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.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn this afternoon at 4,45 in order to sit in a closed session.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have noticed that counsel for the defendant Kaltenbrunner is here this morning. I understood there was to be some cross-examination of this defendant by counsel for Kaltenbrunner, and I thought we might save time if he preceded us and finished his cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KAUFMANN (counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner) : Mr. President, I beg to apologize for drawing upon the Tribunal's favor yesterday by not being here. But I had a very special reason. The reason was stronger than my will. I have just recovered from a serious illness, if I may state this now, and I did not feel at all well, although I was firmly decided to appear before this Tribunal.
I had prepared everything, you see. I beg to be allowed to apologize to you.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, Dr. Kaufmann; the Tribunal accepts your explanation.
DR. KAUFMANN: Thank you very much. BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q. Mr. Witness, when did you meet the defendant Kaltenbrunner?
A. It was eigher in 1935 or at the beginning of 1936 that I met the defendant Kaltenbrunner, in connection with relief work for national socialist families who were in need.
Q. What part did Kaltenbrunner play before the Anschluss in March of 1938 in Austria? Was he a member of the radical element or was he conservative?
A. At the time, I was told that Kaltenbrunner was close to the SS, but he was not the leader of the legal SS. That was an engineer from Syria.
Was it Leopold? Was it the engineer named Leopold?
A. I talked repeatedly to Zernatto about Kaltenbrunner when he was called into the police on the 11th of July, in the party; that is to say that it was due to his influence that illegal elements were kept away in July, 1934.
Q. And then Kaltenbrunner became Undersecretary of State in Austria ? Was the suggestion for his nomination as Undersecretary of State made by Austrians, or did it come from Himmler and Hitler, or the defendant Goering ?
A. As far as I know, it was only made by Austrians. I myself did not have any suggestion from the Reich regarding my own ministry, for instance. The party in Austria drew my attention to Kaltenbrunner because we wanted to have a man in the police administration.
Q. What were his tasks, in practice, when he was Undersecretary of State ?
A. I think that as Undersecretary of State, he did nothing at all. After Skubl retired, the president of the country nominated him as Secretary of State. In that capacity, he had administrative and economic functions. He could not intervene in the executive, for instance, If I wished for a man to be relieved from custody, then Kaltenbrunner would have to get in touch with the commander of the Security Police; and if he in turn said no, then he would have to go to Heydrich.
Q. Now, it has been ascertained that in 1943 Kaltenbrunner became chief of the RSHA. He has testified here that he repeatedly tried not to accept that post. Can you tell me anything about that ?
A. I only know that at the end of November or the beginning of December, 1942, I was at the headquarters. On that occasion, I also visited the field headquarters of Himmler. And one of the Adjutants, I think, Wolff, told me that the Reichsfuehrer wanted to have Kaltenbrunner for the RSHA. But Kaltenbrunner was objecting, in that he was now going to be ordered to appear at police headquarters for four weeks, where he would undergo suitable treatments so that he would take over the post.
Q. Have you any clues of the fact that the actual reason for the appointment of Kaltenbrunner as chief of the RSHA was that he should run the political and military intelligence service, organize it, and lead it ?
A. I have certain clues to the effect that he did not have control of security police matters to the same extent as Heydrich I have definite facts regarding his intelligence work. In Heydrich's time, the commander of my security police only talked about Heydrich when he wished to get a decision from Berlin. When Kaltenbrunner came into office, I no longer remember his mentioning Kaltenbrunner but talking about the RSHA, and sometimes mentioning Mueller's name. I myself, as far as I can remember only discussed two security police matters with Kaltenbrunner. One was the case of Dr. Schuschnigg's remaining, and Dr. Kaltenbrunner has already told you about that. The second time, a relative of mine was to be taken to a concentration camp, and I went to Kaltenbrunner because he was the only man I knew in the RSHA and also because I assumed he had some say there. various functions. At that time, Kaltenbrunner telephoned Mueller and he talked in such a manner as a superior would not talk to a subordinate official. I have positive evidence for his activities because since 1944 I was working together closely with Kaltenbrunner in that respect. I placed at his disposal foreign currency for his foreign intelligence service. At least, I obtained it for him from the departments concerned, all of which was done in agreement with the department in the Reich which was concerned about this.
Q. Just now, you have mentioned Mueller. You mean Gestapo Chief Mueller ?
A. Yes.
his hands regarding the Security Police functions? call Kaltenbrunner said to Mueller: "How are you going to solve the case"?
Q Then you had military and political reports from Kaltenbrunner's hands, is that true?
A Yes, repeatedly. Those were the very secret reports which were only issued in four copies.
Q Was that for Kaltenbrunner's nomination?
A No. The support for Kaltenbrunner only started at the end of '43 or '44, if I remember rightly. usually compiled by Canaris?
A Canaris' reports I don't know, or I only know them partly. I know those from the former RSHA. keen and open criticism with regards to all public measures and that they distinguished themselves through that?
A Yes, and most of all, Kaltenbrunner's reports were objective. They were not prepared, reports serving purposes.
Q To what extent did you receive these reports? times more, and it probably appeared every three to four weeks as far as I know; but then there must have been special reports as well. military sources or did they -- the ones you have just mentioned -- contain military descriptions of the situation? and they were addressed to the Fuehrer. In those reports, I remember there having been a particularly severe attitude of the Reich toward the Poles and towards the Catholic Church, and they were written on stationery with the RSHA heading, which appeared to me to be quite an impossible state of affairs.
Q You are just mentioning two criticisms. Can you perhaps tell me, what were the oontents of that criticism which referred to the two subjects which you have just mentioned, those two matters of public life? Poland should once again be given autonomy, an independent state of administration, or at least they were promised it; and with reference to the Catholic Church, it demanded the rescinding of all administrative and other orders and demanded that they should remain without interference; that is to say, Catholic and Protestant church.
DR. KAUFMANN: Mr. President, thank you very much. I have no further questions. BY MR. DODD: in 1938 and that your party membership number was somewhere in the millions?
A Seven million. The membership came into effect from March 1938. That is when I became formally a member of the Party.
Q Well, when you say "formally", you are trying to distinguish them, as I understand it, and point out that you were, in fact, although maybe not formally a party member for some time, but you paid dues and you supported the party, didn't you?
A The first two points are incorrect. I only paid supporting dues from the autumn, '37 -- from autumn, '32 rather, until the autumn of '33; but inside me I felt that I was a National Socialist and I called myself a party member without having signed the corresponding document.
Q Were you a member of the Styrian Home Protective Organization? autumn, '32. by the National Socialist Party at one time and while you were a member, wasn't it?
A That had been the intention but it was not carried cut. There had been an agreement that the Styrian Home Protection Organization was to be included in the Party, but Munich did not carry this out. Individual members of the Styrian Home Protection Organization had to join the Party individually.
Q Do you know a man by the name of Dr. Andreas Morsey, M-o-r-s-e-y?
A Do you mean Andreas Moser, M-o-s-e-r? I think he was a solicitor but I didn't know him personally. Home Protective Organization? 1938, just a few days before the Anschluss?
Q Well, let me see if I can help you any. Do you remember telling him that you entered the Styrian Home Protective Organization in 1932 and that that was shortly before the organization was forbidden?
A That is quite out of the question. The chief of the Styrian Home Protection Organization was Constantin Kammerhofer. The whole of Austria knew that.
Q You don't remember, then, having any conversation in which you said such as I have just stated to you? Is your statement that you never said it or that you don't remember the conversation?
That is what I am trying to get at. is out of the question that I could have said that I was the chief of the Styrian Home Protection Organization, because the whole of Austria knew that this was Constantin Kammerhofer. I only may have told him that I was a very close friend, of Kammerhofer, and that of course was the case. rather, in the case of the People versus Dr. Guido Schmidt. It is Document No. 3992. This testimony was given before the Supreme Penal Court in Vienna on the 19th day of March, 1946, before Judge Sucher.
MR. DODD: We offer this as USA 882. which begins: "On the 7th of March 1938--" and so on, --"before it was made possible; shortly before the Styrian Home Protective Organization was forbidden in 1933." Then he goeson and makes reference to the man Kammerhofer, whom you just made reference to, and further down, in the next sentence, he says: "He (Seyss-Inquart) had entered this organization and he had been admitted by Leader Engineer Pichler(Franz) in Waitz and he had never left the organization." Therefore, your statement that you had not been a member of the NSDAP can be considered formally correct, but the statement that you had not worked illegally he says, is not true?
A Dr. Moser couldn't possibly know whether I worked illegally. He is basing his statement on the assumption that the Home Protection Organization was actually amalgamated into the NSDAP, and that is incorrect. The witness Kammerhofer will be in position to confirm it. I still remain quite firm in my testimony.
Q Do you know a man named Rainer?
A Very well indeed. Dr. Friedrich Rainer.
Q Yes. You have asked for him and he is coming here as a witness in your behalf, isn't he? when that Styrian Home Protective Organization went over?
Q All right, let me tell you something that will help you. This document is already in evidence, so I assume you may have seen it. It is No. 812 PS, USA.
A Yes. It is a letter, a report from Dr. Rainer.
Q So you know what he has said, I assume. You have seen the document, have you? member through your membership in the Styrian Home Protective Organization and that you joined the Party, so to speak, when that organization was taken over?
A Yes. I want to tell you that until'38 that was even my opinion. I was doubting whether that was right or wrong, but in '38 the Party stated strictly that they were not recognizing that position and that the members of the Styrian Home Protection Organization were not members of the Party but that every one of them had to join the Party individually to be a party member. Rainer would have to confirm to that. didn't you, during all this time, acknowledge the leadership of Klausner, who was the leader of the National Socialist Party in Austria, and didn't you follow his wishes and obey his directions?
A The leaders in Austria or in Germany do you mead?
Q In Austria. I am talking about Klausner, who was in Austria.
A Oh, yes. It was clear to me and I recognized the fact that Klausner had the lead of the Austrian National Socialist. I did not recognize Klausner as my political leader, a fact which becomes apparent from that report which you, Mr. Prosecutor, have just mentioned. There Rainer says: "Seyss-Inquart did not, however, recognize Klausner as the leading political leader."
Q Well, now, wait a minute and look. On page 9, I think of the German text, line 7 from the bottom, page 7 in the English text:
"The relationship between Seyss-Inquart and Klausner was as follows: Seyss-Inquart acknowledged unconditionally the Party leadership and actions taken by it, and he also acknowledged Klausner as the leader of the Party. As a Party member, he was under the command of Klausner and received orders from him."
Do you find that?
Q I have a copy before me, but it goes on to say:
"Over and above that, he declared himself on the basis of the agreement at Berchtesgaden, and particularly on the basis of the statement made by the Fuehrer on the occasion of his state visit to Berlin, as being directly responsible to the Fuehrer for the illegal NSDAP in Austria within his political and state functions." I would not subordinate myself to Klausner.
Q Well, anyway, to move along, it is a fact, isn't it, that very early in this period you acknowledged your unqualified allegiance to Hitler, and long before the Anschluss, too? You acknowledged your political allegiance, didn't you?
A You can almost say that, yes. As far as the unconditional position was concerned, that wasn't clear to me at the time because it was my opinion that there would be a revolutionary way chosen, too.
Q Well, all right. Didn't you have something to do with the Dollfuss matter other than what you have told the Tribunal? You know, of course, that Rainer says that you did, in this same document 812-PS.
Q And I think it is important that you make some answer to it. You haven't done it on your direct testimony, and the document is in evidence, and in it he says that you supported -
A (Interposing): The reason, Mr. Prosecutor, why I didn't was because Rainer will be here as a witness.
Rainer will have to tell us under oath which facts formed the basis for his statement. I can only say -
Q (Interposing): well, I knew. I understand that, and that is my reason for asking you now. You see, you will be off the witness stand when he is on it, and I would like to know what you say now to what Rainer has said in this document which is in evidence, to the effect that you were involved in the Dollfuss plot on July 25, 1934. clear up now if we can. You didn't mean to convey to the Tribunal, did you, that the ceremonies -- if I may use that expression -- commemorating the assassination of Dollfuss had nothing to do with Dollfuss at the time that they were hold? celebration was a ceremony for the four National Socialists who had been hanged. On that occasion, as far as I remember, there wasn't the thought of Dollfuss' death. It was the fact that 107 men -- I think 106 or 107 men of that unit -- had made an attempt to remove a system which in National Socialist opinion was hostile to the Reich, and certain were hanged. The fact that Dollfuss was shot on that same occasion wasn't mentioned during the ceremony.
Q Well, I don't say that it was, but the ceremony certainly commemorated the attack on Dollfuss, and, I think it is quibbling, is it not, to say that tie had no -
A (Interposing): No, if Dollfuss hadn't been shot, then the ceremony would have been carried out just the same. course again we are going to talk a good deal in this short time, I think, about Rainer and this document. You know Rainer also says that you were appointed through the influence of Keppler and other Nazis in Austria, and Reich officials. Is that so? Did they influence your appointment in 1937? Rainer is wrong about that as well, is he?