provision which goes so unreasonably far as even to consider an abandoned war plan or the possible planning of an eventually bloodless war as punishable as an accomplished crime. produced therefore that my client has over imagine that a war night arise between Austria and any other Power because of the Anschluss or as a result thereof. On the contrary, his decision to occupy himself actively with politics, after the drama of 25 July 1934, was dictated by the effort not to let the Anschluss question be the cause of international complications. On that point he must have been far from imaging that Hitler and his entourage ha viewed such a consequence as possible. The consequences of the Austrian enterprise proved him right. The German troops were greeted on their march into Austria with flowers and cheers. 1938 against the Anschluss. But this was only a very mild and platonic protest. A military support of Schuschnigg did not result; in the first place the League of Nations which was the guarantor of Austria's independence, was not invoked. had discussed the new situation with its friends of the Geneva Entente and that the unanimous opinion had been that a debate in Geneva would lead to no satisfactory result. Foreign Office it took note thereof without protest, and the Austrian representative at the League of Nations, Pfluegl, received his passport. The Hague Arbitrative Court has struck its Austrian member, Professor Verdross of Vienna, from its register of judges. The diplomatic agencies were withdrawn or transformed into Consulates in the German Reich. occupation and annexation of this small country a State treaty concerning a second small State was concluded in Munich on September 29th, 1938 with the alleged aggressor.
memory of the great politician and statesman Politis. I also wish to call him to mind. Shortly before his untimely death he wrote in his book "Larmorale internationale" (International Ethics) the following: "Qui menace les petites nations menace l'humanite toute entiere!" attention to this sentence. see fit to apply against the annexation of Austria. doctrine has penetrated into the science of international law and diplomatic language. It is the principle according to which the nations of the world refuse to recognize forcibly obtained territorial acquisitions. This principle has at least penetrated *---* legal consciousness of present times as deeply as the prohibition of wars of aggression, which is one of the main pillars upon which the Nuernberg trials rest.
declaration of the Council of the League of Nations of February 16, 1932, in which the Stimson doctrine, devoted into a principle, found the following expression:
"No trespassing into the territorial integrity and no infringement of the political independence of a member of the League of Nations committed against Article 10 of the Charter of the League of Nations could be recognized is legally valid by the member nations." tion of Austria into Germany without feeling compelled to concern themselves with the Stimson *---*ne. for breach of the peace in violation of the treaties. Germany is supposed to have violated three treaties. First the German-Austrian agreement of July 11th, 1932, secondly. Article 88 of the Treaty of Saint-German, lastly, Article 80 of the Treaty of Versailles. Here also It must be pointed out that all the nations concerned have not only put up whit the violations of treaties, but moreover sanctioned them tacitly by their attitude. Herein lies atleast a renunciation of international law, and the powers concerned have thereby deprived themselves of any right to an ulterior reaction because of treaty violations, which would be in contradicting to any fairness. a violation of this provision cannot to begin with be charged against the German Government and therefore againstSeyss-Inquart as alleged co-conspirator, because Germany was not bound by this contract which she had not signed and which for her represented a "res inter alies acta". "res inter alies acta" for any other Power than Germany and Austria; here Austria alone could have raised the objection of breach of treaty. In this connection attention is called to the fact that the reconstituted Austria is not among the signatories of the London Agreement, of August 8th 1945. Therefore the four founder States of the International Military Tribunal are not justified to vindicating Austrian interest at these trials. temptation to discuss the question of the legal validity of this provision, in particular I will not raise the point of what significance the contradiction of this Article with the so-called 14 points of President Wilson may have from a legal point of view.
Austrian affair, I cannot suppress a thought of general import: of the 19th and 20th centuries, fought itself through amidst much trouble, much confusion and many makeshifts and realized its aims more and more, is the right of self-determination of nations. anchored itself into the legal conceptions of international relations of our century to such a great extent, that one is forcibly led to include it among the general principles of international law, a thought that particularly appeals to democratic ways of thinking. But as a general principle of international law, it would then become the standard criterion of judgment, besides the Charter, the customary international law and thirdly the treaty rights, for the Nurnberg International Military Tribunal, which at any rate must find a similar basis for other questions. And further it would become, like all other generally accepted principles of law, of imperative character and have precedence in particular over international treaty laws. thought for their existence, Such grace has been denied the Austrians after the First World War. Despite the fact that the people in Austria as well as in Germany unanimously strove for union, Austria was forced to eke out an existence as an artificial, unnatural State structure, able neither to live nor to die. How bitter sound the words of the Encyclical "Ube arcano" of December 23, 1932; "We hoped for peace; but it did not bring salvation; we hoped for healing but terror came; we hoped for the hour of recovery; but only confusion came; we hoped for light, but only darkness came." this the wish of the overwhelming majority of their citizens, and this time success came.
has no other significance than the successful integration of a mighty prin-
ciple of international order, of the right of "self-determination of nations. This dynamism carried away artificial and unnatural treaty stipulations.
Who can speak here of guilt? question of Poland very little. For during his short stay he was not in evidence at all to the Poles, but was mainly concerned with the organization problems of the building up of the German administrative apparatus. In this matter it is sufficient for me to refer to the results of the handling of evidence. an honorary rank never stood under Himmler's commanding and disciplinary power, nor itself possessed such power in the SS. As regards his position as minister without portfolio, the importance of this function within the scope of the organizations will be discussed in the chapter "Reich Government Therefore, without going more deeply into this interlude, I hasten to the second scene of this legal netter - the Netherlands.
breeches, with her red brick buildings, her large herds of cattle in green meadows and her immense varicolored tulip-fields. I know her as the country and de Grotius the great teacher of international law, that struggled for her liberty in gory fights against Philipp II of Spain and produced the great naval hero de Royter who won one of the most famous naval battles in history on 21 August 1673. However, in this trial here we learned that of all the occupied countries, the Netherlands offered the most united and thougest political as well as increasingly effective active resistance; we also learned that throughout these years these people never abandoned the hope that the moment of liberty would surely return some day.
The motto of the province of Zealand: "Luctor et emergo", "I struggle and do not go under " had become the rallying word of the whole country. civil administration. Whatever ha may have thought and planned, it is tragedy that he came as the representative of Adolf Hitler and of a system hated the owrld over. Hundreds of laws, orders and decrees repeatedly bore his signature and though they may have been ever so fully correct legally, in the eyes of the people they still remained measures of the enemy, and SeyssInquart, their oppressor. My client did not force himself into this office. He had rather requested permission to go to the front as a soldier. Adolf Hitler refused this. Seyss-Inquart also never contested his responsibility and gave himself up voluntarily after the collapse. In case the legal opinion of the defense concerning the superior command is not shared by the court, even in regard to paragraph 8 of the charter, the total organization of the Reich on the one hand and the attitude of the Dutch people on the ether must be taken into consideration in passing judgment on his administrative activity. The way in which Seyss-Inquart on principle came to terms with himself on his conflicting tasks, namely to represent the interests of the Reich on the one hand, and yet to take care of the population within the meaning of the Hague Convention on the other, is revealed by his attitude in this respect as follows :
Ahuna be guided by the following legal conceptions : traordinary extension of economic war, the expansion of the war into "total" and "indivisiole war", the genesis of the conception of total blockade, partly made international law -- as it was in effect in the years 1899 and 1907 at the genesis of the Hague Convention-- meaningless from the viewpoint of the clausula rebus sic stantibus, and partly because of new necessities and given conditions it proved to be absolutely incomplete and useless.
Only a few remnants from olden times Were still valid in the second world war. bings of residential quarters made possible by the colossal development of explosives and the technique of flying and which found no fustification whatever according to previous law,. If they can be justified at all, it is possible only out of a concept of total war. the war as an object last but not least under the influence of the Anglo-American concept of war. occupied regions during this development have become the war potential of the occupying force within the limits imposed by humanity. law that requisitioning these forces must be necessary for the purpose of war and thirdly this requisitioning must ex aequo et bone be reasonable. bids treatment of individual areas separately. It will no longer do to requisition the personal and economic forces of a definite area only for its necessities, as it is still prescribed by the Hague Convention for Land Warfare. Henceforth these forces must be at the disposal of the whole sphere of action of a belligerent country as oneunit, on the other hand they benefit from belonging to the whole. and traffic moreover causes the attitude towards another problem of warfare, namely, the so-called Partisans, to be faced by new and most grave tasks Ahuna tion definitely assumed inconceivable proportions in the second World War and developed into an enormous danger for the fighting troops which at most can be compared with the Guerilla war of attrition against Napoleon I in Spain, The old international law by no means made sufficient provisions to parry this danger.
As a matter of fact the prevailing principle when fishting the Partisans must be the security of the fighting troops at any price. the right and the duty to take the severest suppressive and preventive measures within the limits of reasonable expectation and humanity. My client discharger the duties of his office in accordance with these guiding rinciples, with the fixed motion that he was thereby complying with his duty according to the directives of the legal subject of international law, i.e., of the supreme Reich Leadership. Any thought of acting illegally or even of committing punishable acts was far from his mind. That has nothing to do with the applicability in this case of the principle that ignorance of the law excuses no one, for here no national penal law is concerned but international law, and it is not a question on the other hand of a legal error, but of a subjective conception of duty which may have gone astray here and there but was always credulous. the defendant in accordance with this basic exposition, it must be pointed out that the National Socialist administration, as everywhere in occupied territories but particularly in Germany proper, revealed an ever greater and more penetrating, superorganization and at the same time an extremely tight centralization in Berlin. Consequently there were the following authorities in the Netherlands.
1.) The Reich Commissariat (Civil administration and Protection of Reich Interests.)
2.) The Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht and the various Commanders
3.) The Police concerning which I shall speak later.
4.) Four Year Plan - Goering
5.) Special Purpose Staff-Rosenberg
6.) General Labor Commitment-Sauckel
7.) Armament Ministry-Speer, and
8.) last but not least, the NSDAP with its offices and organizations. bound to obey absolutely the instructions of these central agencies, and he was not permitted to intervene in their measures. The record of history to be written will perhaps throw light on the question as to how great was the skill of the defendant to prevent some of them or at least how he toned them down. As regards the Dutch population, its attitude, as already mentioned, was completely hostile and the forces of the resistance movement, organized, equipped and directed through the Dutch Government in London, grew from one year to antoher. The defendant's actions should be considered against this background to reach a fair judgment. schedule of the French prosecutor. through introduction of the Reich commissiariat with its 4 general commissiariats : annulment of civic liberties ; introduction of the leadership principle, and dissolution of legislative bodies and political parties. These measures cannot constitute a breach of international law. Inasmuch as Germany which is likewise one of the signatory powers of the IVth Hague Convention of 1907, based itself on the laws governing land warfare, and notwithstanding the lack of the all-embracing participation clause after entry into the war by the Soveit Union, the validity of the laws governing land-warfare with due consideration for restrictions referred to in the beginning of the above statements must be accepted for the Netherlands as well. Its fundamental elements do not seem broken. Asa result of the complete occupation of the countr the flight of the Queen and of the Ministers from the country, the highest governing power in civil affairs passed from the Crown and the Parliament to the occupying power, and with it to the Reich Commissioner. Through the unconditional capitulation of 10 May 1940, General Winkelmann, vested with special powers and left behind in the country, renounced his authority in every respect.
Furthermore, it is the accepted rule for the occupying power to regulate the administration as it is demanded by its requirements, -under exclusion of the right to take any stop apt to deprive the country in advance of the final clarification of its fate. A specific recognition to that effect through the Highest Court of Holland took place according to the decision of 12 January 1942 submitted to me. The division of authority between the Reich Commissioner and the Commander of the Wehrmacht, as provided by the Fuehrer decree, is a matter pertaining to the internal segregation of jurisdiction applying to the occupying power. This has been specifically recognized by the British Manual of Military law (CH XIV Amendment 12 of 1936). The fact that the S ate Parliament was suspended, the activity of the State Council restricted to preparation of opinions in disputes on administrative matters and that, finally, parliamentary parties were dissolved, is likewise no violation of International law because during the period of occupation the occupying power itself decides how far the need for legislative measures and for amendment of the legislation of the country exists.
As a rule, about 50 parties entered the contest for the 150 seats in the Dutch Parliament at every election. Due to the fact that the contesting parties not only were in accord in their antagonism toward the occupying power but frequently were active in the various resistance movements, their suspension and subsequent dissolution -which was only decreed on 5 July 1941- was the good right of the occupying power, all the more so as the country was on the direct path which the coming developments of the war were bound to follow and since an invasion was very likely. This made a rigid concentration in the administrative apparatus, under exclusion of all parliamentary obstructions and the potentialities which they held for enemy propaganda, imperative. If it is pointed out that this, on the other hand, encouraged the NSB, it might be answered in brief that the Reich Commissioner consistently refused the formation of a governent by this party. The fact that parties which were already in existence in the country or were to be newly formed, the ideology of which was firendly to the occupying power, were encouraged by the latter, is also not outlawed by international law. Inasmuch as no official administrative powers were vested in the NSB and since political organizations had no influence on the administration, it is also immaterial that in the year 1943 this party announced itself as the represnetative of the political will of the Dutch Nation. It always ha been and still continues to be the practice up to this day that occupying powers encourage and assist political parties frien dly to them.
The charge of Germanization is unjustified. By reason of its descent, the Dutch people always were considered to be Germanic and it is therefore not feasible to make Germans of them. A perusal of Dutch history shows us that fo centuries the Dutch people always belonged to the Federation of the German Rej and he who roves through the country can still see in Groningen's caot-of-arms the German Reich Eagle, as well as Amsterdam's coat of arms carrying the emblem of the German imperial crown since 1489. The first and the last Salic Emperors, Konrad II and Heinrich V, died in Utrecht. It is but natural that in view of the blockade against the sea and the colonies, the occupying powers desired to direct the country towards Central Europe and it never was intended certainly not by the Reich Commissioner, to cut out the national traits and th independence of the Dutch.
It was perfectly justified for the defendant to declare in his speech of 9 November 1943, in Utrecht, (document book 102), among other things :
"We ourselves would cease, to the Europeans should we fail in our mission to maintain and to promote this rich luxuriance of characteristic and bloddbound cultures of the European people." pressure in the interest of Holland's entry into the war. There did not exi a ban against enlisting volunteers of Dutch nationality in the German Wehrmac Article 45 of the law on landwarfare merely forbids compulsory recruiting for war activity against the own fatherland. This did not make obsolete the decrees of the Dutch criminal law (referred to by the Prosecution) applicable to the person who takes up arms voluntarily, a decree which was strengthened during the war by Royal edict. The same holds true as regards regulations on citizenship for these volunteers and marriage to German nationals. Inasmuch as these orders of the Reich Commissioner could have legal value only within the limits of the German Reich, the interpretation of law that they do not constitute abuse of soveriegnty in the sense applied by the Prosecution can be maintained in good conscience. what a press had to be silenced which notoriously placed itself in opposition to the occupying powers goes without saying. removal of intellectual life as a result of the closing of universities and the demand for a declaration of loyalty remains within the framework of the convention governing Land Warfare, Article 45 an oath of allegiance, According to the wording of the declaration it is merely demanded to abstain from any action directed against the German Reich or its army. Inasmuch however, as the population of the occupied country is bound to obey the occupying power governing the State, this statement, which does not make an active demand, cannot be considered a violation of international law. tained, despite an attitude of pronounced rejection, even animosity ; especially one refrained from interference in the field of the judiciary. The only reproach in this direction is the dismissal of the President of the Court of Justice at Leeuvarden.
The defendant expressly declared to assume responsibility for this case, and he has the perfect right to do so. The occupying power can interfere in the field of the judiciary only when the purpose of the occupation is in jeopardy If a judge refuses administration of justice -even though the cause for his complaint was eliminated, as was the case in this instance- then the occupying power has the right to remove from office the judge concerned. initiated a series of acts of terror. In the course of the presentation of evidence on this point, we have heard what collective punishment was about. Kammergerichtsrat Rudolf Fritsch and President Joppich, further proved by their testimony that the defendant was extremely conscientious in the application of the right to grant pardon and that he restricted the infliction of capital punishment as much as possible. And as regards Police summary courts the defendant and the witness Wimmer have proved that this was a procedure applied in a few single cases only, headed by an official of the judiciary the respective defendant having the right to use the services of a defense counsel freely appointed of Dutch nationality and that, furthermore, this procedure found application for two weeks only. Even at this time we still emergency purposes used by powers of occupation. Prosecution is the question of hostages, which I must therefore discuss in detail. Dr. Nelte has already discussed its juridical aspect in general, and I refer to his statements. In RF 879 the prosecution has now chosen two particular cases. The so-called hostage-shooting at Rotterdam and the one after the attempt against the senior Leader of the SS and of the Police, Already in the course of his first interrogation by the plaintiff, the defendant referred to the first case of the Wehrmacht's demand for 25 to 50 hostages. The witness Wimmer confirmed that these hostages had been demanded by the Weh rmacht that through the defendant's influence this number was finally reduced to five and that the Senior SS and Police Leader was entrusted with the shooting. the relation between the Wehrmacht and the Police, is regulated by the decree dated 18 May 1940 Reich Law Gazette No. 1, page 778, k376 PS in paragraphs 2 - 3. tion but not the testimony of General Christiansen.
In the course of an interrogation the defendant did not take the oath. The record proves that :
a) The order was issued by the Wehrmacht on account of grave cases of sabotage and was analogous with the so-called "Law governing hostages" in Belgium and France.
b) The arrest of the hostages then carried out by the German Police on the order of the Commander of the Wehrmacht in Holland. "An order is an orde
c) The German High Command or Command West persists in the execution of the orders notwithstanding all representations.
d) Execution by the police.
e) Proclamation I made in the Juridical Department of the Headquarters of the Wehrmacht in Holland. ding the test in the event of his using the arguments of General Christiansen for his justification ? quences of all attempt directed in March 1945 against the senior SS and Police leader, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Rauter, the highest Police officer in Holland, who was directly subordinated to Himmler. Remembering the consequen ces of the murder of the tyrant Heydrich by the Czec Patriots in 1942, we can well imagine Himmler in 1945, at the height of his power, avenging the plot against one of his nearest and most important lieutenants. It is likewise understandable that the defendant, as head of the administration ordered deterrent measures to be taken in the sense of general prevention after an attack had been made on one of his general Commissioners. He, knowever, did not demand any hostages but only the consummation of duridically closed criminal cases, No. RF 879 proves the truth of these assertions of the witnesses Schoengarth, Lagos, Kolitz and Gerbig, that only men sentenced to death and not 200 but 127 were shot, partly possibly before the originally fixed date of execution.
This also is confirmed by the Criminal commissioner Munt in D II of the report of the Dutch Government, and likewise Dr. Friedrich Wimmer, who was interrogated, by the Court. In this case it is not at all the question of hostages in the original sense, but the justified execution of saboteurs, pilferers, etc., from the viewpoint of the occupation, which was called the shooting of hostages in order, to terrify the population. The fact that the defendant achieved the cutting down of the number of 500 real hostages originally demanded by Himmler to 117 orders of execution can certainly not be a reason for calling him responsible for Himmler's cruelties. as Commissioner of the Reich, had agreed in, directed and supported the trans fer of an enormous number of Dutchmen to Germany. The principal question of the employment of foreign workers has already been widely discussed by other defense counsels. May I be allowed to add a few remarks to this count of the indictment. According to my information received from the statistical Department, 300,000 to 500,000 men out of a population of 9 millions were out of work, a chronic situation in the economic life of the Netherlands, which was more or less rightfully considered one of the richest countires of Europe. At the time of the Reich Commissioner taking over governmental power he considered it his duty to deal with unemployment in the interests of order and peace.
It was evident that this could not be achieved according to liberal principles, the more so that even in countries adhering to the liberal economic order, the demands of the war period were directed unilaterally, as necessitated by war conditions.
Until 1943 the labor commitment was effect according to the voluntary principle. The defendant himself explained that a certain compulsion was used. He had found great understanding in Minister Speer in particular for his plan of enabling the workers to be used in their home country by transferring German undertakings from the Riech to Holland. up by Labor offices, but not by compulsion. As certified by Lammers, the Reich Commissioner refused in 1944 the commitment of 250,000 workers who had been requested by the Reich. The man hunting project of the autumn of 1944, i.e. the mobilizing of the entire able bodied population, was, as contested by witnesses Hirschfeld, Schwebel and Wimmer, a drive by the Wehrmacht, for which the defendant cannot be considered responsible. On the contrary, the fact must be expressly insisted upon that the Reich Commissioner diminished the hardship of these measures by the issue of 1,000,000 postponment certificates, and by urging a regulated transportation possibility as well as the mobilization of workers initiated by him, whereby it should not be overlooked that the steady growth of the opposition movement rightly caused uneasiness to the Wehrmacht, considering the grave danger for the occupation forces by the accumulation of people in the southwestern provinces. defendant was subject to the orders of the central administration within the framework of the Four Year Plan, that but for such orders and demands he would never have sent workers to the Reich, and that he strongly opposed it as far as its execution was not in conformity with the laws of humanity.
As to the next point of the Prosecution, the so-called economic looting of the country, it has likewise to be referred to the first basic interpretations.
The confiscation of raw materials was carried out in the first day of the occupation within the framework of the Four Year Plan, with the collaboration of the Dutch authorities, who thus had the opportunity of diminishing unnecessary hardship. It is evident that the defendant would have preferred to keep the stocks within the compass of his own administration. The defendant insisted in every single case of requisition on proper compensation basis, and prevented the transfer of institutions, as for instance the Margarine factory Dotrecht or the Leyden Icc. works. As, under pressure of the Reich Commissioner, Goering promised that the Dutch people should not be treated worse than German citizens, it would appear according to a not too narrow interpretation, Article 53 of the Hague Concention of Rules of Land War fare had therefore in this point been carried out by the defendant. macht Commander in Holland, dated 9 October 1944 (RF 132), and of Lieutenant Haupt (3002 PS, 196 USA) prove that the confiscations were in the first instance the work of the Wehrmacht. position arises particularly from the fact that Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart is still here, notwithstanding that he has almost resigned. This merely shows that the defendant always diminished or opposed any cases of hardship in this sphere to the best of his ability. The removal of stocks of raw material and rolling stock in the course of a total war after the Invasion, and in view of the approaching enemy, is equally justified within the framework of International law. re-establishment of Dutch economy in Europe. Before the war, according to official statistics, 39% of the gainfully employed population were engaged in trade and industry, 23% in commerce and traffic, and 20% in agriculture.
By being out office from the rest of the world, the shipping industry was completely shut down and merely as an example it way be stated that 60% of the trade passing through Rotterdam-harbor consisted of German goods. The highly developed agriculture was a pronounced luxury cultivation, and dependent on articial fertilisers from South America and concentrated fodder from Canada. We have learnt from the testimony of Dr. Hirschfled, how relatively well Dutch agriculture and particularly the world famous cattle bredding have survivied the war. The was only possible through understandning colloaboration of the Reich Commissioner and the local administration offices, and through their support by the defendant. of Europe, which during the war was almost exclusively governed by Germany and her allies, offered without a doubt great possibilities of disposal for Netherlands trade and industry. It was therefore natural that also in a financial respect an assimilation of the economy to conditions in the German Reich or respectively to the European economic area, had to take place. A regulation of the financial economy was already necessary in view of the price policy. It would exceed the limits Of these trials to state more details here. defendant did not have any influence on the amount of the occupation costs, and did not even have any possibility of examining then; only the civilian budget was settled by the Reich Commissioner with the concent of the Reich and under the supervision of the Reich Treasury. In agreement with the Dutch agencies, civilian requirements were set at 3 million Guilders per month, which was not exceeded. On the contrary, at the end of 1943, a saving of 60 million Guilder resulted which remained in the Netherlands.
was justified by the uniform price policy and could only have an effect favorable to the Netherlands. The relationship between Marks and Guilders was also determined by mutual agreement. A difference took place for the first time when the blocking of foreign exchange was rescinded. Here the views of the previous Dutch Chief, General Secretary Trip and these of the General Commandant Fischback differed. The defendant, who after all was not a finance man, submitted this important question to the central Reich authorities for their decision, and the defendant Goering has expressly stated during the presentation of evidence that he decided in favor of Dr. Fischboeck's opinion against the opinion of Reich Minister for Economy Funk. The defendant therefore cannot be charged with any criminal responsibility, not even that of a culpa in oligendo, if in the place of General Secretary Trip, who had resigned, he now appointed Rest van Toningen, who as former Commissioner of the League of Nations surely was an excellent finance expert. always considered the Clearing debts as true debts. In the Netherlands Government report it is pointed out, that the financial demands of the Reich reached approximately the same total in all occupied western territories and that only the methods differed. The method employed in the Netherlands would have brought the result, if the conclusion of the war had been successful to Germany, that the Netherlands would have had a real demand in the amount of 41 and 1/2 Billion Guilders against the Reich. The whole question therefore does not belong into a criminal trial, but into the peace negotiations. Furthermore, exact books were kept about everything, and so it may only be noted, that the conductors of the Netherlands Tramway Associations always marked down nicely and properly when a member of the *---* used the tramway with free ticket.
is concerned, as well as the looting of the royal property, it must be referred, for brevity's sake, to the results of the presentation of evidence which proved beyond doubt that the defendant particularly attempted to safe-guard the world famous public art treasures and that he reduced arbitrary acts of the Reich Offices, if such occurred, to a minimum. conduct of war, as for instance, art treausres, libraries, etc., is concerned, the defendant did not participate in it. He acquired the few pictures which he bought for Vienna, on the open market. With trespect to the royal property he issued such instructions that this confiscation of property remained only a demonstration. This is also evidence from the Dutch governmental report. The repeatedly mentioned library Resentaliana did not reach the Reich, as the defendant stopped the transport which had been carried out against his will, at Groningen. The case Arnhein seems likewise cleared up by the witnesses Dr. Hirschfeld and Vimmer, and the report of the field economic detachment. (Doc. 81). the economic problems. Before I deal with this main subject, I must absolutely talk about the position of the police in the Netherlands. The Prosecution wants to prove that the police, and namely also the German police, particularly the Security Police, was subordinated to the defendant. Contrary to this attempt, is the fact that in all the signatory powers, with the exception of the Soviets, the police is actually a part of the civil, particularly the domestic administration. The situation in Germany was like this: de facto and not do jure. Himmler was independent, even more powerful than any other Minister, although he was nominally State Secretary of the Interior.