Chapter IX: ) (2)

3. In October 1942, the Emission Bank refused to pay out certain
amounts expended for purchases on the Belgian black market. The
military administrator, however, “held down the increasing
resistance of the Note Banks which culminated at the end of
October of this year in a public threat of resignation by the
Governor of the National Bank, by the heaviest pressure, and
forced the Note Banks, while emphasizing his willingness to
negotiate on certain Belgian proposals, again to take up the
global clearing transfers for German procurement agencies which
were cut off for a period” (_ECR-132_). The nature of this
pressure is explicitly shown in the following communication from
the Commissar to the President of the Emission Bank dated 29
October 1942:

“The Military Commander has ordered me to inform you of the
following:

“The requested extension of time for the resumption of business
relations with the Armed Forces Clearing Institute
(_Wehrmachtverrechnungskasse_) and for the payment of the
arrears of RM 60 million have been denied. An official will
determine tomorrow at 10 a. m. whether payment has been made.

“Severest measures against you and all responsible parties must
be expected in case of failure to pay.

“If acts of sabotage occur on the equipment and the values of
the National Bank or the Emission Bank, you and the gentlemen
designated on the enclosed list will be held responsible
personally and your property will be seized. Your liability is a
joint one.” (_EC-605_)

_France_

The “credit” balance of the Bank of France under the Franco-German clearing established on 14 November 1940 amounted to 4,400,000,000 RM as of September 1943 (_3615-PS_). The clearing arrangement was designed, of course, principally for the financing of exports, that is, for purposes not related to the needs of the occupation army. (_EC-619_)

Coercion in the establishment of the Franco-German clearing is readily demonstrable. Extreme pressure was brought to bear, particularly in regard to the rate of exchange established in the agreement, by threatening to cut off communications between “occupied” and “nonoccupied” zones in France (_3602-PS_; _3603-PS_), a step which would have destroyed the last vestige of economic order in France. The harsh terms of the agreement, which required the Bank of France to make immediate payment for exports to Germany regardless of the balance of trade, fixed the rate of exchange at 20 francs to the mark (as compared to 10 to 1 before the war), and gave Germany a unilateral option to cancel at any time, forcibly suggest that the agreement would not voluntarily have been accepted. (_EC-619_)

_Holland_

The clearing system between Holland and Germany was of short duration, being cancelled effective 1 April 1941, when free transfer of Reichsmarks to Holland was introduced. (See _infra_, D, (5).) It is therefore not deemed of sufficient importance to warrant discussion at this point.

(3) _The Nazi conspirators unlawfully took over the gold reserve of the National Bank of Belgium and the Netherlands Bank in the interest of the German general war effort._

_Belgium_

The gold of the National Bank, deposited with the Bank of France and transferred to Dakar, was brought to Berlin pursuant to German-French “agreement” in the amount of 545,700,000 RM (_ECR-149_), and there deposited with the Reichsbank in Berlin (_ECR-24_). Because of the “high demands on gold and foreign exchange” which led to a “considerable straining of the reserves” (_EC-401_), the “Reich Government felt itself required to lay claim to the gold of the National Bank for the Reich” (_ECR-149_). A decision to proceed by requisitioning under paragraph 52 of the Hague Regulations (_EC-401_) was not executed, apparently because of fears on the part of the Reichsbank that title thus acquired would not be recognized (_ECR-115_). On order of Goering (_ECH-5, part 9, Annex XIII_), the gold was then “requisitioned on 19 September 1942 by the Oberpraesident of the Province of Mark Brandenburg for the Deputy of the Four-Year Plan, on the basis of the Reich Contribution Law (_Reichsleistungsgesetz_) of 1.IX.1939 (Sec. 15, paragraph 1, No. 5, and Sec. 2a)” (_ECR-149_).

_Holland_

As shown above, part of the Dutch “voluntary” contribution to the “war against Bolshevism” was paid in gold. The gold was, in fact, taken from the Netherlands Bank. (_EC-401_)

(4) _The Nazi conspirators unlawfully compelled the nationals of the occupied countries to surrender and offer for sale all precious metals and foreign exchange to the local central banks, which delivered them to the German Reichsbank._

_Belgium_

By German decree of 17 June 1940 and administrative orders issued pursuant thereto the Belgians were required to surrender gold and foreign exchange notes to the Emission Bank, which in turn, delivered the loot to the Reichsbank (_ECR-24_).

By May 1943, the Reichsbank had acquired in this fashion gold and foreign exchange of the value of 23,400,000 RM. (_ECR-149_)

_Holland_

Gold and foreign exchange delivered by the Netherlands Bank to the Reichsbank “on the basis of the direction of the Reichsmarshal” (Goering) amounted to 74,000,000 RM through November 1940. (_EC-465_)

_France_

It is believed that the same practice was followed in France, but evidence as to details has not been found in the German documents presently available.

(5) _The Nazi conspirators used German Reichsmarks as currency in the Netherlands, for purposes unrelated to the needs of the occupational troops, which currency they caused to be freely exchanged for gulden by the Netherlands Bank._ The Nazi conspirators, animated in part by the view that the Netherlands were “akin in blood to the German nation” (_3613-PS_), sought to promote a “mutual interpenetration of the German and Netherlands economies” through the acquisition by Germans of Dutch participations (_EC-468_) and Dutch investment in German securities. (_ECR-174_)

To this end, restrictions on the free transfer of Reichsmark and gulden across the German-Dutch border were removed. Conversations between the Reich Economics and Finance Ministers in October 1940 led to the first step in this direction, the issuance by the Economics Minister of a Circular (_Runderlass_)—No. 89/40—which produced substantial changes in the foreign exchange control along the German-Dutch borders (_EC-468_). This provided, _inter-alia_, that RM 1,000 or its equivalent in gulden could be taken across the German-Dutch border by travelers or in border trade without permit, and permitted Germans to transfer to Holland up to 5,000 RM per person per month for any purpose except purchase of goods without any permission (_EC-468_).

These relaxations were made effective in Holland by free exchange of Reichsmarks for gulden by the Netherlands Bank, introduced “on the initiative” of the Commissar, and by enforced acceptance of Reichsmark currency by the Dutch business population. (_EC-468_)

The Reichsmarks thus made available in the Netherlands were mainly used to purchase Dutch securities on the stock exchange (_EC-468_). Permission to make such purchases was extended to a large number of German banks by the German Ministry of Economics. The transfers were made with “reluctance” by the Dutch, in connection with which the Reich Commissar at the Netherlands Bank observed, “it may be pointed out with some justification that an out-payment of gulden made against a Reichsmark credit, which can only result through the burdening of the Netherlands State credit, represents no genuine transfer” (_EC-468_).

Notwithstanding the objections of the then Commissar at the Netherlands Bank (_EC-468_), circular 87/40 was soon followed by No. 29/41 of 31 March 1941, which abolished almost completely all restrictions on the free use of the Reichsmark in Holland (_ECR-197_). Circular 29/41 provided that all foreign exchange transactions between Germany and the Netherlands were freed of control, the only important exception being that German investments of more than 100,000 gulden in Holland required permission of the Reichskommissar in the Netherlands. The clearing agreement was abolished, and payments between Germany and the Netherlands were permitted by simple bank checks, drafts, or postal money orders. A simultaneous order by the Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands Areas lifted all restrictions set by Netherlands foreign exchange law on such transactions (_ECR-197_).

After this “introduction of free payments traffic” or “removal of the foreign exchange frontiers,” payments for exports from Holland were made in Germany “through the accounts of the banks, mainly through the account of the Netherlands Bank, which takes on the exchange into gulden means of payment without further formalities.” (_ECR-174_)

This exchange presumably merely continued the practice introduced earlier at the “instigation” of Seyss-Inquart. At all events, the President of the Bank, Van Tonningen, was a Nazi agent, and his acts may be charged to the Nazi conspirators.

The result of this radical step was this:

“Ever since the introduction of free payments traffic the status
of the Netherlands Bank is mainly influenced by the taking up of
Reichsmarks. On 31 March 1941, the day before the introduction
of free payments traffic, the Netherlands Bank had a total stock
of about 83 million RM of Reichsmark credits, on 30 April 1941
of about 213 million RM, and on 31 May 1941 of about 366 million
RM. Thus, in the two months after the removal of the foreign
exchange frontier, it has taken up about 283 million RM, the
gulden equivalent, at the rate of RM 132.7 equals florin 100, on
the basis of the transfer agreement with the Reichsbank.”
(_ECR-174_)

Thus the Netherlands Bank was caused to pledge its credit (in the form of Dutch currency) in exchange for a Reichsmark credit. In this manner the Nazi conspirators were enabled to exact from the bank a loan unlimited in quantity and beyond the bank’s control, by the simple expedient of writing out a check in Germany.

E. _Argument and Conclusion._

The acts of the Nazi conspirators as revealed by the evidence constitute war crimes within the meaning of Article 6 (B) of the charter of the International Military Tribunal. Two general observations should be made at the outset. In the first place, the pertinent provisions of the Hague Regulations (_3737-PS_) are controlling. The Germans entered into an Armistice Agreement with only one of the countries under discussion (France), and the Franco-German Armistice Agreement of 22 June 1940 contains nothing which purports to confer on the occupant powers broader than those which may be exercised under the Hague Regulations. Article 3 of the Armistice reserves to Germany in the occupied zone “all the rights of the occupying power.” No other provision is material here. The language of Article 3 plainly does not purport to qualify in any way the otherwise binding terms of the Hague Regulations. The German position (_EC-113_) that “the rights of Article 3 are more extensive than the rights of the occupation power in the Hague Regulations” and permitted Germany to base thereon “all measures which are, according to her own judgment, necessary for the continuation of the war against England,” is therefore plainly untenable.

Secondly, the collaboration of certain French, Dutch, and Belgian officials is legally immaterial and does not serve to shield the Nazi conspirators from responsibility for the acts done in the territory under German control. Belgium, Holland, and a large part of France were under German occupation throughout the period in question and, after 10 November 1942, so-called Vichy France was overrun and occupied as well. It is accepted doctrine that governmental authority is completely, albeit temporarily, vested in the occupant during the period of its control. Whether the occupant elects to employ the existing administrative machinery and personnel or substitute its own, is solely a question of political and administrative convenience; the choice is without legal significance. The civil administration of an occupied country, it may be confidently asserted, has no independent legal status whatever.

(1) _The acts of the Nazi conspirators as revealed by the evidence are prohibited by the Hague Regulations._

(_a_) _The forcible removal of machinery, foodstuffs, and raw materials._ It has been shown above that the Nazis forcibly removed large quantities of machinery, foodstuffs, and raw materials to Germany, including even church bells and the strategic metals contained in the transmission systems of the occupied countries. Articles 52 and 53 of the Hague Regulations (the only pertinent provisions) provide no basis for such action.

Article 52 of the Hague Regulations declares that requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded except for “the needs of the occupation army,” a limitation deliberately substituted for the less restrictive one of “military necessity” which had previously been contained in the Brussels Declaration of 1874 (_Conference Internationale de la Paix, La Haye_, 1899, Part I, p. 60; Part III, pp. 45, 181). It is settled that requisitions for export to the country of the occupying power is violative of Article 52 (see Feilchenfeld, _The International Law of Belligerent Occupation_, Washington, 1942, pars. 148-149, and cases cited).

The argument, advanced by the Germans in defense of such requisitions during the first World War (see Garner, _International Law and World War_, Vol. II, p. 126, n.) and frequently again during the recent conflict (_EC-344-7_; _ECH-16_), that the limitations of Article 52 may be disregarded in case of military necessity, is not well founded. Article 23g, which permits the destruction of private property when “imperatively demanded by the necessities of war,” is included among the provisions relating to the rights of belligerents in the conduct of military operations, and has no relation to the powers of a belligerent in an occupied area in which conflict has ceased (see Garner, _loc. cit. supra_). The latter are governed, so far as material here, by Articles 42-56.

Apart from Article 23g, there is no basis whatever for the German position. The Hague Regulations are limitations on the powers which may be exercised under the plea of military necessity (II, Oppenheim, _International Law_, 6th Edition Revised, edited by Lauterpacht, p. 185, n.1). An exception for cases of alleged military necessity, therefore, cannot be implied. The deliberate substitution of the present terminology in lieu of the vague limitations of “military necessity” as contained in the Brussels Declaration of 1874, moreover, would seem to remove all basis for a contrary construction.

Article 53 provides no better support for the Nazis’ action. The second paragraph, relating to private property, states:

“All appliances, whether on land, on sea, or in the air, adapted
for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or
things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms
and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized
even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored
and compensation fixed when peace is made.”

This Article, it may be conceded, authorizes not only the sequestration but the use of all matters within its reach. The term “munitions of war,” however, clearly refers only to chattels (Feilchenfeld, _supra_, par. 351). It does not, therefore, include machinery affixed to the realty. The German legal advisors uniformly so conceded during this war (_EC-560_; _EC-84_; _EC-263_; _EC-344-7_). The suggestion that Article 53 is subject to an implied exception in the case of military necessity (_EC-344-7_) is, for reasons noted above, untenable. It is equally clear that the deliberate removal of the metal content of the transmission systems in the occupied areas is without legal basis. Article 53 in terms requires restoration when peace is made and, whatever exceptions may be implied in case of munitions which are necessarily consumed by use, no basis can be found for the deliberate destruction of transmission facilities.

The question as to the class of chattels included within the deliberately general term “munitions of war” is not free from doubt. The right of seizure is based on military necessity, namely, the danger of leaving at large things which are peculiarly adapted to warlike purposes (Spaight, _War Rights on Land_, p. 512). It should accordingly be limited to those things which are “susceptible of direct military use” (see British Manual of Military Law, 1929, Amendment No. 12, par. 415; U. S. Army Basic Field Manual on Rules of Land Warfare, FM 27-10, 1940, par. 332). Article 53, which contains no limitation restricting seizures to the needs of the occupation army, would otherwise completely nullify the deliberate limitations on the right of requisition imposed in Article 52. In this view, raw materials and even semi-finished goods, save perhaps such goods as are normally part of military equipment, would seem outside the reach of Article 53.

(_b_) _The control and direction of production and distribution in the German interest._ The planned control and direction of the economy of the occupied countries in the interest of the German war effort constitute a violation of Article 52. This seems clearly true to the extent that production and sale for export to Germany were ordered by the _Ruestungsobmann_ pursuant to Speer’s directive late in 1943. It would seem equally true of the earlier method of control by prohibitions and restrictions. For the net effect of the priority system was to leave no alternative to producing in the German interest save to cease operations. And even this alternative was not available, since the power to appoint a commissar in case of recalcitrant plants was expressly reserved.

Article 53, which is limited to chattels and has no relation to the demanding of personal services in any event, provides not even a remote basis for the imposition of the controls in question.

In what has been said, it is not meant to be suggested that an occupant is without power to institute a system of rationing for articles in short supply with the aim of securing an equitable distribution among the population of the occupied area. Such a measure is plainly related to the promotion of economic order and there is nothing in the Hague Regulations which restricts even requisition for the needs of the local population. The Nazi controls, however, were exercised, not in the interest of the local population, but to fulfill the general war requirements of Germany, in the Reich as well as in the occupied area.

(_c_) _Levy of occupation charges for purposes not related to the needs of the occupation army._ Article 49 of the Hague Regulations limits the levy of occupation charges to the “needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question.” The only purpose for which such contributions may be levied (other than for the financing of the costs of administration, a matter not material here), is to supply the needs of the army of occupation (_Conference Internationale de la Paix, La Haye_, 1899, Pt. I, p. 60; Feilchenfeld, _supra_, par. 167; Spaight, _supra_, pp. 384-392). The power to levy contributions is reserved in order to permit an equitable distribution among the entire community of costs which, if supplies were requisitioned, would fall directly and solely on the owners of the requisitioned property (Spaight, _supra_, pp. 387-389). Accordingly, the levy of contributions to finance exports or for other purposes unrelated to the needs of the army in the territory in question would seem plainly forbidden (Feilchenfeld, _supra_, par. 167; Spaight, _supra_, pp. 384-392).

Moreover, as Article 49 refers to the occupation army only, the levy of contributions to support the troops engaged in military operations against an enemy located outside the boundaries of the occupied country or to finance other general war expenses would seem prohibited.

(_d_) _Forced loans._ Forced loans can be justified only as contributions and are therefore subject to the same limitations (Feilchenfeld, _supra_, par. 185). The forced loans under the Belgian-German and Franco-German clearing arrangements, were executed largely to finance exports to Germany, that is, for nonoccupation purposes.

(_e_) _The exchange of reichsmarks for gulden by the Netherlands Bank._ These transactions, whether viewed as resulting in a loan or merely in an exchange, constitute a contribution of money for nonoccupation purposes. It may be assumed that they were carried out “voluntarily” while the Netherlands Bank was under the immediate direction of Rost Van Tonningen. This circumstance is immaterial, however, since Van Tonningen was a civil official appointed by Seyss-Inquart, and his authority, like that of civilian officials in occupied areas generally, was derived solely from that of the occupant.

(_f_) _The taking over of gold of the National Bank of Belgium and the Netherlands Bank._ That the gold of the National Bank of Belgium was private property is not disputed; the Nazi conspirators proceeded on this view in the original decision to requisition under Article 52 (_EC-401, second enclosure_). Confiscation under Article 53, first paragraph, therefore, was not open to the Nazi conspirators; so far as appears they never considered such a step.

It may be assumed for purposes of argument that gold is subject to requisition under the Hague Regulations. Requisition may be made, however, only for the needs of the occupation army. It cannot be resorted to to relieve the “considerable straining of the reserves” of Germany.

The gold reserve of the Netherlands Bank, it is believed, is private property, no less than that of the National Bank of Belgium. In this view, the taking over of the gold of the Netherlands Bank was likewise illegal. There is, of course, no basis in law for exacting a contribution for the so-called “war against Bolshevism,” to use the Nazis’ phrase. And, for the reasons indicated above, it is immaterial whether these “contributions” were “voluntarily” made by Van Tonningen.

(_g_) _The compulsory surrender of gold and foreign exchange._ The requirement of surrender of gold and foreign exchange for ultimate delivery to the Reichsbank amounts in substance to a requisition and cannot be supported because obviously done solely to maintain the reserves of foreign exchange for the total war effort, not for the needs of the occupation army alone.

(_h_) _The acquisition of business interests._ The Nazis’ acquisition of Belgian, Dutch, and French participations was unlawful. That this is so in the case of the sales ordered by the Ministry of Economics is clear (_EC-43_). The conclusion should be the same even when sale was not expressly ordered. These purchases were financed through the clearing system (which, as shown above, constituted a forced loan) and out of occupation cost funds. Since such expenditures bore no relation to the needs of the occupation army or, indeed, served any purpose other than to enrich the Nazi conspirators and their nominees, the Nazi program for acquisition of participations was in plain violation of Article 49 of the Hague Regulations.

(2) _Such acts constitute “plunder of public or private property” within the meaning of Article 6 (B) of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal._ Save as they may be authorized by International Law (and hence “consented” to by the occupied countries), the acts complained of are of a character condemned by the criminal code of the occupied countries and, indeed, of all civilized nations. Absent such authority, the forcible permanent taking of money or other property whether from Government agencies or private persons, constitutes larceny or, as known in the international law of belligerent occupation, “pillage” (Garner, _supra_, pp. 472-473). The question of which court or courts may try and punish for the offense is one of jurisdiction only (see Garner, _supra_, pp. 475-480) and has been resolved by the Agreement and Charter of the International Military Tribunal.

* * * * *

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO GERMANIZATION AND
SPOLIATION

Document │ Description │ Vol. │ Page
│ │ │
│Charter of the International Military │ │
│ Tribunal, Article 6, especially 6 (b, │ │
│ c). │ I │ 5
│ │ │
│International Military Tribunal, │ │
│ Indictment Number 1, Sections III; │ │ 15, 43,
│ VIII (E, J). │ I │ 51
│ │ │
3737-PS │Hague Convention of 1907 respecting the │ │
│ Laws and Customs of War on Land, │ │
│ Annex, Articles 49, 52, 53, 55. │ VI │598, 599
│ ————— │ │
│Note: A single asterisk (*) before a │ │
│document indicates that the document was│ │
│received in evidence at the Nurnberg │ │
│trial. A double asterisk (**) before a │ │
│document number indicates that the │ │
│document was referred to during the │ │
│trial but was not formally received in │ │
│evidence, for the reason given in │ │
│parentheses following the description of│ │
│the document. The USA series number, │ │
│given in parentheses following the │ │
│description of the document, is the │ │
│official exhibit number assigned by the │ │
│court. │ │
│ ————— │ │
*061-PS │Secret Bormann letter, 11 January 1944, │ │
│concerning large-scale organization for │ │
│withdrawal of commodities from occupied │ │
│territories for use of bombed-out │ │
│population in Germany. (USA 692) │ III │ 105
│ │ │
*294-PS │Top secret memorandum signed by │ │
│Brautigam, 25 October 1942, concerning │ │
│conditions in Russia. (USA 185) │ III │ 242
│ │ │
*661-PS │Secret thesis from the Academy of German│ │
│Law, January 1940, on Resettlement. (USA│ │
│300) │ III │ 472
│ │ │
*686-PS │Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich │ │
│Chancellor to strengthen German Folkdom,│ │
│7 October 1939, signed by Hitler, │ │
│Goering, Lammers and Keitel. (USA 305) │ III │ 496
│ │ │
*862-PS │Memorandum by General Friderici, │ │
│Plenipotentiary of the Wehrmacht to the │ │
│Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, │ │
│initialled by Keitel, Jodl and │ │
│Warlimont, 15 October 1940, concerning │ │
│plan to Germanize Czechoslovakia. (USA │ │
│313) │ III │ 618
│ │ │
*910-PS │Notes on Himmler’s plan for │ │
│Germanization of Poland, 27 and 30 March│ │
│1942, from the Main Office, Interior │ │
│Administration, initialled “Dr. S. H.”. │ │
│(USA 310) │ III │ 639
│ │ │
997-PS │Top secret report by Seyss-Inquart │ │
│concerning the situation in the │ │
│Netherlands—Exploitation and │ │
│Nazification in period 29 May to 19 July│ │
│1940. │ III │ 641
│ │ │
*1029-PS │Paper entitled “Instructions for a Reich│ │
│Commissar in the Baltic States”, 8 May │ │
│1941, found in Rosenberg’s “Russia │ │
│File”. (USA 145) │ III │ 690
│ │ │
*1058-PS │Excerpt from a speech, 20 June 1941, by │ │
│Rosenberg before people most intimately │ │
│concerned with Eastern Problem, found in│ │
│his “Russia File”. (USA 147) │ III │ 716
│ │ │
*1352-PS │Reports concerning the confiscation of │ │
│Polish agricultural properties, 16 and │ │
│29 May 1940, signed Kusche. (USA 176) │ III │ 916
│ │ │
1445-PS │Report on conference at Ministry of │ │
│Economics regarding use of Belgian and │ │
│Dutch capital investments in │ │
│southeastern European enterprises, 15 │ │
│June 1940. │ IV │ 20
│ │ │
*1456-PS │Thomas memorandum 20 June 1941; Keitel │ │
│consulted about resources of USSR. (USA │ │
│148) │ IV │ 21
│ │ │
1741-PS │Collection of documents relating to the │ │
│French Armistice. │ IV │ 228
│ │ │
1765-PS │Report of the Commissioner for the Four │ │
│Year Plan Plenipotentiary for Special │ │
│Missions on Black Market Activities, 15 │ │
│January 1943. │ IV │ 325
│ │ │
*1918-PS │Speech by Himmler to SS officers on day │ │
│of Metz. (USA 304) │ IV │ 553
│ │ │
1991-PS │Sixth report on activity and final │ │
│report of the German Armistice │ │
│Delegation for Economy, and of Delegate │ │
│of Reich Government for Economic and │ │
│Financial Questions with French │ │
│Government, 1 July 1943 to 17 August │ │
│1944. │ IV │ 605
│ │ │
*1997-PS │Decree of the Fuehrer, 17 July 1941, │ │
│concerning administration of Newly │ │
│Occupied Eastern Territories. (USA 319) │ IV │ 634
│ │ │
2149-PS │Letter, 11 December 1942, to Foreign │ │
│Office, enclosing statement of German │ │
│Reichsbank concerning question of an │ │
│increase of French contributions to │ │
│Occupation expenses. │ IV │ 758
│ │ │
*2233-D-PS │Frank Diary. Regierungsitzungen. 1941. │ │
│October-December. Entry of 16 December │ │
│1941 at pp. 76-77. (USA 281) │ IV │ 891
│ │ │
*2233-G-PS │Frank Diary. 1939. 25 October to 15 │ │
│December. (USA 302) │ IV │ 903
│ │ │
*2233-H-PS │Frank Diary. Tagebuch. 1941. Part II. │ │
│Entry of 19 April 1941. (USA 311) │ IV │ 904
│ │ │
*2749-PS │Title page of publication of Academy for│ │
│German Law, 7th year, 1940. (USA 301) │ V │ 390
│ │ │
*2915-PS │Extracts from German Labor, June-July │ │
│1942. (USA 306) │ V │ 580
│ │ │
*2916-PS │Commitment of Manpower │ │
│Doctrines-Orders-Directives, published │ │
│by Office of Reich Commissioner for │ │
│strengthening of National Character of │ │
│German People, December 1940. (USA 307) │ V │ 581
│ │ │
3602-PS │Report on conversation (interview) │ │
│between Mr. Hemmen and Mr. de Boisanger,│ │
│4 October. │ VI │ 314
│ │ │
3603-PS │Report on conversation between Mr. │ │
│Hemmen and Mr. de Boisanger, 10 October.│ VI │ 314
│ │ │
3604-PS │Decree concerning rationing of │ │
│industrial goods from Official Gazette │ │
│of Military Commander in Belgium and │ │
│Northern France, 1940-41, p. 37, Sec. 1.│ VI │ 315
│ │ │
3605-PS │Rationing decree, 27 May 1940, from │ │
│Official Gazette of Military Commander │ │
│in Belgium and Northern France, 1940-41,│ │
│p. 37, Sec. 4. │ VI │ 315
│ │ │
3606-PS │Rationing decree, 27 May 1940, from │ │
│Official Gazette of Military Commanders │ │
│in Belgium and Northern France, 1940-41,│ │
│p. 38, Sec. 10. │ VI │ 316
│ │ │
3607-PS │Public Notice on Board of Directors of │ │
│Reichskreditkasse, from Official Gazette│ │
│of Military Commander in Belgium and │ │
│Northern France, 1940-41, p. 65. │ VI │ 316
│ │ │
3608-PS │Public Notice of Establishment of a │ │
│Clearing system between Belgium and │ │
│German Reich, 10 July 1940, from │ │
│Official Gazette of Military Commander │ │
│in Belgium and Northern France. │ VI │ 317
│ │ │
3609-PS │Decree for execution of rationing decree│ │
│in Belgium, 5 November 1940, from │ │
│Official Gazette of Military Commander │ │
│in Belgium and Northern France. │ VI │ 318
│ │ │
3610-PS │Decree regarding Plant Commissars, 29 │ │
│April 1941, from Official Gazette of │ │
│Military Commander in Belgium and │ │
│Northern France, 1940-41, p. 599. │ VI │ 319
│ │ │
3611-PS │Decree on economic measures against │ │
│Jews, 31 May 1941, from Official Gazette│ │
│of Military Commander in Belgium and │ │
│Northern France, 1940-41, p. 620, Sec. │ │
│17. │ VI │ 320
│ │ │
3612-PS │Decree regarding prohibition of │ │
│manufacturing of certain products, 6 │ │
│August 1942, from Official Gazette of │ │
│Military Commander in Belgium and │ │
│Northern France, 1942, p. 986, Sec. 1. │ VI │ 321
│ │ │
3613-PS │Proclamation to Netherlands population, │ │
│25 May 1940, from Official Gazette for │ │
│Occupied Dutch Territory, No. 1, 5 June │ │
│1940. │ VI │ 321
│ │ │
3615-PS │Report by Ostrow on examination of │ │
│records of Reichskreditkasse, 29 │ │
│September 1945. │ VI │ 322
│ │ │
3616-PS │Decree on prohibition to establish and │ │
│enlarge enterprises and on shutting down│ │
│enterprises, 30 March 1942, from │ │
│Official Gazette of Military Commander │ │
│in Belgium and Northern France, 1942, p.│ │
│865. │ VI │ 388
│ │ │
*EC-3 │Letter of Liaison Staff at Supreme │ │
│Headquarters, Armament Procurement │ │
│Office directed to General Thomas, Chief│ │
│of Wi Rue Amt, Berlin, 25 November 1941.│ │
│(USA 318) │ VII │ 242
│ │ │
EC-21 │Memorandum of Posse, 8 January 1940. │ VII │ 249
│ │ │
EC-34 │Report No. 1 on activities of Military │ │
│Administration for month of November │ │
│1940. │ VII │ 254
│ │ │
EC-41 │Notice concerning seizure of security │ │
│properties of Dutch and Belgian │ │
│holdings, 23 May 1940. │ VII │ 255
│ │ │
EC-43 │Report on conferences at Ministry of │ │
│Economics, 20 August 1940, regarding │ │
│acquisition of shares in important │ │
│foreign enterprises in Southeast Europe.│ VII │ 258
│ │ │
EC-69 │Memorandum of General Holder, 13 │ │
│December 1939, regarding treatment of │ │
│economical questions at the OKH. │ VII │ 262
│ │ │
EC-84 │Report of Lt. Colonel Helder on │ │
│reconversion of the economy, 7 December │ │
│1940. │ VII │ 263
│ │ │
EC-86 │Report on financial contributions of the│ │
│Occupied Areas. │ VII │ 264
│ │ │
EC-87 │Report on contribution of Netherlands │ │
│for German War economy. │ VII │ 278
│ │ │
EC-101 │Affidavit by Schmid-Lossberg, 21 │ │
│September 1945, concerning Holland, │ │
│Belgium and France. │ VII │ 280
│ │ │
EC-113 │Covering letter, 8 July 1940, to letter │ │
│from Supreme Command of Armed Forces, │ │
│concerning decision of Fuehrer in │ │
│Armistice questions, and memorandum of │ │
│Goering, 5 July 1940. │ VII │ 291
│ │ │
*EC-126 │Economic Policy Directive for Economic │ │
│Organization, East, Agricultural Group, │ │
│23 May 1941. (USA 316) │ VII │ 295
│ │ │
EC-137 │Memorandum of Goering, 2 August 1940, │ │
│regarding extension of German interests │ │
│in foreign enterprise, and covering │ │
│letter. │ VII │ 309
│ │ │
EC-155 │Collection of planned decrees on │ │
│economic matters, from Military │ │
│Administration-Economy, pp. 50-74. │ VII │ 312
│ │ │
EC-256 │Letter from Dr. Lammers to Goering and │ │
│Funk, 12 October 1937. │ VII │ 346
│ │ │
EC-261 │Letter from Funk to all Ministries, 14 │ │
│March 1938, regarding appointment of │ │
│Sarnow, deputy of Plenipotentiary for │ │
│War Economy. │ VII │ 371
│ │ │
EC-263 │Note on draft of decree on confiscation │ │
│of private Polish property. │ VII │ 373
│ │ │
EC-267 │Development and Position of French │ │
│Industry in area of Military Commander, │ │
│France, in 1941, from Report on Economy │ │
│by Military Commander, France. │ VII │ 376
│ │ │
*EC-305 │Minutes of meeting on 12 February 1940, │ │
│under Chairmanship of Goering concerning│ │
│labor supply in the East. (USA 303) │ VII │ 402
│ │ │
EC-323 │Telegram signed Schleier, dated Paris 26│ │
│April 1941. │ VII │ 406
│ │ │
EC-335 │Report of the Military Administration in│ │
│Belgium and Northern France, │ │
│January-March 1943. │ VII │ 407
│ │ │
EC-336 │Report of the Reich Minister for │ │
│Occupied Eastern Territories, 26 │ │
│November 1942, concerning treatment of │ │
│Poles under his jurisdiction. │ VII │ 408
│ │ │
EC-344-7 │Report on Armament Economy in │ │
│Poland, 1939-1940. │ VII │ 416
│ │ │
*EC-344 16 and │Thomas report, 20 August 1940, │ │
17 │summarizing experience with German │ │
│Armament Industry in Poland 1939-40 and │ │
│extract from report by Captain Dr. │ │
│Varain on same subject. (USA 297) │ VII │ 419
│ │ │
*EC-347 │Directives for operation of the Economy │ │
│in Occupied Eastern Territories. (USA │ │
│320) │ VII │ 421
│ │ │
EC-401 │Letter from Office Four Year Plan, 8 │ │
│July 1942, on seizure of Belgian gold. │ VII │ 439
│ │ │
*EC-410 │Appendix to Goering’s directive of 19 │ │
│October 1939 concerning the economic │ │
│administration of Occupied Territories. │ │
│(USA 298) │ VII │ 466
│ │ │
*EC-411 │Order by Hess concerning the │ │
│reconstruction of certain industrial │ │
│enterprises in Poland, 20 November 1939.│ │
│(USA 299) │ VII │ 469
│ │ │
EC-422 │Extracts from History of the War │ │
│Economy—and Armament Staff in France. │ VII │ 481
│ │ │
EC-427 │Letter from Lammers to Reichsbank │ │
│Directorate, 20 January 1939, on │ │
│appointment of Funk as President of │ │
│Reichsbank. │ VII │ 484
│ │ │
*EC-453 │Letter to Himmler, 21 September 1943, │ │
│and list of contributions by his │ │
│friends. (USA 322) │ VII │ 510
│ │ │
*EC-454 │Letter to Himmler, 27 August 1943, │ │
│regarding contributions by his friends. │ │
│(USA 321) │ VII │ 512
│ │ │
EC-465 │Letter from Commissar with the │ │
│Netherlands Bank, 9 December 1940, with │ │
│November report to Fuehrer. │ VII │ 518
│ │ │
EC-468 │Letter from Commissar at the Netherlands│ │
│Bank, 10 February 1941, with report for │ │
│January 1941 to Fuehrer. │ VII │ 524
│ │ │
EC-469 │Memorandum on meeting in Duesseldorf, 25│ │
│May 1940. │ VII │ 536
│ │ │
EC-470 │Special Events in the field of │ │
│procurement of means of production, raw │ │
│material, semi-finished products. │ VII │ 538
│ │ │
EC-471 │Armament Inspectorate Netherlands—War │ │
│Diary for time from 1 January-31 March │ │
│1943. │ VII │ 538
│ │ │
*EC-472 │Directives of Reich Marshal Goering │ │
│concerning economic organization of │ │
│Occupied Eastern Territories. (USA 315) │ VII │ 539
│ │ │
EC-472-A │War Diary of Armament Inspectorate from │ │
│10 April 1940-30 September 1942. │ VII │ 540
│ │ │
EC-473 │Extract from History of Armament │ │
│Inspectorate—Netherlands. │ VII │ 542
│ │ │
EC-474 │Letter, 1 June 1940, enclosing report of│ │
│Armament Inspectorate Netherlands. │ VII │ 542
│ │ │
EC-485 │Minutes on Goering Meeting, 1 October │ │
│1940, on the economic exploitation of │ │
│Occupied Territories. │ VII │ 543
│ │ │
EC-560 │Extract from War Diary of Armament │ │
│Inspectorate—Belgium 21 January 1941, │ │
│regarding right to remove machinery. │ VII │ 584
│ │ │
EC-604 │Letter from Military Commander in │ │
│Belgium and Northern France, 1 May 1942.│ VII │ 584
│ │ │
EC-605 │Letter of the Commissar with the │ │
│Emission Bank in Brussels, 29 October │ │
│1942, with enclosure. │ VII │ 585
│ │ │
EC-606 │Minutes concerning conference with Field│ │
│Marshal Goering at Karinhall, 30 January│ │
│1940. │ VII │ 588
│ │ │
EC-613 │Memorandum on contributions of French │ │
│economy in favor of France performed at │ │
│instigation of Military Commander in │ │
│France. │ VII │ 602
│ │ │
EC-614 │Memorandum of the Military Commander in │ │
│France. │ VII │ 602
│ │ │
EC-615 │Notes by General Thomas on Meeting with │ │
│Colonel General Keitel, 1 December 1939.│ VII │ 603
│ │ │
EC-616 │Interference of War Economy and Armament│ │
│Staff with raw material rationing boards│ │
│from Situation Report of War Economy and│ │
│Armament Staff of France. │ VII │ 603
│ │ │
EC-617 │Extracts from Situation Report of War │ │
│Economy and Armament Staff of France. │ VII │ 604
│ │ │
EC-618 │Service instructions for Economic │ │
│Squads. │ VII │ 604
│ │ │
EC-619 │Clearing agreement of 14 November 1940, │ │
│for French-German payments. │ VII │ 608
│ │ │
EC-620 │Directive of Goering on exploitation of │ │
│the Occupied Western Territories, 26 │ │
│August 1940. │ VII │ 608
│ │ │
ECH-1 │Final report of Military Commander │ │
│Belgium, Part 10, Section I, concerning │ │
│German-Belgian trade. │ VII │ 609
│ │ │
ECH-2 │Report on Economic Planning of Military │ │
│Commander Belgium and Northern France, │ │
│13 September 1940. │ VII │ 610
│ │ │
ECH-3 │Final Report of Chief of Military │ │
│Administration in Belgium and Northern │ │
│France. │ VII │ 611
│ │ │
ECH-4 │Annual report of Military Commander of │ │
│Belgium and Northern France, 15 July │ │
│1941. │ VII │ 613
│ │ │
ECH-5 │Final Report of Military Commander in │ │
│Belgium and Northern France. │ VII │ 615
│ │ │
ECH-6 │Final report of Military Commander in │ │
│Belgium and Northern France. │ VII │ 620
│ │ │
ECH-7 │Final Report of Supervisory Office with │ │
│Military Commander in Belgium and │ │
│Northern France on legalized │ │
│exploitation of black market in Belgium │ │
│and Northern France. │ VII │ 622
│ │ │
ECH-9 │Circular of Military Commander, 19 June │ │
│1943, concerning prohibition of black │ │
│market purchase. │ VII │ 629
│ │ │
ECH-10 │Final Report of Military Commander on │ │
│machinery clearing. │ VII │ 629
│ │ │
ECH-11 │Final Report of Military Commander on │ │
│Church Bell drive in Belgium. │ VII │ 631
│ │ │
ECH-12 │Report of Activity Department for │ │
│“Protection of Art” of Military │ │
│Commander Belgium and Northern France. │ VII │ 632
│ │ │
ECH-14 │Letter from Speer, 23 June 1943, with │ │
│covering letter. │ VII │ 632
│ │ │
ECH-15 │Draft of letter to Falkenhausen, 22 May │ │
│1944. │ VII │ 634
│ │ │
ECH-16 │Memorandum from Military Administration │ │
│Department for Culture, 17 May 1944, │ │
│concerning requisition of scientific │ │
│instruments. │ VII │ 635
│ │ │
ECH-19 │Final Report of Military Commander │ │
│showing total picture of consolidation │ │
│of Belgian Textile Industry. │ VII │ 636
│ │ │
ECH-21 │Letter from Military Commander in │ │
│Belgium and Northern France to General │ │
│Falkenhausen, 12 October 1940, and │ │
│annexes. │ VII │ 637
│ │ │
ECH-22 │Final Report of Military Commander, │ │
│concerning foreign exchange and gold. │ VII │ 639
│ │ │
ECH-23 │Report of Military Commander on supplies│ │
│in the German interest in Belgium and │ │
│Northern France in 1941. │ VII │ 641
│ │ │
ECH-24 │Introduction to Final Report of Military│ │
│Commander by Dr. Beyer. │ VII │ 642
│ │ │
ECR-14 │Memorandum from Commissar at the Belgian│ │
│National Bank on Clearing Transfers, 24 │ │
│March 1941. │ VII │ 642
│ │ │
ECR-24 │Annual report of the Commissar at the │ │
│National Bank of Belgium, covering │ │
│period May 1940-May 1941. │ VII │ 642
│ │ │
ECR-32 │Memorandum from Reich Marshal of the │ │
│Greater German Reich Commissioner for │ │
│the Four Year Plan, 11 June 1941, on │ │
│occupation costs in Belgium and covering│ │
│letters. │ VII │ 667
│ │ │
ECR-35 │Memorandum from Special Commissioner │ │
│West of the Reichskreditkassen, 2 August│ │
│1941. │ VII │ 670
│ │ │
ECR-39 │Memorandum from Military Commander in │ │
│Belgium and Northern France, 2 August │ │
│1941, concerning procurement of │ │
│Occupation Costs in Belgium, and │ │
│covering letter. │ VII │ 671
│ │ │
ECR-59 │Memorandum from Military Commander in │ │
│Belgium and Northern France, 2 October │ │
│1941, on contributions from Belgium to │ │
│the limit of its capacity, and covering │ │
│letter. │ VII │ 676
│ │ │
ECR-72 │Memorandum from Special Commissioner │ │
│West of RKK, 22 December 1941, ordering │ │
│Emission Bank to pay out clearing │ │
│transfer. │ VII │ 681
│ │ │
ECR-89 │Letter from Military Commander in │ │
│Belgium and Northern France, 2 March │ │
│1942, concerning payment for German │ │
│Military Expenditures in Belgium through│ │
│clearing; and letter of transmittal. │ VII │ 682
│ │ │
ECR-104 │Letter from Military Commander in │ │
│Belgium and Northern France, 24 April │ │
│1942, concerning payment of expenses of │ │
│German Armed Forces in Belgium in │ │
│clearing. │ VII │ 685
│ │ │
ECR-106 │Memorandum from Commissar at the │ │
│National Bank of Belgium, 1 May 1942, on│ │
│use of occupation funds for black market│ │
│purchases and political purposes. │ VII │ 686
│ │ │
ECR-115 │Teletype, 27 July 1942, on position of │ │
│Reichsbank regarding requisition of │ │
│Belgian gold. │ VII │ 689
│ │ │
ECR-132 │Report of the Commissar at the National │ │
│Bank of Belgium, 1 December 1942, │ │
│covering period August-October 1942. │ VII │ 690
│ │ │
ECR-142 │Letter from Military Commander in │ │
│Belgium and Northern France, 22 February│ │
│1943, on exchange of RKK notes in │ │
│Belgium. │ VII │ 695
│ │ │
ECR-149 │Third Annual Report of the Commissar at │ │
│the National Bank of Belgium, 5 June │ │
│1943. │ VII │ 700
│ │ │
ECR-155-A │Memorandum from Special Commissioner │ │
│West of Reichskreditkassen, 7 December │ │
│1943, on occupation costs. │ VII │ 716
│ │ │
ECR-166 │Memorandum from Special Commissioner │ │
│West of Reichskreditkassen, 10 May 1944,│ │
│concerning cash situation of Chief │ │
│Paymaster at Military Commander in │ │
│Belgium and Northern France. │ VII │ 718
│ │ │
ECR-172 │Letter from Reichskommissar for Occupied│ │
│Territories of Belgium and Northern │ │
│France, 21 July 1944, concerning │ │
│equalization of monthly balance in giro │ │
│traffic of Reichskreditkassen. │ VII │ 720
│ │ │
ECR-173 │Report of Commissar at the National Bank│ │
│of Belgium, 15 August 1944, on total │ │
│occupation charges and Belgium clearing │ │
│balance. │ VII │ 721
│ │ │
ECR-174 │Report of the Commissar of the │ │
│Netherlands Bank for the month May 1941,│ │
│dated 12 June 1941. │ VII │ 726
│ │ │
ECR-175 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Brussels, 18 May │ │
│1941, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 732
│ │ │
ECR-176 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Brussels, 27 May │ │
│1941, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 733
│ │ │
ECR-177 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 30 June │ │
│1941, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 735
│ │ │
ECR-178 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 25 July │ │
│1941, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 735
│ │ │
ECR-179 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 28 August │ │
│1941, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 735
│ │ │
ECR-180 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 30 │ │
│September 1941, concerning occupation │ │
│costs. │ VII │ 736
│ │ │
ECR-181 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 28 October│ │
│1941, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 737
│ │ │
ECR-182 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 29 │ │
│November 1941, concerning occupation │ │
│costs. │ VII │ 737
│ │ │
ECR-183 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 6 January │ │
│1942, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 738
│ │ │
ECR-184 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 30 January│ │
│1942, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 739
│ │ │
ECR-185 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 27 │ │
│February 1942, concerning occupation │ │
│costs. │ VII │ 740
│ │ │
ECR-186 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 28 March │ │
│1942, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 740
│ │ │
ECR-187 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 30 April │ │
│1942, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 741
│ │ │
ECR-188 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 13 July │ │
│1942, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 742
│ │ │
ECR-189 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 13 August │ │
│1942, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 743
│ │ │
ECR-190 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 31 August │ │
│1942, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 743
│ │ │
ECR-191 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 30 │ │
│September 1942, concerning occupation │ │
│costs. │ VII │ 744
│ │ │
ECR-192 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 6 November│ │
│1942, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 744
│ │ │
ECR-193 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 7 December│ │
│1942, concerning occupation costs. │ VII │ 745
│ │ │
ECR-194 │Letter of Commissar at the Netherlands │ │
│Bank Amsterdam, enclosing report on │ │
│contributions of Holland for Germany │ │
│during the first year of occupation, 28 │ │
│May 1941. │ VII │ 745
│ │ │
ECR-195 │Letter from RKK Amsterdam to Central │ │
│Administration of RKK Berlin, 21 April │ │
│1942, concerning Dutch East Help. │ VII │ 747
│ │ │
ECR-196 │Report of the Commissar of the │ │
│Netherlands Bank, 9 May 1941. │ VII │ 748
│ │ │
ECR-197 │Circular of the Reichsminister of │ │
│Economics in foreign exchange matters, │ │
│31 March 1941. │ VII │ 749
│ │ │
*L-70 │Speech by Himmler at Bad Schachen, 14 │ │
│October 1943, on the Question of │ │
│Security. (USA 308) │ VII │ 818
│ │ │
*L-221 │Bormann report on conference of 16 July │ │
│1941, concerning treatment of Eastern │ │
│populations and territories. (USA 317) │ VII │ 1086
│ │ │
*R-92 │Instruction for internal use on │ │
│application of law concerning property │ │
│of Poles of 17 September 1940; copy of │ │
│monthly report 31 May 1942 with │ │
│statistics on farms and estates seized │ │
│and confiscated in the Incorporated │ │
│Eastern Territories; copy of letter from│ │
│SS officer to Himmler, 20 November 1940.│ │
│(USA 312) │ VIII │ 61
│ │ │
*R-112 │Orders issued by Reich Commissioner for │ │
│the Consolidation of German nationhood, │ │
│16 February 1942, 1 July 1942, 28 July │ │
│1942. (USA 309) │ VIII │ 108
│ │ │
*R-114 │Memoranda of conferences, 4 and 18 │ │
│August 1942, concerning directions for │ │
│treatment of deported Alsatians. (USA │ │
│314) │ VIII │ 122