A. Yes. I find myself confirmed that they were not all from the Party.
Q. Very well, but I also notice that these men were specially selected.
A. Yes, as politically experienced men. That is, I did not want any administrative bureaucrats, but men who were experienced in public political life, and not Party political life.
Q. Very well. On what basis did you organise the municipal councils and the regional councils?
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, it seems to the Tribunal -I don't know whether we are right -- that it would be better if you would pause after the sentence rather than after each word.
M. DEBENEST: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Will you please tell me what you mean by municipal and provincial councils ? According to our concept, by the word "council" I understand a body, but I did not establish any bodies, I appointed individual men to direct the administration. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. In the communes, in the Netherlands, there were municipal councils. Whether, in the provinces, you call them municipal councils, there is a provincial council which you might call, if you like, "provincial council".
A Thank you. I understand. The provincial and community represen-
tatives which existed previously I dissolved in 1941. Then in the regulations issued by me I provided for such councils but never actually appointed such councils because the Netherlands population did not cooperate and, as a result, these community councils would have been artificial bodies. This provision of my regulations did not go into effect.
Q But upon what basis did this regulation establish this organization?
A May I ask to have the question repeated?
Q On what basis did this regulation lay down this reorganization?
A I can not recall any certain basis. I assume that it was established by law, if it was provided for at all.
Q Very well. I will put the question in a different manner and perhaps you will be able to answer it. Did you introduce, by means of your regulations, the Fuehrer principle?
A Yes. I called it the "one man responsibility", and I am of the opinion that in these times a "one man responsibility" is always the correct thing.
Q That was, in fact, the system which was equally applied in Germany?
A That is true. Perhaps it wasnot exactly the same, but under the circumstances, I consider that correct. I repeat what I said yesterdays: We were mistaken. We committed the error of considering the order of the occupational forces better than that found in the occupied territory. cance, did it not?
A I certainly thought it did; especially in these territorial districts I had to have a man who was responsible to me for theadministration and not an anonymous majority of a representative body. 1524, the last paragraph. You will see the importance which was attached to that in theReich. It is a note of the Minister of the Interior, dated the 6th of September, 1941. It reads as follows: "Particular importance must be accorded to the security regulations by the introduction of the Fuehrer Principle in themunicipal government of the Netherlands."
A Yes. The Ministry of the Interior was interested in this. I should only like to point out that the Reichsminister of the Interior exerted no influence and, in the second place, these larger powers, in the year 1941, were given at least eighty per cent to mayors who belonged to the democratic party and were therefore my political opponents.
MR. PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, haven't you established, by the questions that you have put to this defendant, that he did alter, to a considerable extent, the form of government in the Netherlands, and that he introduced a different form of government. Isn't that all that you really require for the argument which, no doubt, you intend to present? The details of it don't very much matter, do they?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, I simply wish to demonstrate that, contrary to what the defendant said, he had sought to impose the National Socialist system upon the people of the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, to a large extent, I think he had admitted that. He said just now that he introduced what he called, "one man responsibility", which is another phrase for the Fuehrer principle, and that he had dissolved various organizations of the Netherlands government. All I am suggesting to you is that, having got those general admissions, it isn't necessary to go into details about the exact amount that the government of the Netherlands was interfered with or the exact way in which it was replaced, Isn't it really all stated in a document drawn up by the defendant, namely, the document you have been putting, 997 FS?
M. DEBENEST: More or less, Mr. President, but not entirely.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the only question is whether the details are really very important for the Tribunal.
M. DEBENEST: I thought that those details might have a certain importance, since the governors of the Reich itself attached importance to it, and that, in fact, the whole was part of a plan which had been definitely laid down.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal is inclined to think that you have got all that is necessary for the argument which you are indicating that you would present. If there are any particular details that you think important to us, no doubt you can bring them out.
M. DEBENEST: Quite so, Mr. President.
BY M. DEBENEST:
Q To what end had you centralized the police system?
A May I ask to have the question repeated? directorate?
A I will repeat my testimony of yesterday. The Netherlands police was under three or four different agencies. The Ministry of the Interior, the Justice Ministry, I believe the Army Ministry, and so forth. In the interest of a coordinated police administration, I thought it necessary to coordinate these various police bodies into one and to place it under the Justice Ministry. a National Socialist? Netherlands in the power of the NSDAP and, thereafter, the NSDAP would adapt the internal organization of Netherlands to that of the Reich? In other words, to do something similar to what you had done in Austria.?
Q I repeat. The end which you had in view in the Netherlands, was it not to place the administration of that country in the hands of the NSDAP and, therefore, the NSDAP would adapt the internal organization of the Netherlands in conformity with that of the Reich?
A I do not believe that one can say that. In particular, the policy of the NSB was not that of the NSDAP. The NSB was different in many respects. In the second place, if I had wanted to do that, I would have been able to make Mr. Messer prime minister; that would, have been simpler. The simple explanation is that I used the example of the Reicch in order to set up an administration in the Netherlands, at least in part, which made possible my task of keeping order and guarding security. Yesterday I asserted only that I forced no Dutch citizen to become a National Socialist. I did not deny that a certain coordination was undertaken, from the mistakes which I have repeatedly admitted.
Q Did you use the NSB as an administrative organization? rely only on them. All others sabotaged my orders. of the Court of Leuwarden. Would you tell us the real causes of the cancelation of their appointment. This court had said in public judgment, that those Dutch citizens who were condemned by Dutch courts and sent to prison would be transferred to German concentration camps, mistreated, and executed; as a result, the court was no longer in a position to condemn a Dutch citizen. Dutch citizens were not sent from Netherlands prisons to German concentration camps to be executed there. Amsterdam judges, and through the General Secretary for Justice I had the cou* in Leuwarden requested to continue passing sentence. The court in Leuwarden did not do so. Thereupon, I dismissed this court.
Q Well then, I am holding the document "Verdict of the Court of Appeal of Leuwarden" and there is no question of Dutch prisoners being sent to concentration camps or being tortured or otherwise put to death. All that is mentioned is that the magistrates of that court do not wish to impose a penalt which would result in the condemned people being sent to concentration camps. The document has already been submitted under No. RF-931.
I shall read the judgment concerning the appeal:
"Considering that the Court wishes to take into account the fact that for some time past various terms of imprisonment have been imposed by the Dutch judges upon the people contrary to the intentions of the legislation, and the penalties of the judges have been executed in a manner which aggravates those penalties to such on extent that it is impossible for the judge to foresee or even to suppose the penalty to be inflicted -
THE PRESIDENT: The translation isn't coming through.
THE WITNESS: I am not getting the translation. This document exists in German translation. I believe my defense counsel has it.
M. DEBENEST: I believe so, too.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got a German copy of it?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, I have a German copy, but we cannot find it.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you put it to the defendant?
M. DEBENEST: I would if I had it, but it cannot be found at present.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not summarize the document to the witness, do it in that way? You can give the effect of the judgment.
M. DEBENEST: Perhaps it would be better, Mr. President. BY M. DEBENEST: pronounce a penalty which would cover preventive detention.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you hear the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President, but why do they not want to pass sentence? I had the German translation here in my hands, and I took my expression of the matter from this translation because I did not recall this judgment. I read it here, and I remember that it stated there that these Dutch prisoners were coming to German concentration camps, were being tortured and executed.
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't appear to say anything about that in the judgment before us. There is nothing about that in the judgment, is there?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, it is the defendant who said that, that the judges did not wish to pronounce any such judgments in order that people would not be sent to the camps to be executed or tortured. There is no question of that in the judgment. The only thing that is mentioned is that the tribunal did not want to inflice any penalty which would result in the people being sent away to concentration camps. I do not see that there is anything in this judgment that is derogatory to the defendant or his person.
THE WITNESS: Now I have the German text. It reads:
"The court wants to acknowledge the fact that for some time judges have imposed penalties and that Dutch criminals of the masculine sex, contrary to legal prescription and contrary to the intention of the legislator and the judge, have been executed and are being executed in the camp in a manner which........" and so forth.
Those are the concentration camps which the court meant. That is the circumstance, that prisoners were sent from Dutch prisons to German camps.
THE PRESIDENT: Go, M. Debenest. BY M. DEBENEST: exerted influence on the appointment of teachers, particularly in the very numerous private schools in the Netherlands. Two-thirds of the Netherlands schools were private. I felt it necessary because in these schools there was definitely anti-German tendency which was taught to the students. The Netherlands Education ministry had supervision of these matters. public education.
A I don't believe so. I ordered, or I was willing to have ordered, that clergymen should not be heads of schools. As for clergymen who were teachers, I was quite willing to have their pay reduced by one-third. They were able to continue to teach with two-thirds of their income, and from the money which was saved, I employed 2,000 new, young teachers. teachers' seminar?
A. No. I believe you mean courses which were given in Avigor for those who volunteered for them.
Q. No. What I mean is those teachers who were compelled to go for the course in Germany before their appointment.
A. I do not recall the case. That might be those who were to teach German in the Netherlands schools. In that case, it is possible that I demanded that they first spend a certain time in Germany in order to be employed.
Q. You did, as a matter of fact, make the study of the German language obligatory in many cases?
A. In the 7th and 8th classes, which I introduced. But at the same time, I also had instruction in the Dutch language increased, in order to prove that I did not want to Germanize the Dutch, but only wanted to give them an opportunity to study the German language.
Q. But they already had that opportunity. German was taught simultaneously along with English and French. You imposed the teaching of the German language at the expense of the other two foreign languages.
A. I spoke of the elementary schools in which the introduction of German had not yet been made. It is possibility that in the secondary schools, instruction in German was increased at the expense of instruction in English and French.
Q. Did you not order the closing down of several universities? And why did you do so?
A. I recall only the closing of the Leyden University. When, on the basis of my instructions, Jewish professors of the faculty were dismissed, the students of the University of Leyden went on strike for a long period of time, I thereupon closed the course of study. I do not recall having closed any other universities. The Catholic University in Neumegen and the Calvanistic university in Amsterdam, as far as I can recall, closed of their own accord.
Q. And the high polytechnic school at Delhoft, did you not order that to be closed?
A. Yes. That was a temporary measure. It was reopened, as far as I recall.
Q. How about the high polytechnic school at Tilburg?
A. I do not remember that.
Q. It was in 1943.
A. I do not remember. It is quite possible that for some reason or other it was closed. It was probably that its continuation endangered the interest of the occupation forces, or seemed to me to endanger the interest of the occupation forces.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not necessary to investigate this in detail, is it? If the defendant said that he closed one school without giving an adequate reason why, isn't that sufficient for you to develop your argument?
M. DEBENEST: Certainly, Mr. President. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. In this school, or rather in this university, at Leyden, you attempted later on to turn it into a national socialist university?
A. If you consider the appointment of two or three professors out of about 100 professors or 50 professors as such, I should have to say yes. I cannot recall any other measures. Once an idea was presented to me to establish a university in Leyden at which German and Dutch students could study, and that study there would be recognized in Germany. This did not come about.
Q. Anyway, you admit that you had the intention of creating this school?
A. "Intention" is a little too strong. These ideas were discussed. There was another idea in the Netherlands. In the German Wehrmacht we had a number of university students who had not been able to continue their studies for understandable reasons. It was considered at that time for these university students in the Wehrmacht to hold courses at Leyden, which would be a sort of continuation of their studies.
Q. I have here a document, F-803, which I submit under the number RF-152; This letter is rather a report from the Ministry of National Education of the Netherlands. It is on Page 23 of the French version and Page 15 of the German version.
A. Page 16?
Q. Yes, 16.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you go on, Mr. Debenest?
M. DEBENEST: I am allowing the defendant to find the place. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q. Have you found it on Page 16?
A. Yes.
Q. I shall read the passage to you.
"Attempts were made to make the University of Leyden a national socialist university by appointing national socialist professors. However, these attempts failed as a result of the firm attitude taken by the professors and by the students. The professors over --"
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Is that on Page 15?
M. DEBENEST: That is on Page 23 of the French text, in the last paragraph
THE PRESIDENT: What is it?
M. DEBENEST: It is F-803.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not ask what document it was. I asked what is the nature of the document.
M. DEBENEST: I indicated to the Tribunal that it was a report of the Minister for Public Education in the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT: Was he appointed by the defendant, or appointed before the war?
M. DEBENEST: It is the present ministry of education. I would point out to the Tribunal that I am obliged to go into a certain amount of detail, because when the French prosecution presented its case, we did not have all the documents at our disposal, and the Dutch government asked us to develop their case in the measure in which we would find it possible. I might add that today I am producing documents which are emanating from the Dutch government.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Page 23?
M. DEBENEST: Page 23 of the French text, six lines from the bottom of the page in the last paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
M. DEBENEST: "Attempts were made to make the University of Leyden a national socialist university by appointing national socialist professors. However, these attempts failed as a result of the firm attitude taken by the professors and by the students. The professors even presented their collective resignation in the month of May, 1943, and as there was no reaction to it, they presented it a second time, and in the month of September, at Leyden University."
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, this defendant has already said, has he not? This is Leyden University that you are speaking about, is it not?
M. DEBENEST: Yes, Mr. President, Layden University. That is definitely as I understood it that there has been a question of a creation of a National Socialist school in Leyden.
That he had not put this project into effect. On the other hand, it appears from this document that it was not of his will, but that it was a result of an application by the teachers. That is what I wanted to bring out.
WITNESS: May I comment on that? BY M. DEBENEST: only in this document. I repeat my assertion that upon an inspection of the University, it was found that only three professors were National Socialists. This did not mean, by any means, that the University was National Socialistic, and this document shows clearly what my attitude was. I did nothing at all against the gesture of resignation of the Professors. The second attempt was also unanswered. That arrest occurred then, in connection with the fact that part of the Professors were otherwise suspected, and these Professors, were sent to Michelgestell, that's this transit camp in which the members played golf.
Q Then that was a coincidence?
A I did not even say that. After the second attempt, we certainly investigated it. forced labor? orders for exemption of all students. Technical students were given exemption and University students who were actually studying were not in the labor commitment either. regulation. It is the regulation of 11 March 1943, No. 27. "Each student who, after the putting into effect of the present regulation and who, under the conditions of Paragraph 1, have successfully passed the final examination, or a similar test, are compelled to take work for a determined period under the labor commitment."
Is that your ordnance?
A Does it say labor service?
Q I haven't got the German version in front of me. It is regulation No. 27.
A Ordnance 27. May I ask what paragraph it is?
A That is correct. It says, "Students who have taken the final examina tion, that is, who are no longer studying but are finished, and Members of the same age groups shall be drafted for labor commitments, and those exempted by me now have to make up for this labor commitment."
A I don't recall any obstacles.
Q Good. Will you please lock at the following decree, that is, No. 28 which is a decree of Secretary General Van Damm. This decree imposes upon the students the furnishing of a declaration of loyalty.
A Yes, that's correct.
Q What were the consequences?
A The consequences were not understandable for me. The Universities were, at that time, the seat of anti-German activities. I demanded that this declaration be given by the university students, which in effect was that they uphold the laws in effect in the occupied Netherland territories, that they would avoid any actions against the German Reich, the Wehrmacht, and of the Netherlands authorities, and that they would not interfere with public order at the University. ment. Those who did make it were able to continue their studies without any interruption. But the Dutch professors, by way of sabotage, refused to give them any instructions. happened to them? age groups which had been drafted for labor commitments by me, they were drafted.
Q Did you not make applicable to the University student the Fuehrer principle?
But I gave the director of the University greater power because I demanded greater responsibility from him.
Q Very well then. A certain National Socialist propaganda, was there not such a thing in the Universities? and report to lectures organized by the Party.
A I don't know, butit is possible. of teaching and you also interfered so that the cultural life of people of the Netherlands was hindered? not true? obligatory and that you never imposed payment of dues?
A That is not correct. Belonging to the trade chambers, I issued an order that the head of the chambers call upon the members to pay their dues. I refused to conclude, from the failure to pay dues, that a person was no longer a member of the Chamber, and consequently, of this trade, or to collect the dues by way of court action. manner with the medical profession?
A I was thinking of the medical Chamber. Certain circles demanded that the members who did not pay their dues would be prohibited from carrying out their profession, or at least, the dates should be collected through court pressure. I told these gentlemen, as it was not possible to convince the members, not to assert any force.
Q What were these circles?
Q Was it not the NSB for instance?
A In what connection?
Q Always talking of -- Wasn't it yourself who said that certain circles had demanded the payment of contributions? I am asking, what circles? I am not quite clear about the point of the question.
Q I am just asking you to say exactly what you mean by circles. It is you yourself, who used circles, unless it is a mistranslation.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, the Tribunal thinks really, that you are spending too much time on these small subjects. We have spent the whole afternoon on these various measures which the defendant introduced in the Netherlands. We spoke already of his own admission that he was offering no force of administration in the Netherlands. BY M. DEBENEST:
Q Did you not also take part in the persecution of the churches?
A I don't know whether the measures could be called "persecution of the church", but I took measures concerning the churches.
Q What measures in particular? What measures? fiscation of various Netherlands cloisters. One of them was turned into a German school and the church building was torn down. tion camps? Is that correct?
A I do not understand. Please speak more slowly. a concentration camp. Is that right?
A No, I did not say that. I saidonly that in the Jewish camp at Westerborg there were Catholic and Protestant Jews, who were visited on Sundays by a clergyman from outside. I do not believe that at the concentration camps under the German Police clergymen were allowed to visit.
Q Just one question as regards the press. Did the press attain a certain--I repeat, a certain--liberty during the time of the occupation?
A From my point of view, much to little. The press was under fairly strict control of the Propaganda Ministry. The editors were employed on the basis of judgment by the Netherlands Propaganda Ministry. I believe that it is a matter of course for an occupying power that for such an important instrument one takes only people who have a certain positive attitude. I would have wished that these men could have been given much more freedom of speech, and I believe that I can say that so far as I exerted any influence, this was done, but the Reichs Commissioner in the Netherlands was not almighty.
Q Were there no reprisal measures taken against a certain newspaper?
THE PRESIDENT: We might get on a little bit more quickly. There is a very long pause between the question and the answer.
THE WITNESS: I must first recall the circumstances, I do not know these questions. They cover a period of five years. I must think ever carefully what actually happened in individual cases. For example, I can say No, but immediately I am sure that the answer is wrong. For example, reprisalsI know that once in the Hague the office of a newspaper was blown up. That was a measure instituted by the Security Police. That was the seat of an illegal propaganda group. BY M. DEBENEST: Who was the initiator of this measure? question correctly. The Security Police told me that a number of Jews had themselves sterilized by Jewish doctors and that thereupon these Jews were relieved of all limitations and of the wearing of the Jewish Star.
These were not Jews who otherwise would have been evacuated, but they were to remain in Holland, but under restrictions.
I asked the Higher SS and Police Leader to invesitgate the matter. He informed me that this was a very serious operation in the case of women, and thereupon I asked the Higher SS and Police Chief, at least in the case of women, to forbid this action. Then the Christian churches protested to me. I answered the Christian Churches. I assume you have the letter in your files. I described the state of affairs. I pointed out expressly that no compylsion would be exerted here. Shortly thereafter this action was finished. As I heard, the Christian churches informed the Jews, and when they were sure that no compulsion would be exerted on them, they no longer submitted themselves to this operation. I myself gave back their property to the Jews in question, and the matter was ended, although I must say today that the further away one is from this period of time, the less understandable it is.
Q But was it you who had the idea of this sterilization? which I shall submit under Number RF1526. It is an affidavit of Hildegard Kunze an agent of the RSHA. Third Paragraph:
"I remember that either in this report or in another report he suggested that all Jews who were authorized to remain in Holland should be sterilized." report in the third paragraph is the one that she mentions in paragraph (2) and which she ascribes to me. It is out of the question that she saw any report from me wherein I made such a suggestion. The case was reported to me as a fact by the Security Police, as a fact which had already come about or which was in progress.
Q So you contend that it was not you but the police. In any case you tolerated it?
AAs far as the male Jews were concerned, I tolerated it for a time; that is true. It was made clear to me that no direct compulsion was exerted on these Jews, no threat of their disadvantage.
THE PRESIDENT: We might adjourn for ten minutes.
BY M. DEBENEST: work in Germany? people to work in Germany, and I testified to that yesterday.
Q Perfect. I will therefore passs on to another subject.
Didn't you also introduce certain legislative clauses as far as nationalization was concerned?
A You mean the Netherlands people? to concentration camps in Germany of Dutch citizens? To what extent did you participate in this, and how did you participate in it? Staatsbuergerschaft.
A Quite a few Dutch reported and volunteered for the Waffen SS. It was the intention of the Fuehrer to give them German citizenship. However, with that they would have lost their Dutch citizenship, and that was something they certainly did not want to happen. Therefore, I issued a decree that when the acquisition of German citizenship was taking place, the Dutch citizenship was not lost for a year, during which time the person involved could make his decision. mine. few minutes ago. Did you take part in arresting, interning, and deporting to concentration camps Dutch citizens, and under what conditions? camp was exclusively a matter for the police. I do not recall a single instance in which I induced the police to put any Dutchmen into a German concentration camp. Of course, it may have happened that I gave the German police the task of taking Dutchmen to Herzogenbosch, especially at the time when the Netherlands courts were very lenient with people dealt on the black market, and who dealt in black market meat.
At that time I demanded their internment in a concentration camp for two or three months' duration. may be assured that I will tell you everything exactly as it is in my memory.
Q No, no; your answer is sufficient.
Did you ever participate in the seizure of hostages and in their execution? took place in the year 1942. As to that occasion I actually testified to my participation. The so-called shooting of hostage, beginning with July of 1944, was not actually a shooting of hostages, but it was rather an execution which had been transferred to the police on the basis of a Fuehrer decree.
I myself never gave the command for any single shooting. But I would like to repeat: If, for instance, I called the attention of the police to the fact that in any certain locality of the Netherlands an illegal resistance movement was rising rapidly, and gave the police instructions to check and investigate the case, it was perfectly obvious to me that the leaders of the resistance movement could be arrested by the police and, on the basis of the Fuehrer decree, these people would be shot.