dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M. DEBENEST: Then I shall read you the translation of the judgment; you may check it: "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 an extent that it is impossible for the judge to foresee or even to suppose the penalty to be inflicted . . ."
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: Certainly, Mr. President. This judgment sets out in detail that the judges no longer wish to pronounce a penalty which might result in preventive detention.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you hear the question?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes, Mr. President, but why did they not want to pass sentence? I had the German translation here in my hands, and I took this translation as my basis in this matter because I did not recall this judgment. I read it here, and I remember that it stated there that these Dutch prisoners were to go to German concentration camps to be 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, the defendant claims that the judges did not wish to pronounce any such judgment any more so that people would not be sent to concentration camps to be tortured or executed. There is no question of that in the judgment. The only thing that is mentioned is that the court did not want to inflict 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 which the defendant might consider as a personal insult or injury.
SEYSS-INQUART: Now I have the German text. It reads: "The court wishes to take into consideration the fact that for some time judges have imposed penalties and that Dutch criminals of male 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. It concerns the fact that prisoners were sent from Dutch prisons to German camps.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, M. Debenest.
M. DEBENEST: As regards education, did you not bring about very extensive changes?
SEYSS-INQUART: I introduced the supervision of the curriculum of the schools, and I made my influence felt in 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 an anti-German tendency which was taught to the students. The Netherlands Education Ministry had the supervision of these matters.
M. DEBENEST: You thereby prevented a large number of clergymen from taking part in public education.
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not believe so. I ordered, or agreed to the order, that clergymen should not be heads of schools. As for clergymen who were teachers, I agreed to have their pay reduced by one-third. They were able to continue to teach with two-thirds of their income, and with the money which was saved I gave positions to 4,000 young teachers out of work.
M. DEBENEST: Talking of teachers, did you not cause the creation of a special school for teachers?
SEYSS-INQUART: No. I believe you mean courses which were given in Amersfoort or for those who volunteered for them.
M. DEBENEST: No. What I mean is those teachers who were compelled to take a course for a few months in Germany before their appointment.
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not recall the case. It 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.
M. DEBENEST: You did, as a matter of fact, make the study of the German language in certain classes obligatory?
SEYSS-INQUART: In the 7th grade, and also in the 8th grade which I newly 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.
M. DEBENEST: 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.
SEYSS-INQUART: I spoke of the elementary schools in which the study of German had not yet been introduced. It is conceivable that in the secondary schools instruction in German was increased at the expense of instruction in English and French.
M. DEBENEST: Did you not order the closing down of several universities? And why did you do so?
SEYSS-INQUART: I recall only the closing of the University of Leyden. When, according to my instructions, Jewish professors of the faculty were dismissed, the students of the University of Leyden went on strike for an extended period of time, and I thereupon closed its doors. I do not recall having closed any other universities. The Catholic University in Nijmegen and the Calvinistic University in Amsterdam, as far as I can recall, closed of their own accord.
M. DEBENEST: And the Polytechnic Institute at Delft? You did not order it to be closed either?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes. That was a temporary measure. It was reopened, as far as I recall. 11 June 4;
M. DEBENEST: How about the Catholic Commercial College at Tilburg?
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not remember that.
M. DEBENEST: It was in 1943.
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not remember. It is quite possible that for some reason or other it was closed, probably because it seemed to me to endanger the interests 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. [Turning to the defendant.] Later on you attempted to turn the University of Leyden into a National Socialist university?
SEYSS-INQUART: If you consider the appointment of 2 or 3 professors out of some 100 or 50 professors as such, I should have to say yes. I cannot recall any other measures. Once it was suggested to me to establish a university in Leyden at which German and Dutch students could study, and that studies there should find suitable recognition in Germany. This did not come about.
M. DEBENEST: Anyway, you admit that you had the intention of creating this school?
SEYSS-INQUART: "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 to hold courses at Leyden for these university students in the Wehrmacht, which would be a sort of continuation of their studies.
M. DEBENEST: I shall have Document F-803 presented to you, which I submit under the Number RF-1525. This is a report from the Ministry of National Education of the Netherlands. It is on Page 23 of the French version and Page 16 of the German version. I shall read the passage: "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. Certain professors even..."
THE PRESIDENT: 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 pointed out to the Tribunal that it was a report of the Minister for Education in the Netherlands.
THE PRESIDENT: Was he appointed by the defendant, or appointed before the war?
M. DEBENEST: It is the present Minister for 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 is anxious to have these facts presented in as detailed a manner as possible. I might add that today I am producing documents which emanate from the Dutch Government.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Page 23?
M. DEBENEST: Page 23 of the French text, six lines before the end of 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 May 1942, and as there was no reaction to it, they presented it a second time in September of the same year."
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, the defendant has already said this, has he not? This is Leyden University that you are speaking about, is it not? ,
M. DEBENEST: Yes, Mr. President. If I understood correctly, I believe the defendant said that there had been question of creating a National Socialist school in Leyden but that he had not put this project into effect. On the other hand, it appears from this document that it did not depend upon him but that it was a result of the attitude of the teachers. That is what I wanted to bring out.
SEYSS-INQUART: May I comment on that?
M. DEBENEST: Certainly.
SEYSS-INQUART: The fact that there was an attempt to make Leyden a National Socialist university is stated only in this document. I repeat my assertion that I appointed two, or at the most three, professors who were National Socialists, and this document shows clearly what my attitude was. I did nothing at all against the demonstrative gesture of resignation of the professors. The second attempt was also unanswered. The fact that arrests occurred then is connected with the fact that part of the professors were otherwise suspected, and these professors were sent to St. Michelsgestel. That is this concentration camp where the inmates played golf.
M. DEBENEST: Then that was a coincidence?
SEYSS-INQUART: I would not say that. Certainly after the second attempt we checked up on the gentlemen a little.
M. DEBENEST: Did you not take measures to oblige the students to do forced labor?
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not think that this was done as long as they were studying, for I had issued express orders for the exemption of all students. Advanced technical students were given exemption and university students who were actually studying or had fulfilled the requirements for study were not forced to work, either, as far as I remember.
M. DEBENEST: Well, I shall give you briefly an account of Paragraph 2 of your regulation. It is the Ordinance of 11 March 1943, Number 27. "Any student who, after the present relation has been put into effect, has successfully passed the final examination or a similar test in one of the studies mentioned in Paragraph 1 and specified as such by orders of the Secretary General in the Ministry for Education, Science, and Culture, is compelled to work for a determined period within the scope of the allocation of labor." Is that your ordinance?
SEYSS-INQUART: Does it say labor service?
M. DEBENEST: I have not got the German version in front of me. It is Ordinance Number 27.
SEYSS-INQUART: Ordinance Number 27. May I ask what paragraph it is?
M. DEBENEST: Second paragraph.
SEYSS-INQUART: That is correct. It says, "Students who have taken the final examination," that is, who are no longer studying but have finished their studies. Members of the same age groups were meanwhile drafted for labor commitment, and those exempted by me now had to make this up. But their study was not disturbed or interrupted.
M. DEBENEST: Therefore, the students were able, freely, to continue their studies?
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not recall any obstacles.
M. DEBENEST: Good. Will you please look at the next decree, that is, Number 28, which is a decree of Secretary General Van Damm. This decree forces the students to make a declaration of loyalty.
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes, that is correct.
M. DEBENEST: What were the consequences?
SEYSS-INQUART: I could not understand the consequences. The universities were, at that time, the seat of anti-German activities. I demanded from the university students a declaration promising they would uphold the laws in effect in the occupied Netherlands territories, that they would abstain from any action against the German Reich, the Wehrmacht, and the Netherlands authorities, and that they would not interfere with public order in the university. I cannot understand why a university student could not make such a statement. Those who did make it were able to continue their studies without any hindrance. But the Dutch professors, by way of sabotage, refused to give them any instruction.
M. DEBENEST: Well, then, those who did not subscribe to this declaration, what happened to them?
SEYSS-INQUART: They were no longer university students, and if they belonged to the age groups which I had called up for labor commitment, they were drafted.
M. DEBENEST: Did you not apply the Fuehrer Principle to the universities?
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not believe quite as strictly as in the community administrations. But I gave the president of the university greater power because I demanded greater responsibility from him.
M. DEBENEST: Very well. Was not a certain National Socialist propaganda made in the universities?
SEYSS-INQUART: I believe that could not be entirely prevented.
M. DEBENEST: In particular, did not the students have to visit certain exhibitions and be present at lectures organized by the Party or even by the Reich offices?
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not know, but it is possible.
M. DEBENEST: In short, you interfered in the administrative domain, in the realm of teaching, and you also interfered in a similar manner in the cultural life of the Dutch people? l1 June. 46
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes' to the extent which I stated yesterday.
M. DEBENEST: You did, in fact, create various professional syndicates, is not that what you told us?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes.
M. DEBENEST: You alleged that the acceptance into these syndicates was not obligatory and that you never imposed payment of dues?
SEYSS-INQUART: That is not correct. Membership in these syndicates was obligatory. I am also convinced that the head of the syndicates required 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 syndicate, and consequently could no longer practice his trade, or that his dues could be collected by way of court action.
M. DEBENEST: However, do you not recall the difficulties which arose in this manner with the medical profession?
SEYSS-INQUART: I was just thinking of the Medical Syndicate. Certain circles therein desired that the members who did not pay their dues should be prohibited from carrying out their profession, or that at least the dues should be collected through court pressure. I told these gentlemen that if it was not possible to persuade the members to pay their dues, I, for my part, would not assert any force.
M. DEBENEST: What were these circles?
SEYSS-INQUART: Perhaps you can tell me, then we shall save more time.
M. DEBENEST: Was it not the NSB for instance?
SEYSS-INQUART: In what connection?
M. DEBENEST: Did you not yourself say that certain circles had demanded the payment of dues? I am asking, what circles?
SEYSS-INQUART: Do you mean what friends or co-workers of mine urged me to insist on payment? The question is not very clear to me.
M. DEBENEST: I am just asking you to say exactly what you mean by "circles." You yourself used the word-unless it is a mistranslation.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest, the Tribunal thinks really that you are spending too much time on these various small subjects. We have spent the whole afternoon on these various measures which the defendant introduced in the Netherlands. It is perfectly clear according to his own admission that he was altering the whole force of administration in the Netherlands.
M. DEBENEST: Did you not also take part in the persecution of the churches?
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not know whether the measures could be called "persecution of the churches," but I took measures concerning the churches.
M. DEBENEST: What measures in particular? What measures?
SEYSS-INQUART: I believe that the most serious, in your eyes, would be the confiscation of various Netherlands monasteries. One of them was turned into a German school and the church building was torn down.
M. DEBENEST: You alleged yesterday that priests or at least one priest could visit concentration camps? Is that correct?
SEYSS-INQUART: No, I did not say that. I said only 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 clergymen were allowed to pay visits to the concentration camps under the control of German Police or were able to enter them.
M. DEBENEST: Just one question as regards the press. Did the press retain a certain-I repeat, a "certain"-liberty during the time of the occupation?
SEYSS-INQUART: From my point of view, much too little. The press was under fairly strict control by the Propaganda Ministry. The editors were employed after being judged suitable 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 the case; but even the Reich Commissioner in the Netherlands was not almighty.
M. DEBENEST: Were there not reprisal measures taken against certain newspapers?
SEYSS-INQUART: I do not know...
THE PRESIDENT: We might get on a little bit more quickly. There is a very long pause between the question and the answer.
SEYSS-INQUART: I must first recall the circumstances. If unexpectedly I am questioned about something which happened 5 years ago I must think over carefully what actually happened in individual cases. For example, I can say "no" immediately, but I am sure that the answer is wrong. Now, for instance, reprisals-I know that once in The Hague the editor's office of a newspaper was blown up. That was a measure taken by the Security Police. It was the seat of an illegal propaganda group.
M. DEBENEST: You spoke yesterday of the sterilization of the Jews in Holland. Who introduced this measure?
SEYSS-INQUART: If you say "introduced," I believe that I can answer the question correctly. The Security Police informed me that a number of Jews had themselves sterilized by Jewish doctors and that thereupon these Jews were freed of all restrictions and could dispense with the wearing of the Jewish star. These were not Jews who otherwise would have been evacuated, but who would have remained in Holland subject to certain restrictions. I asked the head of my health department to investigate 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 Leader to forbid this action, at least in the case of women. Then the Christian churches protested to me. I answered the Christian churches-I assume you have the letter in your files-describing the state of affairs and pointing out expressly that no compulsion must 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 returned 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.
M. DEBENEST: But was it you who had the idea of this sterilization?
SEYSS-INQUART: No, the matter was reported to me by the Security Police.
M. DEBENEST: Very well, I shall have Document 3594-PS handed to you, which I shall submit under Number RF-1526. It is an affidavit by Hildegard Kunze, an agent of the RSHA. Third paragraph: "I remember that either in this report or in another report he"-that is, Seyss-Inquart-"suggested that all Jews who were privileged to remain in Holland should be sterilized." There is no question of police agencies there.
SEYSS-INQUART: This involves the correctness of the memory of a stenographer. In the third point, moreover, she does not even assert that the report in the third paragraph is the one 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 an already existing fact or one in process of realization.
M. DEBENEST: So you contend that it was not you but the Police. In any case, you tolerated it?
SEYSS-INQUART: As 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 to their disadvantage.
THE PRESIDENT: We might adjourn for 10 minutes. [A recess was taken.]
M. DEBENEST: Defendant, do you claim that you forced no one to go and work in Germany?
SEYSS-INQUART: On the contrary, I believe I enrolled 250,000 Dutch people to work in Germany, and I testified to that yesterday.
M. DEBENEST: Good. I shall not dwell on that point. Did you not also introduce certain legislative clauses as far as nationality was concerned?
SEYSS-INQUART: You mean the nationality of Dutch citizens?
M. DEBENEST: Yes.
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes, I did that.
M. DEBENEST: Did you take part in the arrest, interning, and deportation to concentration camps in Germany of Dutch citizens, and in what way?
SEYSS-INQUART: I should like to explain briefly the matter of citizenship.
M. DEBENEST: Certainly.
SEYSS-INQUART: Quite a few Dutch enlisted in 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 upon the acquisition of German citizenship, the Dutch citizenship would not be lost for a year, during which time the person involved could make his decision. This should serve to clarify the purpose and the object of this decree of mine.
M. DEBENEST: I am going to put to you again the question which I put to you a few minutes ago. Did you take part in arresting, interning, and deporting to concentration camps Dutch citizens, and under what conditions?
SEYSS-INQUART: Bringing anybody into and keeping him in a concentration camp was exclusively a matter for the Police. I do not recall instance in which I requested the Police to put any Dutchman into a German concentration camp. It may have happened that I ordered the German Police to take Dutchmen to Hertogenbosch or Amersfoort. Especially at the time when the Netherlands courts were very lenient with black-market operators and slaughterers who supplied the black market, I did demand their internment in a concentration camp for 2 or 3 months. However, if you have specific cases in mind, please mention them and you may be assured that I will tell you everything exactly as I remember it.
M. DEBENEST: No, your answer is sufficient. Did you participate in the seizure of hostages and in their execution?