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?
A There might have been other reasons. I do not recall such a shooting. But I do not recall a single case like that.
THE PRESIDENT: We are getting two voices on the one line now. BY M. DEBENEST: who had been sentenced to death?
A I do not know. But I do not know whether anyone was shot at all. hostages arrested just the day before they were to be executed, and executed on the very next day?
A I am not informed on that point. I can see from this document that we are talking about hostages from Michelgestell. I do not recall that hostages were taken from this camp. But in this case, it would have been possible; but that was an actual hostage case.
Q No. I am not asking you whether hostages were taken from the camp of Michelgestell. I am asking you whether when the hostages of Rotterdam were executed they were not arrested on the eve before they were executed, and whether they were not shot the very next day.
Q I will give you the name. Maybe you will remember the case: Baron Schimmel-Pennig.
A Baron Schimmel-Pennig, as far as I recall, came from Seeland. But I do not know any more than that. why?
A No; I know only that the Baron Schimmel-Pennig was among these five hostages who were shot. which followed the summary justice courts in the Netherlands originated from you, did they not?
No. That is certainly not the case. For these shootings, from the middle of 1944 onward, cannot be traced to my directives and my summary justice courts, but rather to a direct decree of the Fuehrer.
as a result of your order of the 1st of May, 1943? which I had instituted, although in violation of these decrees, it is possible the Higher SS and Police Leader used these decrees as the basis for his *---*
Q But you are still contending that you had no power or *---* this chief of police?
A I did not have the power to command *---* but it is certain that we worked in a close relationship and close *---* to be taken?
A No. How do you mean that? In what way? announced by him, were they not announced with your full agreement? In many cases, I frequently did not know about these announcements until afterwards. There was no directive which I gave for these measures. I again and again refer to the fact that this was a carrying through of a Fuehrer decree to the police.
Q Very well. Did you believe in these measures of reprisal? Did you believe in them? committed by the resistance movement were concerned, steps had to be taken, and there was no other possibility for taking steps except the arrest by the police, by judgment on the part of the Higher SS Leaders, and shootings on the part of the police. I could not contradict these measures; I could not oppose them. You might interpret that as an agreement. I would have prefer it if they had given the correct and just judgment. I am submitting under No. RF 1529. This is a letter coming from you dated the 30th of November, 1942, and addressed to Dr. Lammers. I will pass over the first part.
M. DEBENEST: I am sorry. I forgot to tell the Tribunal that the originals are not here; they are just photostatic copies. But I heave in my possession an affidavit which I will submit to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: It is all right, M. Debenest. You need not bother to give us an affidavit. We have the photostatic copy.
will pass on to the 2nd paragraph. Second subject, "the confiscation of raw material took place in conformity with a letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS. I believe that I have conformed myself to all the wishes which are contained in it, only I did not like to point out, as President of the Tribunal that the appointment of the Supreme Head of the SS and of the Police would signify, from the point of view of the Dutch, a curtailment of the authority of the Reich Commissioner which would have a particular meaning because of the fact that the Reich Commissioner is appointed to guard the interests of the Reich, by order of the Fuehrer. But I have myself, transmitted to the SS Head and Police Fuehrer all four parts which an administrator needs. I believe that this National Law and Police must be a useful instrument and to a certain extent an example for all further regulations."
A.In this case, I had the authority over the Police Standgericht for a Military Tribunal, but not over the head of the Police. The heads of the Police were not under me. I could not give executive orders to the Police. Anyway, this military law existed for about two weeks.
Q.But what is nevertheless certain, that we here find special Tribunals and that you entrusted them to the head of the Police.
A.Yes, that is correct, but only in the case of Military Tribunals in the case of emergency, and what the police courts did at that time was taken over as my responsibility.
Q.Well, we quite agree then. You did entrust these emergency Tribunals to the Police.
Very well, I will now have you shown document 3430-PS. This document is the collection of all the speeches which you made duri the occupation of the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, is that the only reference you are making to this document No. 860.
M. DEBENEST: 860?
THE PRESIDENT: I ask you, is that the only reference you are going to make to this document?
M. DEBENEST: Yes, Mr. President, I am only concerned with second part. The first part concerns the Police.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think it is imposing a very heavy burden on the translation department. There are 18 pages of it.
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, I quite agree with you. I just intended to use this document for the police organization, and I will then take the first part. But, I didn't think it was necessary to do so right now because I wished to economize the time.
THE PRESIDENT: I only mean this, if you are only going to use a small part of the document, it does not seem necessary to make the translation department, who have a very great deal of won to do, translate 18 pages of it.
Here's another one -- 803F, which has got many more than 18 pages in it, and of which very little use has been made. But go on.
M. DEBENEST: I know, Mr. President, but if I didn't use it more, it is only becuase the Tribunal considered that it dealt wit details which the Tribunal did not think necessary,
THE PRESIDENT: You have passages on each of these 18 pages.
M. DEBENEST: Certainly not, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, anyway. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. Very well, we will now pass to another subject.
When you arrived in Holland, didn't that country posses extremely important stocks of food stuffs and of raw materials?
A. Yes, supplies were on hand.
Q. Were Important requisitions made during the first years of the occupation?
A. I did not quite follow that?
Q. Requisitions? important requisitions. Weren't they carried out during the first years of the occupation?
A. Yes, according to a decree given by the Four Year Plan, all supplies were requisitioned and they were to be stored for a perio of 6 months with the obligation on a part of the Reich, but all further needs were to be replaced and brought in.
Q. You therefore pretended that these stocks were to be reserve for the Dutch population?
A. Naturally.
A. Certainly? Very well. Will you take the document which I have shown to you this morning, 997-PS, Page 9 and 10.
A. Will you please give me the number of the document?
Q. 997-PS.
A. Do I have the document before me?
Q. Page 12 of the French text and page 11 of the German. You will read the following;
"The stocks of raw materials have been collected with the agreement of the General Fieldmarshal, and have been distributed in such manner that a quota sufficient for 6 months only will be left over for the Dutch people. This distribution is carried out in the same way as in the Reich. The same principles of equal treatment are also applied for the future supplies. Important stocks of raw materials have been guaranteed for the Reich, such as, for example, 70,000 tons of industrial fats which represent about one half of the quota which the Reich needs." for you. of the Dutch people and not for the Reich?
A No, there is a mistake. I said that the supplies were left for only 6 months duration, and that in the future, the further demands were to be supplied in the same way as in the Reich. But primarily these stocks were confiscated for the Reich.
Q Very well, the translation didn't come through. You received numerous complaints about these requests, didn't you?
Q And what measures did you take? Hirschfeld and the other secretaries, their attention was called to the fact that there was a strict directive emanating from the Four Year Plan. Perhaps in some cases of transmitting, the compliance to the Four Year Plan after taking away the stocks, seemed altogether oppressive to me. were carried out for the Reich?
A I don't understand you. What were you talking about?
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now? Will you be much longer M.Debenest?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, everything will depend upon the length of the answers which the Defendant will make, but I think that in 1/2 hour or 3/4 of an hour tomorrow morning I will be finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then we will adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, 12 June 1946.)
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that Defendants Hess and Jodl are absent. BY M. DEBENEST: Germany? to pillage that country economically, I would like to submit to you a document which indicates that you were not the only one to participate in this pillage and Goering and the OKW are mentionedthere, too. Document S 868, which becom 1530 PS. I concerns a teletyped message which is addressed to you by the OK and which is signed Reinecke. This teletype message is dated December 5, 194* and begins as follows: "Meeting at the office of the Marshal of the German Reich on October 7, 1940, concerning the modalities of the shipping or the taking of merchandise from Holland by members of the Wohrmacht or of the serve attached to it. In agreement with the Reichsmarshal and the Reich Commissar for the occupied Netherlands territories, the dispositions now in force, up to this day, regulating the shipment and the seizure of merchandise in Hollar are annulled. Members of the Wehrmacht and of the organizations attached to it." Then follows designations of these organizations as well as the authorities and members of services attached to it in Holland. "These can, within the cadre of the means at their disposal, be shipped home by the milit post, packages of a maximum weight of one kilo, and this without any limit on the number of parcels. So long as the parcels weigh more than 250 grams, the postage has to be paid for.
The taking with oneself of merchandise on the occasion of leave or crossing the frontier is not covered by any restriction." This regulation was drawn up with your help, wasn't it?
A When you say "agreement", that is putting it a little strongly. We are not concerned here with an authority for confiscation but rather a directive for transport. These things had to be bought. They could not have been confiscated. The Reichsmarshal decreed this and I put it into force. That was the so-called "Schlepperlass", meaning that any soldier which returned from the Netherlands could bring along as much as he could carry. He could carry these things along which he had bought. I gave this to the civilian authorities in accordance with this military decree. I believe this military decree was rescinded after two years, for it was also made known to me that I should rescind this order since it was favoring the black market.
Q I have not said that it concerned requisitions. Yesterday I said to you that there had been mass requisitions and you answered that this was exact. Today I state to you and I submit this document to you in order to demonstrate to you that there were also other means of pillaging the merchandi of the Netherlands.
Q I spoke yesterday of it quite simply. Will you state to me what the destination of the Beauftragte Fuer den vier jahres plan, the plenipotenti for the for year plan?