client. That is the accusation that contrary to international law he had hostages shot or participated in some way in their execution. yesterday were put to my client by the Prosecution. One is a statement by General of the Air Force Christiansen, of the 20th of February, 1946, and the other one is also an interrogation with the Higher Police official Dr. Schoengart, F-886. questions. Take your time -- I remind you of your oath -- and answer these questions as far as you can do it in good faith.
Have you read it?
Q Witness, I will help you. Are you through? sabotage in Rotterdam, hostages were shot?
Q Why were these hostages shot? On whose orders? what that dealt with. It was an explosion and an attempt on a vacation train of the armed forces. In that affair, the armed forces approached the Reich Commissar and that -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing): That isn't an answer to the question. The question was: Who gave the order?
THE WITNESS: The order for what? BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q What did the Reich Commissar have to do with it? You have read here what Christiansen is accusing him of in that connection.
customary that in important matters the two offices, that is, the Commander of the armed Forces and the Reich Commissar, got together and discussed these things. determined manner, had demanded that an example should be made so that such cases might be prevented in the future. On the part of the armed forces it was stated that they would know of hardly any other means than the shooting of a considerable number of hostages. do remember, the figure was around 50. dispense with such action against hostages only if the assurance could be given by the police that perhaps on the basis of material which the police had in their hands there was a chance of finding the people who committed that attempt, and they might be brought to punishment by the German court, that is to say, by the court of the armed forces.
period, the resistance in the Netherlands began to organize in increasing measure, and that there was a notable increase in sabotage and other acts hostile to the occupational forces. I also recall that it was pointed out that if the armed forces and police would have been present in larger numbers than was actually the case, it would not have been necessary to take a severe step of that kind. The forces at that time, at the disposal of the Netherlands were very small, and in case of an increase in the resistance movement, the position of the armed forces in the Netherlands would have been severely damaged.
Q. Witness, I shall put several questions to that we can go ahead. and reported that because of those attempts of explosions, he had to shoot hostages.
A. Yes.
Q. It is known to you that there was a Reich decree stating that hostages in Reich occupied, territory should not be tried by the Court but turned over to the Police, do you remember that ?
A. I don't think that that was the case at that time. Especially if you refer to the so called "Nacht Und Nebel" ("Night and Fog") decree which, in my recollection, is of a later date. We remember, however, that on order was mentioned at that time but I believe that order was one which was given only exclusively for the military sector. At any rate, I don't know about the wording of that order.
Q. Is it known to you that the Reich Commissar used his influence to see that the number you mentioned, 50 -- in reality, it was only 25 --, that that number was also to be reduced to 5 ?
A. That is known to me.
Q. And that he succeeded ?
A. And that he succeeded.
Q. And that he particularly succeeded in that fathers of families were not executed ?
Q. That concludes one case. I put to you another case. That is the case of the attempt made on the life of the Higher SS and Police Leader, Rauter where, in fact, more than 150 persons were executed as hostages. Did you road that ?
A. In part.
Q. Please read it all then.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, why is it necessary for the witness to read the whole document ? You can put the facts to him.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes. BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q. Witness, at that time, it was demanded that as a reprisal for the attempt on the Police and SS Leader, hostages should be shot.
A. Yes.
Q. Who ordered that and who carried it out ?
A. I knew of the case and I know it from the report of Brigadefuehrer Schoengart, who was, at that time, the chief of the Security Police, he had approached me to find out what his functions were because Rauter could not be in office and he had to send a proclamation and had to give his official title. On that occasion he told me the whole story, and he also told me that he had talked to Berlin, to find out what they would consider necessary as reprisals for the attempt on Rauter. From there the demand was made to execute a large and considerable number of hostages. He mentioned a figure to me which was something like 500, at any rate, not below 500, then he also told me that he had talked to the Reich Commissar and told him about the demand from Berlin.
Q. Would you be more specific please, Berlin is very large.
A. That was the Reichsfuehrer SS. Of course, it is quite clear that when it is concerned with one of the Higher Leaders of the Police and SS, one had to approach the Reichsfuehrer SS personally, and not his office. He also told me he approached the Reich Commissar for that, and that the Reich Commissar who, as such, was not competent to deal with, that matter, had asked him to tell the Reichsfuehrer Himmler. He wanted to suggest to him not to carry out such a large number of executions.
everything was done by telephone thereupon. Of course, the Reichsfuehrer agreed to reduce the number and, I believe, on the basis of several telephone conversations back and forth, in the end a number of about 200 or 150, I cannot say that exactly today, was decided upon. Schoengart that request would not have been put that certainly, the number demanded originally by Berlin would have lost their lives, so that one can say justifiably in this case, that the Reich Commissioner saved the lives of several hundred Netherlanders. caught at random in the streets or were they people who had already been sentenced ?
Brigadefuehrer Schoengart told me during that case. Of course, I have no reason to assume that at that time he did not tell me the truth. He told me that only such persons would be taken who already had been sentenced, so that it was only an execution which would have taken place later, and if that number was not sufficient, then it might happen that others might be used who in case they had been put before a court, would probably be sentenced to death anyway. happened to the hostages who, in the way of reprisals regarding the Dutch East Indies, were taken as hostages and sent to Buchenwald. some time -- and I don't recall how long that was -- when complaints came about the treatment of them, brought back into the Netherlands until the majority was released. As I remember it, not all at one time, but gradually. on account of serious sabotage attempts, was that ordered by the Reich Commissar the armed forces, and the armed forces treated the incident.... The order was given by the Commander of the armed forces, and if I remember correctly, the Reich Commissar and I were informed about the incident after the execution had taken place. the so-called enemies of the State. the Bible Research Group was confiscated. I should like to ask you, so that there will be no mistake, whether it was only the property of the organizations that was destroyed, or was it the property of members? That is assuming, for instance, not only property of Free Mason lodges, but also property of members. organizations, never to individuals. If property of individuals was destroyed, then it was an abuse of the officials who did it. I cannot remember any of it anyway.
Who was responsible for the treatment of the Jewish question? Who was competent? beginning, with the Police.
the name of Seyss-Inquart and which show interference with the liberties of the Jews. Can you remember when that legislation against the Jews started and in what form?
A The development is briefly stated as follows: SeyssInquart was confronted with the thought of dealing with the Jewish question in the Netherlands. At first he rejected it, and in one of the first discussions, it was ordered that this question should not be treated. Berlin to deal with the Jewish problem because, on the occasion of various movements and actions which were mentioned, as conspiracies, Jews had participated in a relatively large number. a longer time, the Jews, who naturally because of the treatment the had undergone were no friends of the Germans and could not be, that those Jews, if the war were to last longer could become dangerous and that, therefore, they should be considered as enemies, not in the formal sense but practically so. although in the conference he pointed out that he could not help doing so because he could not assume the responsibility. of the Reich Commissar--at first the only task undertaken was to register the property of the Jews, then to prevent German domestic servants being in Jewish households. There were quite a number of reports, and then when Berlin was more insistent in that question, the Reich Commissar finally decided to decree a registration of all Jews. It was pointed out particularly that one had to know, at least, where the Jews were because only in that manner could security and control on the part of the police be made possible. been carried out in the Reich at that time.
Then there was more pressure. I do not know whether that was Heydrich at that time who did it or whether he was at that time in the Netherlands. I have never seen him. I know only that on two occasions at least he visited the Reich Commissar in the Netherlands in 1942, there was pressure in the direction of solving that problem The Reich Commissar at first believed that he could fulfill these demands by bringing the Jews together in one place in the Netherlands where they could be more easily supervised and watched, and that is how the thought arose that in Amsterdam, one, two or three district of the city should be used to house the Jews there, which was also connected with the necessity to resettle a considerable number of non-Jewish residents of the Netherlands because one could not solve their problem otherwise at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: All this evidence that the witness is giving is all in the decree and has already been given by the defendant, has it not? What is the difference?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes THE PRESIDENT:
What is the point of it?
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I only wanted to say one thing, and that is that on such an important question I wanted to have confirmation briefly by the witness.
THE WITNESS: I haven't much more to say. BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q All right, I shall summarize. It is correct that the Jews were put together in a Ghetto in Amsterdam? the Jews? as it was possible under existing conditions, to get more humane methods in the evacuation of the Jews?
Is it known to you that Seyss-Inquart had these camps inspected by commissions of judges and corrected abuses?
A Yes. Not only concentration camps, but camps in general. recruit all people in Holland able to bear arms. Was that action by the Reich Commissar or by a different office? forces.
Q Why did that action take place? in the critical situation of that time that the part of the population that was able to fight should not remain in Holland, first, because a large number of formed prisoners of war had been released by order of the Fuehrer in 1944, although later a large part of them had been called again. They were brought back to the Netherlands. Secondly, during that time, the resistance movements increased greatly, and so it was stated that, from the military point of view, one could not assume the responsibility of leaving that part of the people able to bear arms in the Netherlands. so-called "Freistellungs Scheine" -- release slips -- and was not part of the population taken for labor commitments? battle of Arnheim? still under artillery fire, and they were brought to Berlin after some time. From there as I have heard in the Netherlands, after the surrender, they were returned to Amsterdam.
Q How was the financial economy in the administration? Was there a generous program in the use of tax money? General Commissar for Finance and Economy could say much more and with much greater authority than I can, but so far as my impression went, I may say -
THE PRESIDENT: If he is not competent to speak about it, I do not see why he should speak about it.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, the witness Fischboeck can not he found, but as a deputy of the Reich Commissar, this witness should know something about it. I will ask in detail. BY DR. STEINBAUER: and deposit them in a special fund?
Q You knew nothing about currency restrictions? civilian sector of the administration?
A By decrees which were published by the Reich Commissar. It can be seen in the decrees -- as a matter of principle it was so -- that the requests were sent from the Reich to the Reich Commissar. The Reich Commissar passed them on to the Dutch offices who were competent, and they then carried out these requisitions. carried them out?
A Yes. They not the authorization by a special decree. anything from the large museums?
A I did not quite understand that. From where?
A No. I do not recall one single incident, and I would have had to know about it because that was under my competence.
Q Yes, that is why I asked you. Were there any archives that were carried away?
A Generally not. On the whole, no, but there was an exchange which had been considered even before the war of the material in archives, and that was dealt with. There was an exchange between Dutch and German archives, after the so-called principle of Provenience. That is where the archives came from.
that regulated in any way? by a very stern decree of the Reich Commissar, I believe during the last year, and anyone who transgressed these regulations was seriously reproached. There were only two offices which could confiscate, and those were the police and Armed Forces. action. Was that stopped in the fall? By "armed forces" I mean the recruiting of anybody in the population who was able to carry arms. Colonel-General Student, who, at that time, was Chief of the Army Group, and under whose jurisdiction the Dutch military sector also came at that time.
Q Another question. Do you still remember the Jewish Library Rosentaliana? What happened to that?
A Yes. I believe that remained in the Netherlands.
Q Shouldn't that have been returned?
A Yes. There were attempts, but since that library was public property, the property of the City of Amsterdam, the Reich Commissar, upon my suggestion, decreed that that library had to remain in Holland.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I have concluded the questioning of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do other defendants' counsel want to ask questions?
(No response)
Do the prosecution wish to cross-examine? BY M. DEBENEST: Commissar in the Netherlands. You were chosen by Seyss-Inquart, were you not? had you not?
Q Had you not been one of his co-workers ever since 1938?
a large number of members of the NSB and of pro-German elements were nominated not only to leading positions, but also to subaltern positions in the Dutch police, and that their task was to execute orders issued by the occupational authorities, such as the arresting of Jews, of members of the resistance, and of hostages? to the Germans were put in high and low positions by the Reich Commissar. However, as to their proportional part within the total of Dutch civil servant employment in the civil sector, I believe at the end of the occupation period the participation of these groups in proportion to the Dutch population was not large.
Q I spoke to you very clearly of the police, did I not? You understood "police", did you not? I wish to stress this point.
A You mean only the police?
A Yes, that is known to me. However, I do not believe that those members of groups friendly to Germans received special tasks: I believe that they received those tasks just as other civil servants in the same positions. I cannot say anything in detail about that, because I had very little to do with the police. which had been given to them by the occupational authorities and abandoned their posts, did the German authorities not take members of their families as hostages, women and children, for instance?
Q In no case?
A Please?
Q In no case?
A That the members of families of police officials were arrested? Members of families? authorities.
A I don't remember that. citizens, who had joined the resistance in one way or another, had been arrested as hostages. there not? There were hostages arrested in those cases?
A You callit "hostages". Do you use that expression also for cases where the individuals did not expect that they would have to lose their lives? answering them. University of Amsterdam, protests against the fact that the wife and children of a professor of that University had been arrested as hostages?
A I do not remember that. It is possible, however, that such a complain came to the Main Office, which belonged to my Commissariat; that is, the Main Office for Education.
Q In any case, you don't deny this fact?
A I could not deny it a hundred percent, but I don't know anything about it.
Q Another question. As a result of the declaration of loyalty which was imposed on the students, as to those who refused, were they not forced to present themselves immediately for work, and were they not deported to Germany without having to await the age of enlistment?
A Yes, but not in the labor service. You mean the labor commitment, Arbeitseinsatz?
Q That is of little importance; but they were deported to Germany for that reason, were they not?
Q Isn't it true that numerous and deep reforms were introduced by the Reich Commissar in all the activities of the life of the Netherlands people, and that these reforms were all contrary to the Constitution?
A One could not know; one could never ascertain that.
Q But there were such reforms, weren't there? and the fact of the occupation. And there is a third element, which was that there were measures, necessitated by the absence of the head of State and the Government.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think it would be better to put the particular points you want to him, rather than general questions, which will enable him to deal with the matter at length?
M. DEBENEST: Yes, Mr. President. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q Did the Civil Service in the Netherlands enjoy freedom? Seyss-Inquart, a report drafted on July 13, 1940. You will then tell me whether you still maintain the reply that you have just given to me. This is what Seyss-Inquart wrote:
"The Civil Service" -- and he means the Civil Service in the Netherlands -"finds itself at the present moment in a sufficient and progressive manner under the direction and control of the German authorities." Inquart wrote?
A If in that report by Dr. Seyss-Inquart mention is made that the control was in German hands, that can only mean that the supervision was in the hands of German authorities. It was a matter of course that the German occupation authorities reserved for themselves a certain control and supervision over the most important acts of administration and government; and if everything went as it should, important decrees could not be issued without the approval of the occupying power.
Q That is enough. The Tribunal will appreciate your answer, and the document. Will you explain why a civilian government was instituted in the Netherlands, whereas no such government was set up in other countries such as Belgium, for instance? and could find out myself, the main reason was that Germany put much emphasis on establishing a good relationship with the Netherlands. The leaders in the Reich probably thought that it would be possibly easier with a civilian administration than with armed forces. were to put the country in the hands of the Nazis, in order to establish some sort of federation of Germanic stages? such things, I have always found that he was of the opinion that the Netherlands people were an independent and individual nation and should remain independent and sovereign as a state. That during the period of occupation the Reichskommissar and the German administration dealt and had close contact with those partisan groups who were friendly with the Germans goes without saying; and I believe I do not have to give any reasons for that. But that the Netherlands during a period of occupation were not going to accept the political ideology of the occupying power was quite clear to the Reichskommissar such as it would be to anybody who would judge the conditions at that time. commissar did not want to force the General Secretaries of the Netherlands to make decisions which might be contrary to their conscience, and if they felt uneasy about it, they could ask him to grant them dismissal; is that what you stated? resignations? Secretary Spitzen. That was the secretary general who did not carry out an order by the Reich commissar, and still did not hand in his resignation.
Q Who was this secretary general? In which department? In which division? water, roads, and channels.
Q Is that the only case? Is that the only case that you knew of?
Q In what year was that?
A That, I believe -- one moment -- at any rate, that was in 1944; I believe in the summer. national defense, Mr. Ringelin? under the competence of the Reich commissar, but under the competence of the armed forces commander, because all military matters on the basis of the Fuehrer Decree came under the competence of the military commander.
Q Why was he dismissed?
Q I will remind you of it by means of Seyss-Inquart's report, and then we will see whether this was in agreement with the head of the Wehrmacht. This is what the defendant writes: "One of the secretaries general -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) M. Debenest, the witness does not know anything about it, apparently.
M. DEBENEST: He said that he does not know the reasons, Mr. President, but he added that it was in agreement with the military authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a matter which would come under the competence of the military authorities; and he does not know about it. That is what he said.
THE WITNESS: All the matters of the ministry for national defense were under the competence of the armed forces commander, because -- and that is quite clear -- everything which was carried out in the Netherlands in the military field was carried out by the ministry. And it is clear that the ministry was under the competence of the armed forces commander.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have a document which proves that the man's dismissal was done by Seyss-Inquart, I suppose you can put it to him.
M. DEBENEST: I wanted simply to demonstrate that the answer he gave was inexact, and I wanted to read four lines of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: As I said, if you have a document which proves that the man's dismissal was by Seyss-Inquart, you can put it to him.
M. DEBENEST: That is what I intended to do, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do it; put it to him, then.
M. DEBENEST: I do not have the original in German. I handed it in yesterday evening.
THE PRESIDENT: Read it to him, M. Debenest. Read it to him.
M. DEBENEST: That is what I am going to do, Mr. President. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. That is what Seyss-Inquart wrote:
"One of the secretaries general tried to appeal to the authority of Winkelmann"-- Winklemann was the military chief -- "concerning the question of the continuation of work in armament factories for the Wehrmacht".
A. One moment. I did not understand that. Will you please read the last line once more?
Q. ". . .concerning the matter of the continuation of armament factories for the Wehrmacht. But the civil servant was immediately dismissed."
A. But that does not say that the Reichs commissar dismissed these officials.
Q. Certainly it is not said that the Reich commissar did it; but it is none the less clear in this report that the Reich commissar indicates here that if a civil servant, no matter who he may be, does not obey the orders which are given to him, he is fired. And he quotes this case as an example.
A. But this is the military sector. What I have said before deals only with the civilian sector. That the Reich commissar speaks about other matters in a report to Hitler is quite possible, because he was charged to take care of the interests of the Reich. And he reported about other things to his superior, also, besides those which were within his competency. the general secretary for national defense.
Q. Very well. We will leave this question. Have you not demanded that the secretary general for education whould have at his disposal the professors and the laboratory in Leyden for German atomic research?
A. But only in the Netherlands; not in Germany.
Q. But if it was not for Germany, the Secretary general for education had all freedom to decide himself; you did not have to intervene, did you?
A. No. That was a German measure which had been demanded by the Reich and which was now carried out in that manner, that all materials, machinery, and so on, remain in the Netherlands, and German scientists should be given opportunity there to carry out their research. I do not believe that that dealt with atomic research.
Who said that?
Q. You claim that important public libraries and private libraries were not confiscated nor transported to the Reich? You said so a few minutes ago; isn't that a fact?
A. Just now? I did not talk about libraries just now
Q. I mean earlier, when Seyss-Inquart's defense counsel was questioning you, did you not say, unless I misunderstood you, that no libraries coming from the Netherlands had been transported to the Reich?
A. I did not say that. Will you please show me that in the transcript?