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?
Q. It is doubtless a mistake.
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. I will pass on. Were the professors of the University of Amsterdam not threatened with the death penalty if they handed in their resignations, and did you not threaten them yourself?
A. I have neither expressed such a threat, nor do I know of any threat of that kind. I consider it quite impossible that anybody could have expressed such a threat.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall adjourn now.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, 14 June, 1946) DR. FRIEDRICH WIMMER -Resumed BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. I still have a few questions to put to this witness. libraries which have been looted and taken to Germany, I would like to read to you a few lines taken from a document which I have submitted day before, yesterday to the Tribunal. This document is F-803, RF-1525, on page 34 of the French text. This is a report from the Minister of Education and Art, of the Netherlands. We find the following:
"The Collection, as well as the libraries of the International Institute for Social History at Amsterdam, have been closed down. The Library, which has about 150,000 volumes, has been taken to Germany as well as a very important collection of papers. The Library Rosenthaliana which belongs to the University of Amsterdam has been stacked in 153 crates and has also been taken to Germany.
"Famous collections concerning Natural History of the College of St. Ignace at Mont Aucon (Valkenburg), and the Museum of Natural History at Maestrich has also been taken to Germany as well as the Library which belonged to it.
"In 1940, all the Masonry Lodges were also taken away to Germany. Amongst them was the well known ..."
THE PRESIDENT: Monsieur Debenest, haven't you put enough for the purpose of your question now? We have got the document, and you have already put about one-half dozen libraries which you are suggesting to him were taken to Germany, and you want to know what he has to say, I suppose. It is not necessary to go into the whole detail.
BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. What do you think about this story ? Are these facts correct ?
A. The question which you have put to me was answered in part yesterday. As far as it concerns the property of Free Masons, it was said yesterday, and I confirmed it, that it is known to me that the property of the organizations, but not of the individuals, was confiscated.
THE PRESIDENT: That's not an answer to the question. The question is, was it true that these libraries were moved to Germany ?
WITNESS: I know nothing of the removal of these libraries. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. But you did, nevertheless, pretend that the Rosenthaliana Library had remained in the Netherlands, did you not ?
A. The Rosenthaliana, I said that.
Q. Well, maybe it was the Rosenthaliana, but you say that in the report it was specified that it was packed in crates and taken to Germany.
A. Do you mean the Rosenthaliana ?
Q. Yes, the Rosenthaliana.
A. I know that instructions were given by the Reich Commissar that this Library was to remain in Amsterdam. If it was removed, nevertheless, it was an illegal action of which I have no knowledge.
Q. But still it was you who had the task of controlling the education and the training in arts ?
A. Yes, but not of the arts.
Q. No, but as far as the Livraries and Universities were concerned ?
A. Yes.
Q. It is rather curious that you should not have been kept informed of this.
A. That the Libraries were removed ? I don't know.
Q. Well, alright. According to the statements which you made last evening you seemed to pretend that the Reich Commissar did all he could in favor of the Dutch Nation, isn't that so ?
A. Yes.
Q. At any rate, everything he could he did to avoid the worst, is that so ?
A. Yes.
Q. But on the other hand, you knew that numerous people in that country had been arrested, interned, deported; others were shot; you also know that severe coercion was forced upon that nation in every sphere, under threat of extreme penalties and reprisals; you also knew that that country was looted, Who were then, the people who ordered the execution of these crimes ?
A. I said that the Reich Commissar did for the country what he could, and prevented as much as he could. In a 5-year period of occupation, measures had to be taken which were difficult for the country to bear. I did not deny the fact, and it is undeniable. mention the action which you call crimes. The question is too general for me to answer it yes or no, or at all briefly.
Q. Who ordered the crimes ?
A. I beg your pardon ?
Q. Who ordered the crimes ?
A. Which crimes ?
Q. Why, the arrests of the Dutch people, of course.
A. I beg your pardon ?
Q. The arrests of the Dutch people.
A. The arrests were ordered by the Higher SS and Police Chief, he was the Chief of the Police.
Q Who ordered the internments?
A Which internments? Do you mean internments in the concentration camps?
A They were ordered by the Higher SS and Police Chief. That was his department.
Q Who chose the hostages?
Q Who appointed Rauter, who was the Commissar for Public Security? Commissar, but his main function was that of the Higher SS and Police Chief. In this function, he was appointed by the Reichsfuehrer SS. Reich Commissar in his job of helping with the police and for the security. did not have any direct right to issue instructions to the Higher SS and Police Chief. The Reich Fuehrer SS had this right. The appointment as General Commissar for Security was a formality. It was done because the Reich Fuehrer SS wanted the Higher SS and Police Chief to have this title. Originally he was not to be appointed General Commissar.
Q You therefore consider that Seyss-Inquart had no authority over Rauter?
Q Very well. In that case I am going to read a document to you, and you will tell me what you think of it, whether Seyss-Inquart had no authority, and you can also make any explanations you choose.
M. DEBENEST: That is document 3430-PS, which has already been submitted as USA 708. This is an excerpt from one of Seyss-Inquart's speeches. It was made in Holland, and it is to be found on page 124 and page 125 of the German text. It will most probably also be found in the Trial Brief of Seyss-Inquart. I am afraid I do not have the exact page, but I think it is page 57 or page 58. BY MR. DEBENEST:
Q Seyss-Inquart in that speech of the 29th January 1943 said:
"I will give the orders, and they must be carried aout by everybody. In the present situation, the refusal to carry out such an order cannot be called anything except sabotage. It is equally certain that we must, more than ever, eliminate and do away with every resistance directed against the struggle for life."
And further on, we find the following:
"Our husbands, our sons, our fathers are fighting and meeting deaths in the East, with bravery and fortitude, without weakening, and they are making the greatest sacrifice. It is unthinkable that we should tolerate conspiracies which seek to render insecure the rear of the front in the East. The person who dares to do that must perish." to make such a speech and say that he would issue the orders?
A I did not say that Seyss-Inquart had no authority over the police. I said only that the orders were given by the Higher SS and Police Chief. The relationship with the police was as follows: in any case, but it was only his wish and not a binding order. In such cases, when it was an important case, the police first consulted the Reich Fuehrer SS, and only if this office approved could a wish of the Reich Commissar be carried out by the police. he do so-- id he issue orders in cases such as are mentioned in his speech? He himself mentioned this, you know.
Q I merely note that you do not agree with Seyss-Inquart's speech. I will now speak to you of another document, and you will tell us how you explain that Seyss-Inquart could only give requests, as you term it, and not orders.
M. DEBENEST: This is F-860, which I submitted yesterday. This document is a letter of Seyss-Inquart which was sent to Dr. Lammers. BY M. DEBENEST: in order to adapt it to the German Police organization, and in the same document he states the opinion that the police must be the strongest expression of the interior administration of a country.
That is what Seyss-Inquart says in that document. How can you then co-ordinate your answer with what Seyss-Inquart writes? Reich Commissar but originated from the police themselves.
The Reich Commissar in this re-organization--and I myself, too--attempted to see to it that the Dutch Police at least would be separated from the administration, which was the case essentially in Germany, and what the German Police in the Netherlands also wanted. this document. Very well. How do you explain what Seyss-Inquart wrote further on in the same document:
"I would not like to appoint as president of the Tribunal the Supreme Leaders SS here of the Police for this appointment suggest to the Dutch a limitation of the authority of the Reich Commissar because the Reich Commissar was appointed as the guardian of the interests of the Reich by order of the Fuehrer, but I have myself given to the supreme Chief SS Fuehrer of the Police all plenary ppowers which a magistrate needs."
A Would you please read the first two sentences again?
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, the document is before us, don't you think?
M. DEBENEST: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not so well to argue with the witness about it.
M. DEBENEST: Well, I will not insist upon it. BY M. DEBENEST: submitted to you, the interrogatory of Schoengart? How do you explain that Schoengart, on the very morning after the attempt on Rauter, went to Seyss-Inquart and that Seyss-Inquart gave him the order, as he himself states in the document, to take increased measures of reprisal and to execute 200 prisoners, and this with the aim of intimidating the population?
A Yesterday, I believe, I exhausted this subject. I said everything I knew about it.
Q Will you kindly give me the explanation I am asking you to make? the matter to me to the effect that the Reich Fuehrer SS had demanded 500 shootings and that Schoengart, on the advice of the Reich Commissar, had succeeded in reducing the number to 200. That is what I said yesterday.
Q You maintain that he received orders from the Reich Commissar then?
Q Yes, I beg your pardon; from the Reich Fuehrer.
A I can only say Schoengart reported the matter to me in that way. I was not there when he telephoned the Reich Fuehrer SS.
Q Very well. Didn't you yourself take part in a meeting during which hostages were chosen?
AA meeting?
Q When was that, upon what occasion?
A. I recall that in the Rotterdam case the Reich Commissar had a conference with the General Commissar, and the matter was reported.
Q. Were you present at the meeting with General Christiansen?
A. I cannot say with certainty; I believe I was.
Q. Do you know what Seyss-Inquart said during that meeting, what his attitude was?
A. His attitude was that the intention of theWehrmacht to carry out 50, or, as I heard yesterday, 25 shootings, was impossible. I reported on this yesterday, that the Reich Commissar was able to persuade the Wehrmacht -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): This has all been gone over with SeyssInquart, has it not?
M. DEBENEST: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And with this witness as well?
M. DEBENEST: Yes, Mr. President. I just wished to see whether the witness agreed with a document which I submitted to the Tribunal.
I have finished, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to reexamine, Dr. Steinbauer?
Dr. STEINBAUER: (Counsel for defendant Seyss-Inquart): I have no questions to put to the witness, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
Dr. STEINBAUER: With the approval of the Court, I shall call the witness Dr. Hirschfeld to the stand.
DR. HANS MAX HIRSCHFELD, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name, please?
A. Hans Max Hirschfeld.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me: truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY Dr. STEINBAUER:
Q. Witness, when, in May of 1940, the Netherlands were occupied, were you General Secretary of the Economic and Agricultural Ministry?
A. Before I answer your question, I should like to state that I would have preferred to speak Dutch, but in order not to delay the proceedings, I will speak the foreign language which I speak best; I will speak in German.
As for your question, I can say "yes".
Q. In this same capacity, did you direct the affairs of both ministries until the end of the occupation?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it true that the Reich Commissar, in the first conference, told all general secretaries that he expected loyal fulfilment of their duties, but that no one would have to fear any disadvantage if he should resign?
A. I should like to say that the Netherlands general secretaries, who were assigned by the Netherlands Government to remain in the Netherlands, told the Reich Commissar at that time that, in the interests of the Netherlands people, they would remain in office; that is, after they had received approval to do so from the Commander in Chief of the Netherlands Army who, at that time, was the authorized representative of the Netherlands Government. In answer to a question of the Reich Commissar we said yes, under those conditions. that that had nothing to do with our decision.
Q. Did the general secretaries who resigned receive their pension? For example, Mr. Tripp, who was president of the Dutch Bank.
A. Yes.
Q. Did the General Secretary of the Interior, Fredericks, remain in office until September of 1944?
A. Yes.