A I do not recall exactly the wording of this decree. However, I believe it has been read here. In any event, it dealt with the organizing of the entire economic means of a country in favor of the policy carried on by Germany, and in favor of the war economy, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, the translation came through to me that this document would become 1530-PS. I suppose that was a mistake. It must have been.
M. DEBENEST: Excuse me. I should have said 1530-RF. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q Who ordered the liquidation of property of the Freemasons?
A I must admit that I really don't know that. My attention was called to this case after this property had been confiscated, but I rather assumed that this emanated from Himmler and Heydrich.
Q Good. Well, I will refresh your memory. I will submit to you Document F-805, which becomes RF-1531. It concerns a letter which comes from you, doesn't it?
Q It is dated March 11, 1944. Isn't it signed by you?
Q Good. You express yourself as follows in this letter: "Very Honored Dr. Lammers:
"I have ordered the liquidation in the Netherlands of all the property of the Freemasons. Considering that the liquidation had been undertaken by that is to say, by an official office, and contrary to what has happened concerning the liquidation undertaken by other offices, it is to the Finance Minister of the Reich that there comes the power to decide on the thorough utilization of these properties and incomes.
"I have written a letter today to the Reich Finance minister, and I alle myself to enclose a copy of it for you. I beg you to second my request." taken since you yourself had undertaken it, isn't that true.
A I am still upholding my first claim. On the question as to who decreed this, I understood you to ask me who demanded this, who from the Reich For a fact, I did not hear about this pattern of circumstances until a few months after it had taken place.
Then, through my offices, I had this liquidation carried to an end and then wrote this letter. The actual carrying through of this measure rested with me.
Q Didn't you say just now -- and I understood the translation very clearly -- that you heard of it only after it had been done? You contradict your own declaration, as I was able to note yesterday,on several occasions, only when documents are submitted to you.
A I didn't quite understand you. Are you putting a question to me now I didn't get the question. undertaking?
A Yes, certainly. I should like to say this liquidation was started from another source. That is, the property was confiscated; then I took over this action and had it carried through through my competent agencies. this liquidation?
Q You discussed this beforehand?
A I wrote a letter as well. I believe there was an appendix to the Finance Minister which contained the proposal that this property be given to t Party. result of the railroad strike in September 1944? probability.
Q You asked the General Secretary to stop this strike?
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, the Tribunal would like to have further investigation as to who ordered the confiscation of the Freemasons' property.
Defendant, do you know who ordered the confiscation?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. The confiscation was ordered by Heydrich and was carried through by the police and led into the proper channels. The the Plenipotentiary started with the process of liquidation and at that stage of the game I took over and transmitted it to my agencies and offices.
BY M. DEBENEST:
Q At what date was this liquidation ordered?
A In the first few months. The whole thing went on very rapidly and quickly. It was only a matter of weeks. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Was any reason given for it?
A The Freemasons were declared to be enemies of the Reich. It was done according to the decree about the taking over of the fortunes of those who were inimical to the State.
Q Was the order of Heydrich in writing?
A That I can't say. This order went to the Security Police, and the Commander in Chief of the Security Police carried it through. I rather imagine it was a teletype message. I believe that this entire action had bee planned in advance. in writing about it at all? was in writing, but it might have been oral as well. I received word that this confiscation was being carried through on the order of the RSHA, and from then on I began my work.
Q What was the amount involved in the confiscation? over to the Party. Party.
Q And were they?
A No. I received no decision in this matter. This property must have been retained in the Netherlands in some way.
Q You were the Reich Commissar for the Netherlands, weren't you? What happened to the money?
were bought. It was treated as a special fund, and it wasn't used.
Q But this was all in 1940, wasn't it? on the money remained in this bank account.
Q What was the bank?
A That I can't tell you, Mr. President. But there is no doubt that the Dutch authorities can confirm this. meant in 1940, did you?
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, M. Debenest. BY M. DEBENEST: the utilization of the money from the liquidation of Jewish property? compiled in Jewish institutes. The funds were not confiscated, but certain expenditures were met from them. For instance, we erected the camp Vught, and the cost of erection of this camp was met that way. perhaps 400 million guilders or slightly more. However, they were not confiscated.
Q Actually, how were the funds used exactly? That is to say, was it for ends of the German government or for other ends?
A The Jewish property, first of all, was confiscated. Then, as far as possible, it was liquidated, and we called that Aryanization. The result of the Aryanization, these moneys, were taken -
Q (Interposing): Will you answer more directly and explain how this liquidation took place. Tell me about the utilization of the funds. should be on deposit in an institute for this purpose, some in basic notes an some in the original moneys. They should be there. Only relatively small parts were used for certain purposes. I believe the largest amount was 14 million guilders which was used for the erection of the camp of Vught.
Q Excuse me. I asked you a question. Were the funds from this liquidation used for ends of the Reich? Yes or no? Reich, but the funds were used for the purpose because Camp Vught was to be a Jewish collection camp.
Q. So you consider that the setting up of the Vught Camp was in the interest of the Netherlands ?
A. I can say that with certainty. The cost of the Camp Vught, as far as I was informed, was met from this property, I believe 14,000,000 gilders were involved. This camp was to be a Jewish collection center, but later Himmler transformed this into a concentration camp.
Q. That is just an opinion and the Tribunal will decide about it. But as for the property of the Free Masons, what was done with the monies which came from this liquidation,how was it utilized ? Did it go to the Reich, or did it go towards the furthering of the construction of concentration camps in the Netherlands ?
A. Neither the one or the other.
THE PRESIDENT: He said already, or I thought he said, that it was on deposit at some unknown bank, and that there was about 400,000,000 which came from the Jews.
WITNESS: Mr. President, I just recalled the name of the bank. It is in the Verwaltungs und Rentungs Anstalt in Belleck. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. Well, I am now going to submit to you a document, which is a letter, No. F-864, and is now RF-1532. This document states exactly the destination which you have been discussing concerning the goods which have thus been liquidated. First, you indicate, at the beginning of the letter, that the total resulting from the liqidation amounted, as you say, to 6,134,662 floring up to that date, and you indicate that this sum was placed in the Reichsstiftung for the Netherlands. This is an organization, a German organization, and not a Netherlands organization as far as I understands. You state, moreover, how different sums were to be distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me the details of where it is. He says it is there in the bank.
M. DEBENEST: Exactly, Mr. President. I would like only to read the few lines at the beginning where he states exactly the purposes of the final distribution of these monies. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. "I suppose that it was your intention that the results of the sale of the property of the Masonic organizations should be employed in the Netherlands themselves for certain specific ends And you had the same ends, moreover, for the fortunes of Jewish origination. In our discussion on this last point, an agreement was made between us concerning these fortunes." manner as the Jewish fortunes, wasn't it ?
A. You cannot say that at all. I didn't say that. The Reich Minister of Finance wanted to dispose of the Jewish fortune, and I called his attention to the fact that it had not been called i and I told him not to dispense with the drawing in of this money but to see what the course of events would be.
Q. Were you not proposing here, that they should be utilized to the same ends ?
A. I suggested to him to use these monies for certain purposes in the Netherlands, and not to take this money into the Reich, but to leave it in the Netherlands, but the use was left completely open. He himself wasn't to send it to the Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, I think you can pass on. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. I thought exactly that we could and that the Tribunal would appreciate it.
Let's come back to the matter of this railroad strike. Did you not ask the Secretary General to stop this Strike ?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Did you not set an embargo on most of the transports and operations ?
A. Certainly.
Q. Yes, it was you, wasn't it ?
A. Yes, I testified to that yesterday.
Q. Consequently, you know very well, that at that time what th situation was concerning the food in the Netherlands, and the con sequences which would inevitably result from the decision which you took would be of extreme gravity ?
A. Not in reality, for in reality, it had already been distributed by the Wehrmacht and I was concerned about finding a mode of defending, and since it seemed very urgent that the needs of the Wehrmacht be made known, to have traffic reinstated. If the railroad strike had not taken place, I would have succeeded with the Wehrmacht in not carrying this through. The shipping traffic would have been left undisturbed.
Q. But we are not discussing the Wehrmacht. You know very well that the moment you placed this embargo on shipping, you know perfectly well that it was the time when they were transporting food stuffs for the winter to the Netherlands from the West ?
A. Yes, but at the moment in which I decreed the embargo, then was actually no more traffic, and the few ships which brought in food were confiscated by the Wehrmacht complete with the food stuffs.
Q. Then your decision was completely useless ?
A. No, for through my decision, I prevailed upon the Wehrmacht that they restrict themselves to a shorter period of time, and they promised me that the ships which I wanted would be undisturbed by them.
Q. How long did this embargo last ?
A. I believe between the 15th and 20th of October. The chief of my traffic department had the order to rescind the order. In practice, it took weeks before the Dutch traffic organization broke down.
Q. Until what date, approximately ?
A. It might have lasted until the middle of November.
Q. Was not that the period in the course of which the heaviest traffic existed?
A. That's quite correct. In November and December, they could have brought so much food stuffs to Holland, and in September, I was of the same conviction that in November and December, the shipping facilities would be at my disposal.
Q. And actually, did you obtain it?
A. Unfortunately no. For the breaking down of the traffic and the authorities in connection with the other war measures was not at my disposal.
Q. You knew, however, quite clearly, that the decision which you were taking was heavy with consequences?
A. In September, this thing was not so serious, because with full consideration for the railroad strike, we needed these facilities, and as far as the Reich interests were concerned, there is to be no grave accusation against me by the German people to say that I did hot do everything possible for the furthering of this fight.
THE PRESIDENT: You dealt with the subject yesterday, didn' t you?
M. DEBENEST: I don't think I did,
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the embargo on shipping surely was gone into yesterday.
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, I think I spoke yesterday only of the requisitions of the SS, and others, and I only asked a couple of questions of an economic nature and I do not believe I touched upon this subject. If I did, I apologize to the Tribunal. I am almost finished with it. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. What was the position of the Netherlands Bank on your arrival in 1940?
A. The Netherlands bank and the Bank of Issue was, I believe formerly on the basis of a private bank. The President was Mr. Tripp, and the Directorate had a certain influence for it was a bank of issue.
Q. And could you please give briefly, indications of it ?
A. Then they would not contain the complete truth.
Q. Didn't the amount in cash equal the amount of notes ?
was higher than the notes issued. The Dutch Bank had more gold and more gold backing than it had notes issued.
Q And what was the position at the time of the German capitulation? paper money that was in circulation, and perhaps twenty-three million in gold.
Q But, above all, it had Reichsmarks, didn't it?
A No, I said 23 million guilders in gold. The rest of the coverage might have been credits from the Reich.
Q Did you order the abolition of the "Valuta Frontier"? Will you answer?
A I don't know what you mean. Yes. this "Valuta Frontier"?
A The proposal originated in my office. I took it over. Mr.Trip protested. I contended that that proposal be returned to Berlin. Then in Berlin the Reichsmarshal was for it. Funk was against it, and then the proposal which I had made,and which had been approved by the Reichsmarshal was carried through by me.
Q But personally you agreed with it?
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean, exactly, by the "Valuta Frontier" that you are dealing with now? We merely want to understand what you are talking about.
M. DEBENEST: I mean the free circulation of German currency in Holland--the abolition of a frontier betweem Germany and Holland as far as German currency was concerned. BY M. DEBENEST: so-called voluntary contributions, amongst others, to the war against Bolshevism? The Reich demanded during a certain period of time, in order to defray the cost of occupation, 50 million marks for the preparation of the defense of Holland, in Holland. We called this a voluntary contribution. We applied that term for political reasons, but, in reality, it was a demand of the Reich which would have had to be paid one way or another, and I would not say that for any Dutchman this was a voluntary contribution.
Q You agreed to these measures, did you not? measures? bank notes, large accounts which remained the same in the Reich as in all occupied countries. We applied one system in France, another in the Netherlands, and, in view of the collapse of the Reich, the financial consequences were the same in all the occupied countries. If the Reich had not lost the war, Holland would have had a claim of more than four and a half million guilders against Germany.
Q Good. Will you then look at document 997-PS, which you had yesterday in your hand, and see what you thought of these measures. It is page 14 of the document in French and page 12 of the German text.
M. DEBENEST: It is the big Seyss-Inquart report, RF-122.
THE PRESIDENT: 997?
M. DEBENEST: 997-PS, page 14. BY M. DEBENEST:
"This regulation goes far beyond all those which have been established thus far with the political economies of neighboring countries, including the Protectorate."
"It actually represents the first step toward a currency union.
"In consideration of the significance of the agreement, which touches upon the independence of the Dutch State--"
And then you add:
"--it is of special weight that the president of the Sank, Trip, who is unusually well known in western banking and financial circles, signed this agreement of his own free will in the above sense."
That was your impression, was it not?
that time was wrong. Otherwise I would incriminate Mr. Trip too heavily. The thing that is set down here is not the actual fact which existed later as to the breaking down of the barriers between moneys.
This only regulated the taking of the bank notes of both banks, and I should like to refer to those facts, those statements which I made about Mr. Trip. I believe that this agreement was in accord with international law. That is my opinion.
Q Did you not state that it "touched upon the independence" of the country?
You considered, did you not, the suppression of custums barriers?
Q You do not wait until you have had the translation. How can you expect to understand?
Did you not consider the suppression of the custums barriers? in charge of the looting of art objects? of them, and so forth.
Q That is an impression. Yet there were several agencies?
Q You knew particularly well the agency of Dr. Muehlmann?
Q Who summoned him to the Netherlands? set up an office for us.
Q But it was only to instal your offices? officer of the Four Year Plan so that he could secure art objects and safeguard them It was similar to what took place in Poland.
Q What do you understand by "The securing of art objects"? he had to determine whether in the confiscated fortunes there were any art objects, and then he had the task of taking these art objects and announcing them to various Reich offices.
Q Only to report them and announce them? themselves. I assume -- I know -- that he concerned himself with private art traffic as well, as an intermediary.
Q Did you also obtain some pictures for yourself by this means?
A Yes. Not for myself, but for the objectives that I outlined yesterday.
Q Yes. You also stated yesterday that you had placed in security a large number of works of art; that is to say, pictures amongst other things. What was your purpose in putting them in security? of enemy and Jewish property came out, and the treasures which, as I mentioned were to be given to the museum in Vienna. I brought back three or four. objects in safety. primary purpose, sequestration, but in time it became clear that these objects of art were to be brought from the Reich. The three or four pictures which I purchased I bought with the immediate purpose of giving them to certain Reich institutions, the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, for instance. enemy property in general but only if a special hostile attitude against the Reich could be proved, and then that was confiscated as well.
to the Tribunal, and which you certainly know. It is document F-824, submitted under the number 1344-RF. You know that document, do you not? It is a letter which came from you, and it is addressed to Dr. Lammers. This letter concerns the purchase of pictures, that is, purchases which were made for the Fuehrer. In paragraph 3 of this document, in the French text, you write as follows:
"From the list which has been submitted to me I deduce that in this manner a fairly considerable number of pictures of value has been placed in security, pictures which the Fuehrer has been wise enough to purchase at prices which, according to the investigation which I have made in the country, must be considered extremely low."
Then you add that Rembradnt's self-portrait has been found again, thanks to Muehlmann. means of allowing the Reich authorities to take them into Germany; isn't that true?
A There is no doubt about that. Regarding the Rembrandt picture, I should like to say that it had come into Holland illegally, and therefore it was confiscated.
Q And it was taken to Germany along regular channels? doubt about that, because in that case a German regulation was infringed upon. number of works of art and valuables, such as diamonds, precious stones, and so on?
Q You know nothing about this? Do you know that you have a housein Vienna at Untergasse number 3?
A No, that is Iglauer Strasse 15. However, that may be true, yes. have come from the Netherlands?
Q So you know nothing about it? Well, I will pass on to something else. Who ordered the confiscation of the property of the Royal House?
Q Therefore you had the initiative in this matter? carried the decision through.
Q Did you only execute it?
Q I did not ask if you were also; I asked quite clearly, did you only execute this order? giving the reasons why I decided to confiscate the Royal fortune. I did carry through the confiscation.
Q Good. You suggested it was the result of a speech made by the Queen. Isn't that what you stated yesterday? under number 1533-RF. This document is a letter from Reichsleiter Bormann to Reichsminister Dr. Lammers of July 3, 1941. At the beginning of the letter Bormann discusses the speech of the Queen of Holland, and in the last paragraph, which is the one which is important to me, he writes:
"The Fuehrer has therefore give the permission to confiscate the properties of the Netherlands Royal House, a permission which the Reich Commissar had already requested from him at an anterior date." Queen?
A I beg your pardon, but nothing came through on my channel. There seems to be a technical disturbance.
A Yes. I know what we are concerned with here. about that at a prior time. I really can't remember. Perhaps I discussed the problem as to whether this fortune was to be confiscated or not, but the only thing I do remember is my suggestion at the moment when this speech was made. After all, that wasn't the first speech made by the Queen of the Netherlands.
She had spoken to this same effect and along these same lines previously. and Germanize that country -- were these not the actions of the Civil Government, the head of which you were?
A Yes and no. It is completely obvious to me that the Dutch people considered our demeanor and treatment as a plundering and pillaging, but actually it was not so, and I never Germanized the Netherlands at all.
and page 22 of the German text? I refer to the section of your report entitled "Remarks", at page 26 in the French text. I read there the remarks which you made concerning your own activities. This is at page 22 of the German text. always progressive manner, under the direction and control of the German authorities.
Third, you say: "The national economy and communications have been set in motion again and adapted to a state of war. We have begun to achieve the vast transportation of the continental economy. The stocks of raw materials of the country have been placed at the disposal of the Reich War Economy. The financial resources" -- this is in 1940 -- "are being actively studied and placed under the control and direction of the Reich, all this on the basis of a broad cooperation of the Netherlanders."
Isn't that exactly what you wrote?
A Yes. I believe that any occupation power would agree with point 2.
I would like now to return briefly to the Jewish question. You stated yesterday that you had protested against the deportation of a thousand Jews to Mauthausen or Buchenwald, and that there had been no more deportations to these camps after your protest. But why did you not protest against the deportation to Auschwitz? Did you think that this camp was very different from the other two? but, on the other hand, I understood that Auschwitz was a collection camp at which the Jews were to remain until such time as the war would be decided, or some other decision would be made. Governor General of Poland, had you not?
Q That is even better. Consequently you had heard this camp discussed over there, had you not? been sent to Buchenwald or Mauthausen, were sent back to their families against the payment of 75 florins? This happened in 1941. Did that not prevent you, later, from taking other measures against the Jews, measures which necessarily led to their being deported? which is something completely different than a deportation or a transporting into a concentration camp. these camps? and I testified yesterday as to my misgivings.
Q That is an opinion. You spoke yesterday of reprisals taken against the newspaper in the Hague -
(Interposing)
A In the Hague? Please?
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Is this something you cross-examined about yesterday?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, these are questions which were handed to me this morning as a result of declarations made yesterday by the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks you should not go over this matter again.
M. DEBENEST: Then I have finished with all of the questions concerning hostages. There is one question which I would like to ask, if the Tribunal permits; it is a question concerning the flooding. All the other questions I had in mind concern hostages, and if the Tribunal so wishes, I will not ask them. However, may I allow myself to ask a question concerning the flooding?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that you went ever the flooding yesterday. I don't know.
M. DEBENEST: Then I have finished.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)