dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SEYSS-INQUART: I stated yesterday that I recall only one actual hostage case, which took place in 1942, and I told you what I had to do with it. The so-called shooting of hostages, beginning with July 1944, was not actually shooting of hostages, but rather executions carried out by the Police on the basis of a Fuehrer decree. I myself never ordered a 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 causing much trouble, and gave the Police instructions to investigate the case, it was perfectly obvious to me that the leaders of the resistance movement could be arrested by the Police who, on the basis of the Fuehrer decree, would shoot them. But I must repeat: I had to meet my responsibility, even in the face of a difficult situation whereby those who were guilty-that is, legally guilty and not morally, because morally I probably would have acted the same way as they did-those who were guilty were not put before a court.
M. DEBENEST: As far as the facts which you mentioned yesterday are concerned, this deals with hostages who were shot following an attempt upon the railroad at Rotterdam?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes.
M. DEBENEST: Who selected those hostages?
SEYSS-INQUART: Hostages were selected by the Security Police, and the Higher SS and Police Leader submitted this list to me. As I testified yesterday, I asked why he selected the people that he did and he explained that to me. Then, in checking the matter over, I crossed off the names of fathers who had several children. I returned the list to the Higher SS and Police Leader and asked him to take my attitude into consideration in the execution of this decree. Therefore, through my direct intervention, I saved fathers of several children from being shot.
M. DEBENEST: How many hostages were selected in this manner?
SEYSS-INQUART: I cannot recall that today, perhaps 12 or 15. Out of that number, 5 remained. That was the number finally arrived at after cutting doom on the original figure of 50 or 25.
M. DEBENEST: I am going to have you shown a document concerning the seizure of these hostages. It is Document F-886, which becomes RF-1527. This is a statement made by General Christiansen, or rather, it is a copy of a statement made by General Christiansen, which was taken from an affidavit by the head of the Dutch Delegation. Will you please look at the fourth paragraph before the end of the first statement?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the original? \
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, I just said that this was only the copy of a statement which comes from an affidavit of the head of the Dutch Delegation. If the Tribunal desires, we can certainly have the original submitted as soon as we have received it.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, there is no certificate at all identifying the copy, is there?
M. DEBENEST: I thought, Mr. President, that an affidavit of the representative of the Dutch Delegation existed in Nuremberg. On the original-I beg your pardon; it was not reproduced, but the original does contain the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: What are you going to prove by this affidavit? About the hostages?
M. DEBENEST: Yes, Mr. President. It says that the defendant himself selected these hostages.
THE PRESIDENT: In what proceedings was the affidavit made?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, it was during the proceedings which were taken against General Christiansen in the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you say it is admissible under the Charter?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, I believe that we have already submitted documents of this nature-that is, copies-to the Tribunal, copies which have been certified as being copies of an original which is being kept in the country where it originated.
THE PRESIDENT: If the original from which the copy was taken were a document which is admissible under the Charter, that would probably be so, if there were an authentic certificate saying it was a true copy of a document which is admissible under the Charter. But is this document admissible under the Charter?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, I believe that it is admissible because it is purely and simply an affidavit. It is an affidavit which has been legally received in the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT: And you haven't got a German edition of it?
M. DEBENEST: Yes, Mr. President, this document has been translated into German. I have had it translated into German.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, this appears to be a document which is in Dutch, and General Christiansen, who gave the evidence, was a German, was he not?
M. DEBENEST: No, Mr. President, the original affidavit is in Dutch.
THE PRESIDENT: The original is in Dutch, is it?
M. DEBENEST: The original is in Dutch, yes. That is according to the information that I have. Yes, the original is in the Dutch language.
THE PRESIDENT: And what was the affidavit given in, what proceeding?
M. DEBENEST: In Dutch, with interpreters.
THE PRESIDENT: I mean what proceeding, before what court?
M. DEBENEST: I suppose before a Dutch Military Tribunal. Yes, before a Dutch Military Tribunal.
M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): May it please the Tribunal...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Dubost.
M. DUBOST: This document is an excerpt from criminal proceedings in the Netherlands taken against General Christiansen upon the request of the Dutch Government. The Minister of Justice of the Netherlands has let us have an extract of the minutes which were taken in the Netherlands in legal form during the proceedings which were carried on against General Christiansen. The text was, therefore, made in the Dutch language. red; PRESIDENT: This deposition, this affidavit is in Dutch. Now, General Christiansen, is he a Dutchman?
M. DUBOST: General Christiansen is a German.
THE PRESIDENT: If he is a German why does he give his evidence in Dutch? If he did not give it in Dutch, why isn't the German copy here? You see, we have a certificate here from a colonel, who is said to represent the Government of the Netherlands, that this document is a true copy of General Christiansen's evidence. Well, the document which we have here is in Dutch, and if General Christiansen gave his evidence in German, then it can't be a true copy and it is subject to the translation in Dutch. What do you say to that?
M. DUBOST: The deposition made by General Christiansen was received through an interpreter in conformity with Dutch procedure and was transcribed in Dutch. It is not possible for a Dutch Tribunal to receive minutes in a foreign language. The minutes are taken in the Dutch language.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, may I just say a few words in this connection, please? I know, for I am in contact with the defense counsel for General Christiansen, that there was a court-martial proceeding on the part of the English instituted against him. I have misgivings about this document, since it is not confirmed, and we cannot judge whether the interpreter who interpreted from German into Dutch was a suitable and' adequate interpreter; and also, since in this manner I do not have the opportunity, as defense counsel, to cross-examine General Christiansen. It seems to me that through the mere submission of this document the rights of the Defense have been greatly infringed upon.
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, I have just been informed that General Christiansen is right now imprisoned at Arnhem by the Dutch authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Debenest, the Tribunal will admit the document if you get a certificate from the court who tried General Christiansen. But the only certificate you have at present that this is a true copy is from a Colonel Van-some name that I can't pronounce. There is nothing to show, except his statement, that he is an official on behalf of the Dutch Government. We don't know who he is.
M. DEBENEST: Certainly, Mr. President, but we will get the original for the Tribunal later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you will submit an original later on.
M. DEBENEST: Van-is the accredited representative of the Dutch Government with the French Delegation.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I have only a French translation in front of me which reads as follows: "Christiansen is not here as a witness, but rather as a defendant, and he was interrogated as such, and he is not bound by oath to tell the truth. He can say whatever he pleases without being held responsible for what he says." For that reason alone, I believe the document is to be refused.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, the reason why the Tribunal is prepared to admit the document, when it is certain that it has got the document, is that Article 21 provides that reports, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes and the reports and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the United Nations, shall be taken judicial notice of. It is for that reason that the document is, in the opinion of the Tribunal, admissible when the authentic document is before it. [Turning to M. Debenest.] Now, you undertake then to produce a properly certified copy of the document.
M. DEBENEST: Certainly, Mr. President.
SEYSS-INQUART: May I please comment on this document?
M. DEBENEST: Will you kindly wait until I read to you the passage which I wish to submit to you. It is on Page 4 of the French text, the fourth paragraph before the end of the first statement, the second paragraph of the page: "I think that I can recall that already upon that occasion Seyss-Inquart said that five hostages would be shot. I didn't know any one among these hostages. I did not select these five men, and I had nothing whatsoever to do with their execution. It was a case of a purely political nature in which I became involved in my capacity as commander." Now you may give us your attitude if you choose to do so.
SEYSS-INQUART: The picture which is given here by General Christiansen as a defendant, not as a witness, completely coincides with the picture that I gave. In the beginning of this record General Christiansen says that Field Marshal Von Rundstedt and the OKW gave him the order through his chief of staff to take the hostages, and he says further that through his legal department he had issued a proclamation that the hostages would answer with their lives if further sabotage acts should take place. He then says that they did take place, and he contacted the Commander, West or the OKW and received the answer that the hostages were to be used. Then he goes on to relate that he advised me of this order, indicating that the original ruling with regard to the hostages still applied, and so I said that 5 of them were to be executed. That is what I have always maintained, and I also said that 25 were to have been killed and that I negotiated for the lives of the remaining 20. The report, therefore, is fundamentally correct and agrees with what I have said.
M. DEBENEST: But in this document no mention is made of 25 hostages. We are only dealing with the fact here it was you who chose these 5 hostages. Take the following page of the statement of 5 March 1946. General Christiansen declares: "I remember now that Lieutenant Colonel Kluter also took part in this conference. There were thus seven participants in all. I therefore transmitted the order to use hostages and Seyss-Inquart said immediately that five men were to be apprehended. You are asking why it was as simple as all that. Obviously Seyss-Inquart had authority to do this." It was therefore you, in fact, who designated and chose these hostages?
SEYSS-INQUART: The repetition of these words in no wise changes the fact that 25 hostages were demanded, as the witnesses will confirm to you tomorrow, and that I intervened so that only 5 were demanded, and that altogether the entire matter was in the hands of the Army and the Higher SS and Police Leader; the proclamations were issued in the names of both of them. As Reich Commissioner I assumed the right to reduce the number of hostages as much as possible. The final figure was determined by the Commander and the Higher SS and Police Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, did you read the last paragraph in the affidavit, Page 4 at the bottom?
M. DEBENEST: That is right, Mr. President, I did not read it. I am going to read it. "I will ask you to note that at this conference with Seyss-Inquart he expressly reserved the right to appoint hostages."
SEYSS-INQUART: I can say nothing more than what I have already said. The selection of hostages was probably made by the Higher SS and Police Leader according to directives which he had received from the Armed Forces commander, or, rather, from his superiors. I myself asked to be shown this list, for I, as Reich Commissioner, was interested in knowing who was to be selected, and I tried to exert influence to the effect, as I have already said, that the fathers of many children were crossed off this list. Furthermore, I do not wish to be polemic in face of the subjective descriptions of General Christiansen. We got along very well together in our work. The Court will decide whether I am not telling the truth or whether he is mistaken in this case.
M. DEBENEST: That is exactly what I was thinking. You therefore do contend that this is the only case in which you intervened as far as the seizure and execution of hostages is concerned?
SEYSS-INQUART: I believe so, yes.
M. DEBENEST: Did you know about the execution of hostages following the assassination attempt made on Rauter?
SEYSS-INQUART: I stated the extent of my information yesterday. I did not know the exact figure. It was known to me, however, that shootings were taking place, the shooting of those men who, on the basis of their demeanor and actions, were to be shot under the decree of the Fuehrer by the Security Police. The actual figure was made known to me later.
M. DEBENEST: Consequently, you did not intervene in this question of the shooting of hostages at all?
SEYSS-INQUART: No, I cannot say that, for I discussed at length with the deputy of the Higher SS and Police Leader what should be done in such a case-for after all it was a very grave matter-and whether he should carry out these executions; I said yesterday that I agreed. I declared yesterday that I could not contradict him in his decision actually to carry out the executions at this point.
M. DEBENEST: Who was this Police Leader?
SEYSS-INQUART: Dr. Schongarth.
M. DEBENEST: What do you think of Dr. Schongarth?
SEYSS-INQUART: I believe that Dr. Schongarth was not a man who was especially harsh and very eager to deal with this matter. He must certainly have found the matter unpleasant.
M. DEBENEST: But was he a man whom one could trust?
SEYSS-INQUART: I always had confidence in him.
M. DEBENEST: Very well. In that case, I am going to have a document shown to you, Document F-879, which I submit under Number RF-1528. I wish to inform the Tribunal that once again this is a copy of proceedings which was received at Amsterdam by the War Crimes agency. It is signed by people who were questioned, and it also comes with an affidavit as in the preceding case. Here again, if the Tribunal wishes it, I shall obtain the original for the Tribunal later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you will submit the original as before.
M. DEBENEST: Certainly, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Or else get it from somebody in the Government.
M. DEBENEST: Very well, Mr. President. Defendant, will you kindly look at Dr. Schongarth's statement on Page 5 of the French document; it is the third statement, the fifth paragraph. Have you found it?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes, I have.
M. DEBENEST: This is what Dr. Schongarth says: "After the investigation, I personally went to see Dr. SeyssInquart, the Reich Commissioner in Holland, with whom I discussed the matter. Seyss-Inquart then gave me the order to take increased measures of reprisal by executing 200 prisoners, who were condemned to death, at the place where the assassination attempt had been made. "This execution was aimed at intimidating the population. It was announced by a public notice that a large number of persons would be executed because of this assassination attempt."
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes.
M. DEBENEST: Well?
SEYSS-INQUART: In any event, it is confirmed that we are concerned here with the shooting of Dutchmen who, as this man says, had been condemned to death for having participated in some sort of sabotage or other matter; they were, in line with the Fuehrer decree, to be shot anyhow. That is the first and most important point. The question is whether the figure of 200 was mentioned; and the question further is whether I demanded that number. I still maintain what I have already said in reply to the testimony of former collaborators; but I also maintain my own declaration to the effect that I never even would have had the power to give an order like that to Dr. Schongarth. He was not at all my subordinate in such things. I certainly did state that we must act with severity in this case. That is quite right. The figure of 200-I even believe it was 230-only came to my knowledge later. The public notice which he mentions here is signed by Dr. Schongarth. M: DEBENEST: You did not say "severe measures"; you said "stricter measures of reprisal." It's not quite the same thing.
SEYSS-INQUART: I did not understand the question.
M. DEBENEST: I repeat: You did not say "severe measures," but "stricter measures of reprisal."
SEYSS-INQUART: The severe measures which were to be taken would, of course, serve to intimidate. But we were not concerned with reprisals; that is, the shooting of people whom otherwise one would have had no reason to shoot.
M. DEBENEST: But it seems to me that this document is extremely clear. It deals with "measures of reprisal" following the assassination attempt against Rauter.
SEYSS-INQUART: Which were to be carried through in such a way that Dutchmen were executed who would have been executed in any event; for he confirms here that the people had been condemned to death.
M. DEBENEST: Will you kindly repeat the explanation. I did not get the translation.
SEYSS-INQUART: Here we were concerned with the shooting of men who would have been shot in any event, for it says specifically here that they had already been sentenced to death, as it says in the next paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: I already wrote it down 5 minutes ago. You have said it already. He has said it already. The document speaks for itself, M. Debenest.
M. DEBENEST: Very well, Mr. President. You stated yesterday as well that no hostage had been shot at the hostage camp of Michelsgestel
SEYSS-INQUART: That is unknown to me.
M. DEBENEST: Nevertheless, you stated that yesterday. Or are you still claiming that none had been shot at that time?
THE PRESIDENT: Will the defendant answer, please? Don't just nod your head. It does not come through the sound system.
SEYSS-INQUART: I wanted to say only that I know of no case. Perhaps on some occasion such a case did occur, but I do not remember.
M. DEBENEST: Nevertheless, you are not denying that some may have been shot?
SEYSS-INQUART: There might have been reasons which necessitated such a shooting. But I do not recall a single case.
M. DEBENEST: The hostages who were executed in this manner, were they all people who had been sentenced to death?
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not know because I do not know whether anyone was shot at all.
M. DEBENEST: In the case of the execution of hostages at Rotterdam, was not one of the hostages arrested the day before the execution, and shot the very next day?
SEYSS-INQUART: I am not informed on that point. I can see from this document that we are talking about hostages from Michelsgestel. I do not recall that hostages were taken from this camp. But in the circumstances it may have been possible, for this was an actual hostage case.
M. DEBENEST: No. I am not asking you whether hostages were taken from the camp of Michelsgestel. I am asking you, in the case of the execution of the hostages of Rotterdam, whether one was not arrested on the eve of the execution and shot the next day?
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not know.
M. DEBENEST: I will give you the name. Maybe that will help you remember the case: Baron Schimmelpennink.
SEYSS-INQUART: As far as I recall Baron Schimmelpennink came from Zeeland. But I do not know any more than that.
M. DEBENEST: You do not know under what conditions he was arrested, and why?
SEYSS-INQUART: No; I know only that a Baron Schimmelpennink was among those five hostages who were shot.
M. DEBENEST: You therefore do admit that numerous executions followed the setting up of the summary justice courts in the Netherlands by you?
SEYSS-INQUART: No. That is certainly not the case. For these shootings, from the middle of 1944 onward, cannot be traced to my directives and my summary justice courts, but rather to a direct decree of the Fuehrer.
M. DEBENEST: You therefore claim that there was not a single case of execution as a result of your order of 1 May 1943?
SEYSS-INQUART: The executions did not come about on the basis of summary courts which I had provided for in this decree against violations of this decree. It is possible that the Higher SS and Police Leader used this decree as the basis for his decisions.
M. DEBENEST: But you are still contending that you had no power over this Police Leader?
SEYSS-INQUART: I did not have the power to command him, but we certainly worked together in a close understanding.
M. DEBENEST: He therefore consulted you about all reprisal measures?
SEYSS-INQUART: No. How do you mean?
M. DEBENEST: Were not the reprisal measures which were taken or which were announced by him applied with your agreement?
SEYSS-INQUART: The reprisal measures and his announcements were made in his domain. In many cases I myself did not learn of these announcements at all, or not until afterward. There was no directive which I gave for these measures. I again and again refer to the fact that this resulted from the Fuehrer decree given by Himmler to the Police.
M. DEBENEST: Very well. Were you in favor of these measures of reprisal?
SEYSS-INQUART: I fully approved of action being taken against members of the resistance movement who committed sabotage and other acts. There were no other means for taking steps except arrest by the Police, passing of judgment on the part of the Higher SS and Police Leader, and shooting on the part of the Police. I could not oppose these measures. You may interpret that as agreement, if you want to. I would have preferred it if courts had given the judgment.
M. DEBENEST: Yes, certainly. I am going to have you shown Document F-860, which is a letter which I am submitting under Number RF-1529. This is a letter written by you, dated 30 November 1942 and addressed to Dr. Lammers. I will pass over the first part. I am sorry. I forgot to tell the Tribunal that the originals are not here; they are just photostat copies. But I have in my possession an affidavit which I shall submit to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: It is all right, M. Debenest. You need not bother to give us an affidavit. We have the photostat copy.
M. DEBENEST: I will pass over the first two pages of the French copy, and will pass on to the second paragraph. "The drafting of the special police law (Polizeistandrecht) was effected in accordance with the views expressed in a letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS. I believe that I have conformed with all the wishes which are contained in it, only I would not like to appoint the Higher SS and Police Leader as court administrator, for, from the point of view of the Dutch, this would mean a curtailment of the authority of the Reich Commissioner, particularly in view of the fact that the Reich Commissioner is designated in the Fuehrer decree as the guardian of the interests of the Reich. However, in the decree I have assigned to the Higher SS and Police Leader all the powers which a court administrator needs. I believe that this special police law may be a useful instrument and to a certain extent an example for all further regulations." You did, therefore) have authority over the Police Leader?