this is a true copy is from a Colonel van -- some name that I can't pronounce. There is nothing to show, except his statement, that he is an official on behalf of the Dutch government. We don't know who he is.
M. DEBENEST: Certainly, Mr. President, but at the beginning of my explanation I did offer the Tribunal to submit the original later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you will submit an original later on.
M. DEBENEST: He is the accredited representative of the Dutch Government with the French delegation.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, may I make a very brief remark. I have only a French translation in front of me which reads as follows:
"Christiansen is not here as a witness, but rather as a defendant, and he was interrogated as such, and he is not obligated to tell the truth. He can say whatever he pleases, and he is not responsible for what he says."
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Dr. Steinbauer, the reason why the Tribunal si prepared to admit the document, when they are certain that they have got the document, in that Article 21 provides that reports, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes and the reports and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the United Nations, shall be taken judicial notice of. It is for that reason that the document is, in the opinion of the Tribunal, admissible when the authentic document is before it. document.
M. DEBENEST: Certainly, Mr. President.
THE WITNESS: May I please comment on this document?
M. DEBENEST: Will you kindly wait until I read to you the passage which I wish to submit to you. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. It is on page 4 of the French text, the first paragraph before the end of the first statement, the second paragraph of the page.
"I think that I can recall that already upon that occasion Seyss-Inquart said that five hostages would be shot. I didn't know anybody amongst these hostages. I did not select these five men, and I had nothing whatsoever to do with their execution. It was a case of a purely political nature with which I had to do in my capacity of Wehrmachts Befehlshaber or Commander of the Army."
A. The picture which is given here in which General Christiansen gives as a defendant, not a witness, completely coincides with the picture that I gave. In the beginning of this record, General Christiansen says Field Marshal Runstedt and the OKW gave him the order through his chief to take the hostages, and he says further that through his legal department he had issued a proclamation that the hostages would be responsible with their lives if further sabotage acts should take place. He says that they did take place, and the Commander-in-Chief West turned to OKW and received the answer that the hostages were to be taken. directive applying to hostages would be sustained, and therefore I said that five were to be executed. killed and I negotiated for the lives of the remaining 20. have said.
Q. But in this document no mention is made of 25 hostages. We are only dealing with the fact here that it was you who chose these five hostages. 1946. General Christiansen declares:
"I now remember that my adjutant, Colonel Kluter, also took part in this. There must have been, therefore, seven of them. I therefore transmitted the order that the hostages would be held responsible and Seyss-Inquart said immediately that five men were to be chosen. You are asking why it was as simple as all that. Certainly Seyss-Inquart did have powers for this."
A. The repetition of these words does not change the fact at all. It does not change the fact that 25 hostages were demanded, as the witnesses will confirm to you tomorrow, and that I intervened so that only five were demanded, and the entire matter was a matter of the Higher SS and Wehrmacht leaders. As Reich Commissar I reserved the right for myself to lower the number of hostages and the final figure was determined between the Higher SS leader and the Wehrmacht leader.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, will you read the last paragraph in the affidavit, page 4 at the bottom.
M. DEBENEST: Exactly, Mr. President. I am going to read it. BY. M. DEBENEST:
Q "I will ask you to note that Seyss-Inquart took part in this conference The latter expressly reserved the right to appoint hostages."
A I can see nothing more than what I have already said. The number of hostages was determined by the Higher SS Leader according to directives which he had received from the Wehrmacht, or, rather, from his superiors. I myself asked to be shown this list, for I, as Reich Commissar was interested in knowin who was to be selected, and I tried to make my influence noticed in this way, as I have already said, in that the fathers of many children were crossed off this list. with polemics. We worked together very well and it is not material whether I am not testifying right or whether he is wrong in this case.
Q. That is exactly what I was thinking. You therefore do contend that this is the only case in which you intervened as far as the seizure and execution of hostages is concerned.
A. I believe yes.
Q. Did you know about the execution of hostages following the attempt made on Rauter?
A. As to the extent of my information, I testified to that yesterday. I did not know the figure which we were concerned with. It was known to me, however, that shootings were taking place, the shooting of those men who, on the basis of their demeanor, had to be shot by the decree of the Fuehrer through the Security Police. The actual figure was made known to me later.
Q. Consequently, you did not intervene in this question of the shooting of hostages at all?
A. That I cannot tell you, for I discussed with the deputy of the Higher SS and Police Leader what was to be done for this. After all, it was a very grave matter.
The carrying out of this order was to be taken over him. I declared yesterday that I could not contradict him, and the executions actually were carried out.
Q. Who was this head of the police?
A. Dr. Schoengart.
Q. What do you think about Dr. Schoengart?
A. I believe that Dr. Schoengart was not a man who was especially harsh, and I do not believe that he was especially enthusiastic about this matter. I believe that he was very much displeased and uncomfortable about this case.
Q. But was he a man whom one could trust?
A. While he was in office I had complete confidence in him.
Q. Very well. In that case, I am going to have a document shown to you, Document F-879, which I submit under No. RF-528.
M. DEBENEST: I wish to inform the Tribunal that once again this is a copy of proceedings which was received at Amsterdam by the Trials for War Criminals, and it also comes with an affidavit as in the preceding case. Here again, if the Tribunal wishes it, I shall submit the original to the Tribunal later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you will submit the original as before.
M. DEBENEST: Certainly, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENTS: Or else get it from somebody in the government.
M. DEBENEST: Very well, Mr. President. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. Will you kindly look at Dr. Schoengart's statement on page 5 of the French document. It is the third declaration, the fifth paragraph.
Have you found it?
A. Yes, I have.
Q This is what Dr. Schoengart says:
"After the investigation, I personally went to see Dr. Seyss-Inquart, who was the Reich Commissar in Holland, and with whom I discussed the matter. Seyss-Inquart then gave me the order to take increased measures of reprisal by executing 200 prisoners who were condemned to death, on the place where the attempt had been made.
"This execution was aimed at intimidating the population. It was announced by a public notice that a large number of persons would be executed because of this attempt."
Q So what? shooting of Dutchmen who, as this man says, had been condemned to death. It says that in line with the Fuehrer decree, those who participated in some sort of sabotage or other matter which would cause them to be shot. That is the first and most important point. The question is whether the figure of 200 was mentioned; and the question further is whether I demanded that number. I still maintain, as I have already said, replying to the testimony of a former collaborator, that I never even would have had the opportunity to give a decree or an order like that to Dr. Schoengart, for he was not subordinate. At any rate, nevertheless, I did state that we must act harshly in this case. That I do admit. The figure of 200 -- I even believe it was the figure of 230 -that I heard about later. The announcement which he mentions here is signed by Dr. Schoengart.
Q You did not say "severe measures"; you said "increased measures of reprisal".
A I did not understand the question. I am sorry.
Q I repeat. You did not say "severe measures", but "increased measures of reprisal". intimidate. But we were not concerned with reprisals; that is, the shooting of people who would not have been concerned except for their being shot. That was not the question.
Q Very well. But it seems to me that this document is extremely clear. It deals with measures of reprisal following the attempt against Rauter. executed who would have been executed in any event; for he confirms here that we were concerned with people who had been condemned to death.
Q Will you kindly repeat the explanation. I did not get the translation.
A I will be glad to. Here we were concerned with the shooting of men who would have been shot in any event, for it says specifically here that they had already been sentenced to death. And it says in the next paragraph --.
THE PRESIDENT: (interposing) I already wrote it down five minutes ago. You have said it already.
He has said it already. The document speaks for itself, M. Debenest.
M. DEBENEST: Very well, Mr. President. BY M. DEBENEST: hostage camp of Michelgestell.
Q Nevertheless, you stated that yesterday, did you not?
A (No response)
Q Or are you still pretending that none had been shot at that time?
THE PRESIDENT: Will the defendant answer, please? Don't just nod your head. It does not come through the sound system.
THE WITNESS: I wanted to say only that I do not recall it; that on one occasion such a case did occur, but at any rate, I do not recall. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q Will you kindly repeat that? I did not hear your answer. shot, or might have been shot there?