Chapter XXV: Part 25

I have given only a few examples of this principle; and to conclude I shall quote a decree of 12 August 1941, _Official Gazette_ for 1941, Page 34, which created a special judicial competence for all offenses and infringements committed against political peace and against political interests, or committed for political motives. In fact, the justices of the peace charged with exercising these oppressive powers were always chosen from among the members of the Nazi Party.

Finally a third line of action in this campaign of usurpation can be defined as a systematic campaign against the elite of the country and against its spiritual life. In fact it is always in this sphere that the Nazis met with the greatest resistance to their designs. They attacked the universities and teaching establishments.

In Holland a decree of 25 July 1941, _Official Gazette_ for 1941, Page 559, gives the administration the right to close arbitrarily all private institutions. In the Netherlands the University of Leyden was closed on 11 November 1941.

By a decree of the Reich Commissioner of 10 May 1943, _Official Gazette_ for 1943, Page 127, the students were forced to sign a declaration of loyalty drawn up in the following terms:

“The undersigned, ——, hereby solemnly declares on his word of
honor that he will conscientiously conform to the laws, decrees,
and other dispositions in force in Dutch occupied territory and
will abstain from any act directed against the German Reich, the
German Army, or the Dutch authorities, or engage in any activity
which might imperil public order in the higher teaching
institutions in view of the present circumstances and danger.”

In Norway rigorous measures were taken against the University of Oslo. I offer in evidence Document Number RF-933. I point out to the Tribunal that this is not in strict order and that Document Number RF-933 is the last in the document book.

This Document Number RF-933 is an article in the _Deutsche Zeitung_ of 1 December 1943, reproduced in a Norwegian newspaper. It is entitled, “A Cleaning-Up Measure Necessary in Oslo; Purge in the Student World.” I shall read only a few paragraphs of this article. I begin with the second paragraph:

“The students of the University of Oslo”—will the Tribunal excuse me. I shall read also the first paragraph:

“By order of the Reich Commissioner Terboven, the SS
Obergruppenführer and General of the Police Rediess made the
following announcement to the students in the lecture room of
the University of Oslo on Tuesday afternoon:

“The students of the University of Oslo have attempted to offer
resistance to the German Army of occupation and to the Norwegian
Government recognized by the Reich, since the occupation of
Norway, that is, since 1940.”

I shall end the quotation here, and continue at Paragraph 5:

“In order to protect the interests of the occupying power and to
assure maintenance of peace and order within this country,
rigorous measures are indispensable. Therefore, by order of the
Reich Commissioner, I have to make known to you the following:

“1. The students of the University of Oslo will be transferred
to a special camp in Germany.

“2. The women students will be dismissed from the University and
must return by the quickest means to their original place of
residence, where they will immediately report to the police.
Until further notice they are forbidden to leave these places
without permission from the police.”

I break off the quotation here and continue at the last paragraph but one, on the second page of this Document Number RF-933:

“You ought to be thankful to the Reich Commissioner that other
much more Draconian measures are not being applied. Moreover,
thanks to this measure, most of you have been saved from
forfeiting your life and wealth in the future.”

As concerns religious life, the Germans multiplied their harassing methods. By way of example, I offer in evidence Document Number RF-929, which I shall read:

“Oslo, 28 May 1941: To the Commanders of the Sipo and the SD in
Bergen, Stavanger, Trondheim, Tromosoe. Subject: Surveillance of
Religious Services during the Whitsuntide Feasts. Incidents:
none.

“It is requested that you watch the religious services and send
in a report here on the result.

“BDS”—commander—“of the Sipo and the SD. Oslo. Signature:
(illegible) SS Hauptsturmführer.”

Now here is the report following this order to watch the church services. I offer this report in evidence as Document Number RF-930. I shall read this document, which is very short.

“Trondheim, 5 June 1941.

“The surveillance of religious services during the Whitsuntide
Feasts showed no new essential points. Domprobst Fjellbu adheres
to his provocative preaching, but so cleverly that he is able to
excuse every phrase as applied to religious subjects and void of
any political meaning.”

The rest of the letter is partly burned.

Finally I should like, in order not to dwell on this matter too long, to quote two examples which show, on the one hand, the constant immorality of the German methods and, on the other hand, the justified protests to which they gave rise on the part of the most qualified authorities. The first example concerns the Netherlands.

The Dutch magistrates were roused to righteous indignation by the German practice of arbitrary detentions in concentration camps. They found the opportunity of making known their disapproval in a manner which came within the normal exercise of their juridical functions. Thus, in connection with a particular case, the Court of Appeal at Leeuwarden rendered a decision of which I wish to read an extract to the Tribunal. This is submitted as Document Number RF-931. I shall read to you an extract from this document:

“Whereas the Court cannot declare itself in agreement in the
matter of the penalty inflicted upon the accused by the Chief
Judge and his presentation of motives, the Court is of the
opinion that this penalty should be determined as follows:

“Whereas as regards the penalty to be inflicted:

“The Court desires to take into account the fact that for some
time various penalties of detention inflicted by the Dutch Judge
upon delinquents of masculine sex, contrary to legal principles
and contrary to the intention of the Legislator and of the
Judge, have been executed, or are being executed in camps in a
manner which aggravates the penalty to a degree such as it was
impossible for the Judge to foresee or even to suppose when
determining the degree of the punishment.

“Whereas the Court, taking into account the possibility of this
manner of executing the penalty to be inflicted at present, will
abstain, for conscience sake, from condemning the suspect to a
period of detention in conformity, in this case, with the
gravity of the offense committed by the defendant, because the
latter would be exposed to the possibility of an execution of
the penalty as indicated here above.

“Whereas the Court, on the strength of this consideration, will
confine itself to condemning the suspect to a penalty of
detention to be determined hereafter, after deducting the time
spent by him in preventive detention, and the duration of which
is such that the penalty at the moment of the pronouncing of the
penalty will have almost entirely expired during the period of
preventive detention.”

This example is especially interesting, because I now have to indicate that as a result of this decision of the Court of Appeal, the Defendant Seyss-Inquart dismissed the President of the Court by a decree of the 9th of April 1943, which is likewise submitted in evidence under the same document number, RF-931. These two documents constitute a whole.

“By virtue of paragraph 3 of my decree,”—_et cetera_—“I
dismiss from his office as Counsellor of the Court of Appeal at
Leeuwarden, such dismissal to take effect immediately, Doctor of
Law F.F. Viehoff.”—Signed—“Seyss-Inquart.”

The second example which I give in conclusion will now be taken from Norway. It is a solemn protest made by the Norwegian bishops. The special occasion which called forth this protest is the following: The Minister for Police had issued a decree, dated 13 December 1940, by which he arrogated to himself the right to suppress the obligation of professional secrecy for priests and provided that priests who refused to break the secrecy of the confession would be subjected to imprisonment by his orders.

On 15 January 1941, the Norwegian bishops addressed themselves to the Ministry of Public Education and Religious Affairs, and handed to it a memorandum. In this memorandum they made known their protests against this extraordinary demand by the police and at the same time they protested against other abuses; violent acts committed by Nazi organizations, and illegal acts in judicial matters. This protest of the Norwegian bishops is transcribed in a pastoral letter addressed to their parishes in February 1941. I submit it as Document Number RF-932. I should like to quote an extract from this document on Page 9, top of the page:

“The decree of the Ministry of Police, dated 13 December 1940,
just published, gravely affects the mission of the priests.
According to this decree, the obligation of professional secrecy
for priests and ministers may be suppressed by the Ministry of
Police.

“Our obligation to maintain professional secrecy is not only
established by law, but has always been a fundamental condition
for the work of the Church and of the priests in the exercise of
their care of souls and in receiving the confession of persons
in distress. It is an unalterable condition for the work of the
Church, that a person may have absolute and unlimited confidence
in the priest who is unreservedly bound by his obligation to
keep professional secrecy, as it has been formulated in the
Norwegian legislation and in the regulations of the Church at
all times and in all Christian countries.

“To abolish this _Magna Charta_ of the conscience is to strike
at the very heart of the work of the Church, which is all the
more serious because Paragraph 5 of the decree stipulates that
the Ministry of Police may imprison the priest in question, in
order to force a statement without the case having been
submitted to a tribunal.”

Yet all this was happening during the first year of the occupation. Already the highest spiritual authorities of Norway found themselves in the position of having not only to protest against a particularly intolerable act, but also to enunciate a judgment upon the whole of the methods of the occupation, which judgment appears on Page 16 of the pastoral letter, and which I shall read to the Tribunal (last paragraph):

“For this reason the bishops of the Church have placed before
the Ministry some of the acts and official proclamations about
the government of society during these latter times, acts and
proclamations which the Church finds in contradiction with the
Commandments of God and which give the impression of
revolutionary conditions prevailing in the country, instead of a
state of occupation by which the laws are upheld as long as they
are not directly incompatible with this state of occupation.”

This is a very correct juridical analysis; and now, if it please the Tribunal, I should also like to read a last sentence which preceded this, on Page 16:

“When the public authority of society permits violence and
injustice and exercises pressure over souls, then the Church
becomes the guardian of consciences. A human soul is of more
importance than the whole world.”

I shall now ask the Tribunal to take the file entitled “Belgium.” I point out immediately to the Tribunal that this file does not include any document book. This statement, which deals with very general facts, will be supported as being evidence by the report of the Belgian Government, which has already been submitted by my colleagues under Document Number RF-394. The section which I now take up is a general section concerning military administration in two cases, in Belgium and France; and I shall begin with the file concerning Belgium.

In Belgium the usurpations of national sovereignty by the occupying power are imputable to the military command which committed them either by direct decrees or by injunctions to the Belgian administrative authorities who in this case were the Secretaries General of the Ministries.

Concerning the setting up of this apparatus of usurpation I shall read out to the Tribunal two paragraphs of the Belgian report, Chapter 4, concerning Germanization and nazification, Page 3, Paragraph 3:

“The legal government of Belgium, having withdrawn to France,
then to London, it was the Secretaries General of the
Ministries, that is to say, the highest officials in the
hierarchic order, who, by virtue of Article 5 of the law of 10
May 1940, exercised within the framework of their professional
activity and in cases of urgency, all the powers of the highest
authority.”

In other words, these high officials, animated, at least during the first months of the occupation, by the desire to keep the occupying authorities as far removed as possible from the administration of the country, took upon themselves governmental and administrative powers. At the order of the Germans this administrative power after a time became a real legislative power.

This regime of the Secretaries General pleased the Germans who adopted it. In appointing to these posts Belgians paid by them they could introduce into Belgium under the appearance of legality absolutely radical reforms, which would make of this country a National Socialist vassal state.

It is interesting to note at this point that in order to strengthen their hold on the public life through the local authorities, the Germans did not hesitate by a decree of 14 May 1942, which is referred to in the official report, to suppress the jurisdictional control of the legality of the orders of the Secretaries General, which was a violation of Article 107 of the Belgian Constitution. The Belgian report states in the following paragraphs where the responsibility lies in this matter of breaches of public order, and I shall quote here the actual terms of this report on Page 4, Paragraph 3:

“In conclusion, whether the transformation of the legal
institutions be the consequence of German decrees or that of
orders emanating from the Secretaries General makes no
difference. It is the Germans who bear the responsibility for
these, the Secretaries General being in relation to them only
faithful agents for carrying out their instructions.”

I think that it will likewise be interesting to read the three following paragraphs of the report, for they reveal characteristic facts as to German methods in their seizure of sovereignty.

“If it is necessary to furnish a new argument to support this
thesis further, it is sufficient to recall that the occupying
power employed all means to introduce into the structure which
was to be transformed, from top to bottom, devoted National
Socialist agents. This was really the work of termites.

“The decree of 7 March 1941, under the pretext of bringing
younger men into the administration, provided for the removal of
a great number of officials. They would naturally be replaced by
Germanophiles.

“Finally, the Germans set up at the head of the Ministry of the
Interior one of their most devoted agents, who arrogated to
himself, as we shall see subsequently, the right to designate
aldermen, permanent deputies, burgomasters, _et cetera_, and
used his rights to proceed to certain appointments of district
commissioners, for instance, by putting into office tools of the
enemy.”

The Belgian report then analyzes in a remarkably clear manner the violations by the Germans of Belgian public order, classifying these under two headings. The first is entitled “Modifications Made in the Original Constitutional Structure.”

Under this heading we find particular mention of the decree of 18 July 1940, which immediately abolished all public activity; then a series of decrees by which the Germans suppressed the election of aldermen and decided that these aldermen would henceforth be designated by the central authority. This meant the overthrow of the traditional democratic order of communal administrations.

In the same way the Germans, in violation of Article 3 of the Belgian Constitution, ordered by the decree of 26 January 1943 the absorption of numerous communes into great urban areas.

The report then mentions here the fiscal exemptions granted in violation of the Constitution, to persons engaged in the service of the German Army or the Waffen SS. We find here a fresh example of the German criminal and general methods of military recruitment in the occupied countries.

The second heading of the report reads: “Introduction into Belgian Public Life of New Institutions Inspired by National Socialism and the Idea of the State.” Such institutions were, in fact, created by the German authorities. The most remarkable are the National Agricultural and Food Corporation and the Central Merchandise Offices. The report analyzes the characteristics of these institutions and proves that they aimed at destroying traditional liberties. They were organs of totalitarian inspiration in which the Leadership Principle was applied, as we have seen was the case in similar institutions in the Netherlands.

I should like now to read the brief but revealing conclusion of the Belgian report on Germanization. We think that it has been sufficiently established by the preceding statement that the Belgian Constitution and laws were deliberately violated by the German occupying power, and this with the purpose, not of assuring its own security, which is obvious, but with the skillfully premeditated intention of making of Belgium a National Socialist State and, consequently, capable of being annexed, seeing that two nationalist states that are neighbors must necessarily exclude each other, the stronger absorbing the weaker.

This policy was carried out in violation of international laws and customs, of the Declaration of Brussels of 1874, and of the Hague Regulations of 1899.

I shall not give detailed indications concerning other applications of this usurpation in connection with Belgium, because many indications have been furnished to the Tribunal already, notably in the economic statement and likewise in M. Dubost’s presentation. And, moreover, as the regime in Belgium was closely bound up with the regime in France, the indications which I shall give in the two other sections of my brief will relate particularly to these two countries.

However, before concluding the presentation which I am now making, I should like to mention the abuses committed by the Germans against the universities of Belgium. We find here again the same phenomenon of hostility—very understandable of course—on the part of the doctrinaires and Nazi leaders against the centers of culture; and this hostility showed itself especially with regard to the four great Belgian universities, which have such a fine tradition of spiritual life. I must point out to the Tribunal that the observations which I intend to present on this point have been taken from the appendices to the Belgian report of which I read some extracts. I must point out that these appendices have not been submitted as documents, although they are attached to one of these originals, which marks their authenticity. I shall have these appendices translated and submitted later and I shall ask the Tribunal, therefore, to consider the indications which I shall give it as affirmations, the proof of which will be furnished, on the one hand, by the deposit of documents and, on the other hand, by oral evidence, since I have called a witness on the subject of these questions. If this method satisfies the Tribunal, and I beg to be excused for the fact that the appendices have not been actually presented with the document, I shall continue my statement on this point.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Faure, what are the appendices to which you are referring?

M. FAURE: They are documents which are in the appendix of the Belgian report. They are as follows:

The subject matter of this report is to be found in the Belgian report itself, which has already been submitted. On the other hand, another copy of the same section has been established as the original with a series of appendices. For this reason the appendices were not translated and submitted at the same time as the main report, of which this was only a part. They are appended notes which trace events that occurred in university life. But, as I indicated to the Tribunal, I propose to prove these points by the hearing of a witness. I thought, therefore, that I could make a statement which would constitute an affirmation of the Prosecution and on which I would produce oral evidence. On the other hand, I shall submit the appendices as soon as they have been translated into German, which has not yet been done.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal is satisfied with the course which you propose, M. Faure.

M. FAURE: I shall mention first that in the University of Ghent the Germans undertook special propaganda among the students, with a view to germanizing these young generations. They utilized for this purpose an organization called “Genter Studenten Verband,” but their efforts to develop this organization did not achieve the success they had hoped. They set up in this university and in others a real espionage system under the cover of an ingenious formula, namely, that of “invited professors,” German professors who were supposed to have been invited and who were observers and spies.

The report of one of these invited professors has been found in Belgium. This report shows the procedure adopted as well as the complete failure of the German efforts to exert influence.

In all the universities, the Germans made arrests and deported professors and students, and this action was resorted to particularly when the students refused—and rightly so—to obey the German illegal orders which compelled them to enter the labor service.

As regards the University of Brussels, it should be pointed out that this university had been, from the beginning, provided with a German Commissioner, and that 14 professors had been irregularly dismissed. Later, the University of Brussels was obliged to discontinue the courses, and this as a result of a characteristic incident:

On the occasion of the vacancy of three chairs at the university, the Germans refused to accept the nomination of the candidates proposed in the usual way, and decided that they would appoint professors whose views suited them. This clearly shows the generally applied German method of interfering in everything and putting into office everywhere agents under their influence.

On 22 November 1941 the German military administration notified the President of the University of this decision. Therefore, the university decided to go on a sort of strike and, in spite of all the efforts of the Germans, this strike of the University of Brussels lasted until the liberation.

On this question of the Belgian universities, I should like now to read something to the Tribunal. This concerns the University of Louvain. Before reading this, I must indicate to the Tribunal the circumstances.

The Germans had in this university, as in the others, imposed upon the students compulsory labor. This we already know. But what I am going to read has to do with an additional requirement which is altogether shocking.

The Germans wished to oblige the Rector of the University, Monseigneur Van Wayenberg, to give them a complete list with the addresses of those students who were liable to compulsory service and who evaded it. They wished, therefore, to impose upon the rector an act whereby he would become an informer and this under threat of very severe penalties. The Cardinal Archbishop of Malines intervened on this occasion and on 4 June 1943 addressed a letter to General Von Falkenbausen, Military Commander in Belgium. I should like to read this letter to the Tribunal. This letter is to be found in a book which I have here and which is published in Belgium, entitled “Cardinal Van Roey and the German Occupation in Belgium.” I do not submit this letter as a document. I ask the Tribunal to consider it as a quotation from a publication. This is what Cardinal Archbishop of Malines writes:

“By an oral communication, of which I have asked in vain for the
confirmation in writing, the Chief of the Military
Administration Reeder has informed me that in case Monseigneur
the Rector of the Catholic University of Louvain should persist
in refusing to furnish the list with the addresses of the first
year students, the occupying authority will take the following
measures:

“Close down the university; forbid the students to enroll in
another university; subject all the students to forced labor in
Germany and, should they evade this measure, take reprisals
against their families.

“This communication is all the more surprising, as a few days
previously, following a note addressed to your Excellency by
Monseigneur the Rector, the latter received from the
Kreiskommandant of Louvain a notification that the academic
authority would have no further trouble with regard to the
lists. It is true that the Chief of Military Administration
Reeder informed me that this answer was due to a
misunderstanding.

“As President of the Board of the University of Louvain, I have
informed the Belgian bishops, who make up this board, of the
serious nature of the communication which I have received; and I
have the duty to inform you, in the name of all the bishops,
that it is impossible for us to advise Monseigneur the Rector to
hand over the lists of his students, and that we approve the
passive attitude which he has observed up to now. To furnish the
lists would, in effect, imply positive co-operation in measures
which the Belgian bishops have condemned in the pastoral letter
of 15 March 1943 as being contrary to international law, to
natural rights, and to Christian morality.

“If the University of Louvain were subjected to sanctions
because it refuses this co-operation, we consider that it would
be punished for carrying out its duty and that however hard and
painful the difficulties it would have to undergo temporarily,
its honor at least would not be sullied. We believe, with the
famous Bishop of Milan, St. Ambrose, that honor is above
everything—‘_Nihil praeferandum honestati._’

“Moreover, Your Excellency cannot be ignorant of the fact that
the Catholic University of Louvain is a dependency of the Holy
See. Canonically established by the Papacy, it is under the
authority and the control of the Roman Congregation of
Seminaries and Universities and it is the Holy See which
approved the appointment of Monseigneur Van Wayenberg as Rector
Magnifique of the University. If the measures announced were to
be carried out, it would constitute a violent attack on the
rights of the Holy See. Consequently His Holiness the Pope will
be informed of the extreme dangers which threaten our Catholic
University.”

I shall end here the quotation of the letter, but I must point out to the Tribunal that in spite of this protest and any considerations of simple practical interest, which the Germans might have had in maintaining correct attitude in this matter, the Rector Magnifique was arrested on 5 June 1943, and was condemned by the German military court to 18 months imprisonment.

Having recalled the painful facts which the Tribunal has just heard, I should like to observe that they might almost give us the impression that such an event as the arrest and sentence of a prelate, rector of a university, for a wrongful reason was, since there were no tragic consequences, of relatively secondary importance. But I think we should not subordinate our intellectual judgment to the direct test of our sensibility, now grown so accustomed to horrors; and if we reflect upon it, we consider that such an outrage is in itself very characteristic, and the fact that such treatment should have been considered by the Germans as the expression of justice, that is truly characteristic of the plan of Germanization with its repercussions on the world.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

MARSHAL: May it please the Court, I desire to announce that the Defendant Kaltenbrunner will be absent from this afternoon’s session on account of illness.

M. FAURE: May it please the Tribunal, I should like to call the witness, Van der Essen.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

[_The witness, Van der Essen, took the stand._]

M. FAURE: What is your name?

VAN DER ESSEN (Witness): Van der Essen.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you swear to speak without hate or fear, to say the truth, all the truth, and only the truth?

Raise your right hand and say “I swear.”

VAN DER ESSEN: I swear.

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down, if you wish.

M. FAURE: M. Van der Essen, you are a professor of history in the Faculty of Letters at the University of Louvain?

VAN DER ESSEN: Yes.

M. FAURE: You are the General Secretary of the University of Louvain?

VAN DER ESSEN: Yes.

M. FAURE: You have stayed in Belgium during the whole period of the occupation?

VAN DER ESSEN: To the end; from the end of July 1940 I never left Belgium.

M. FAURE: Can you give information on the destruction of the Library of Louvain?

VAN DER ESSEN: It will be remembered that in 1914 this library, which was certainly one of the best university libraries in Europe, containing many early printed books, manuscripts and books of the 16th and 17th centuries, was systematically destroyed by means of incendiary material by the German soldiers of the 9th Reserve Corps, commanded by General Von Ston. This time, in 1940, the same thing happened again. This library was systematically destroyed by the German Army; and in order that you may understand, I must first say that the fire began, according to all the witnesses, during the night from the 16th to the 17th of May 1940 at about 1:30 in the morning. It was on the 17th at dawn that the English Army made the necessary withdrawal maneuver to leave the Q. W. line of defense. On the other hand, it is absolutely certain that the first German troops entered on the morning of the 17th, only about 8 o’clock. This interval between the departure of the British troops, on the one hand, and the arrival of the Germans on the other, enabled the latter to make it appear as if the library had been systematically destroyed by the British troops. I must here categorically give the lie to such a version. The library of the University of Louvain was systematically destroyed by German gun fire.

Two batteries were posted, one in the village of Corbek, and the other in the village of Lovengule. These two batteries on each side systematically directed their fire on the library and on nothing but the library. The best proof of this is that all the shells fell on the library; only one house near the library received a chance hit. The tower was hit 11 times, 4 times by the battery which fired from Lovengule, and 7 times by the battery which fired from Corbek.

At the moment when the Lovengule battery was about to begin firing the officer who commanded it asked an inhabitant of the village to accompany him into the field; when they arrived at a place from where they could see the tower of the library, the officer asked, “Is that the tower of the university Library?” The reply was “Yes.” The officer insisted, “Are you sure?” “Yes,” replied the peasant, “I see it every day, as you see it now.”

Five minutes later the shelling began, and immediately a column of smoke arose quite near the tower. So there can be no doubt that this bombardment was systematic and aimed only at the library. On the other hand, it is also certain that a squadron of 43 airplanes flew over the library and dropped bombs on the monument.

M. FAURE: M. Van der Essen, you are a member of the official Belgian Commission for War Crimes?

VAN DER ESSEN: Yes.

M. FAURE: In this capacity you investigated the events of which you speak?

VAN DER ESSEN: Yes, indeed.

M. FAURE: The information which you have given the Tribunal, then, is the result of an inquiry which you made and evidence by witnesses which you heard yourself?

VAN DER ESSEN: What I have just stated here is most certainly the result of the official inquiry made by the Belgian War Crimes Commission, assisted by several witnesses heard under oath.

M. FAURE: Can you give information on the attempt at nazification of Belgium by the Germans, and especially the attempt to undermine the normal and constitutional organization of the public authorities.

VAN DER ESSEN: Certainly. First, I think it is interesting to point out that the Germans violated one of the fundamental principles of the Belgian Constitution and institutions, which consisted of the separation of powers, that is to say, separation of judicial powers, of executive powers, and legislative powers; because in the numerous organizations of the New Order, which they themselves created either by decree or by suggesting the creation of these organizations to their collaborators, they never made a distinction between legislative and executive powers. Also, in these organizations freedom of speech for the defense was never, or very little, respected. But what is much more important is that they attacked an organization which goes far back in our history, which dates back to the Middle Ages; I mean the communal autonomy which safeguards us and safeguards the people against any too dangerous interference on the part of the central authority. This is what happened in this domain: It would be sufficient to read, or to have read for a short time, the present day Belgian newspapers, to observe that the burgomasters, that is to say the chiefs of the communes, the aldermen of the principal Belgian towns, such as Brussels, Ghent, Liège, Charleroi, and also of many towns of secondary importance—all these aldermen and burgomasters are either in prison or about to appear before courts-martial.

That shows sufficiently, I think, that these burgomasters and these aldermen are not those who were appointed by the King and by the Belgian Government before 1940, but all of them were people who were imposed by the enemy by means of groups of collaborators, VNV or “Rexists.”

It is of capital importance to establish that fact, because the burgomaster, as soon as he was directly responsible to the central authority—in other words, as soon as the Leadership Principle was applied—could interfere in all kinds of ways in the administrative, political, and social life. The burgomaster appointed the aldermen; the aldermen appointed the communal officials and employees, and the moment the burgomaster belonged to that Party and was appointed by that Party, he appointed as communal officials members of the Party who could refuse ration cards to refractory people, or order the police to give, for instance, the list of Communists, or of those suspected of being Communists; in short, they could interfere in almost any way they wished, and by every possible means, in the communal life of Belgium.

If we examine the big towns and the small towns, we can say that everywhere there was truly a veritable network of espionage and interference following the events or acts of which I have just informed you.

M. FAURE: It is true, then, to say that this meddling by the Germans with the administration of the communes constituted a seizure of Belgian national sovereignty?

VAN DER ESSEN: Certainly, since it made the fundamental principle of the Belgian constitution disappear, that is to say, the sovereignty that belongs to the nation and more especially to the Communal Council which appointed aldermen and burgomasters. From then on it was impossible for them to make themselves heard in the normal way, so that the sovereignty of the Belgian people was directly attacked by the fact itself.

M. FAURE: Since you are a professor of higher education, can you give us information concerning the interference in education?

VAN DER ESSEN: Yes, sir, certainly.

First, there was interference in the domain of elementary and secondary education through the General Secretary of Public Education, on whom the Germans exercised pressure. A commission was set up which was entrusted with the task of purging the text books. It was forbidden to use text books which mentioned what the Germans did in Belgium during the 1914-18 war; this chapter was absolutely forbidden. The booksellers and publishing houses could still sell these books, but only on the condition that the bookseller or library should tear out this chapter. As for new books which had to be reprinted or republished, this commission indicated exactly which ones should be cancelled or removed. That was serious and alarming interference with primary and secondary education.

As regards higher education, the interference was unleashed, so to speak, from the very beginning of the occupation; and first of all, for motives which I need not explain here but which are well known, in the free University of Brussels.

The Germans first imposed on the University of Brussels a German Commissioner, who thus had in his hands the whole organization of the university and even controlled it, as far as I know, from the point of view of accountancy. Moreover they imposed exchange professors. But serious difficulties began the day when, in Brussels as elsewhere, they required that they should be informed of all projects of new appointments and all new appointments of professors, in the same way as the assignment of lecture courses and other subjects taught in the university. The result was that in Brussels, by virtue of this right which they had arrogated, they wished to impose three professors, of whom two were obviously not acceptable to any Belgian worthy of the name. There was one, notably, who, having been a member of the Council of Flanders during the occupation of 1914-18, had been condemned to death by the justice of this country and whom they wanted to impose as a professor in the University of Brussels in 1940. Under these conditions the university refused to accept this professor, and this was considered by the occupying authorities as sabotage.

As a penalty, the President of the Board of the University, the principal members of the board, the deans of the principal faculties, and a few other professors, who were especially well known as being anti-Fascists, were arrested and imprisoned in the prison of Witte with the aggravating circumstance that they were considered as hostages and that, if any act whatsoever of sabotage or resistance occurred, they, being hostages, could be shot.

As far as the other universities were concerned, as I have just said here, they wished to impose exchange professors. There were none at Louvain because we refused categorically to receive them, the more so as it appeared that these exchange professors were not, primarily, scholars who had come to communicate the result of their researches and their scientific work, but a great many of them were observers for the occupying authorities.

M. FAURE: In this connection, is it true that the Belgian authorities discovered the report made by one of these so-called “invited” professors?

VAN DER ESSEN: That is indeed the case. The Belgian authorities got hold of a report by Professor Von Mackensen, who was sent as an exchange professor to the University of Ghent. In this report—drawn up with infinite care and which is extraordinarily interesting to read because of the personal and psychological observations which it contains concerning the various members of the faculty of Ghent—in this report we see that everyone was observed and followed day by day, that his tendencies were labeled, that a note was made as to whether he was for or against the system of the occupying power, or whether he had any relations with students who were N.P. or Rexists. The slightest movements and actions of all the professors were carefully noted; and I add, with great care and precision. It was almost a scientific piece . . .

M. FAURE: M. Van der Essen, I described this morning to the Tribunal various incidents which occurred in the University of Louvain, of which you were the General Secretary. Therefore I should like you to tell the Tribunal briefly the actual facts connected with these incidents, especially, those connected with the imprisonment of the Rector Monseigneur Van Wayenberg.

VAN DER ESSEN: Yes, indeed, sir. Serious difficulties began in the University of Louvain after the appearance of the decree of compulsory labor of 6 March 1943, by which students of the university were forced to accept compulsory labor. I would add, not in Reich territory, but in Belgium. But this action, which was held out to the university students as a sort of privilege, was entirely inacceptable to Belgian patriots for the simple reason that, if the university students accepted to go and work in the Belgian factories, they automatically expelled workmen, who were then sent to Germany as the students took their place.

That was the first reason why they did not wish to work for the enemy; the second was because, from a social point of view, they wanted to show solidarity with the workers, who suffered very much because the students had refused. At least two-thirds of the students of Louvain refused to do compulsory work. They became refractory, the classes became empty, they hid themselves as best they could, and several went into the Maquis.

The German authorities, when they saw the way things were going, demanded that the list of students be given to them, with their addresses, so that they could arrest them in their homes or, if they couldn’t find them, they could arrest a brother, or sister, or father, or any member of the family in their place. This was the principle of collective responsibility which was applied here the same as in all other cases.

After having used gentle means, they resorted to blackmail and ended up by adopting really brutal measures. They renewed the raids, they dismissed Dr. Tschacke and Dr. Kalische, I think, and many others. They ordered searches to be made in the university offices to lay their hands on the list of students; but as this list was carefully hidden, they had to go away empty-handed. It was then that they decided to arrest the Rector of the University, Monseigneur Van Wayenberg, who had hidden the lists in a place known only to him. He declared that he alone knew the place so as not to endanger his colleagues and the members of the faculty.

One morning in June two members of the Secret Police from Brussels, accompanied by Military Police, came to the Hall. They arrested the rector in his office and transferred him to the prison of Saint-Gilles in Brussels, where he was imprisoned. Shortly afterwards he appeared before a German tribunal which condemned him to 18 months imprisonment for sabotage. To tell the truth, he was in jail for only 6 months, because the doctor of Saint-Gilles saw that the rector’s health was beginning to fail and it would be dangerous to keep him longer if one wished to avoid a serious incident, also because of the many petitions by all sorts of authorities. Thus the rector was freed. However, he was forbidden to set foot on the territory of Louvain; and they enjoined the university to appoint, immediately, another rector. This was refused.

M. FAURE: Very well. Is it true to say that the German authorities persecuted, more systematically, persons who belonged to the intellectual elite?

VAN DER ESSEN: Yes, there can be no doubt as to this. I might give, as examples, the following facts:

When hostages were taken it was nearly always university professors, doctors, lawyers, men of letters, who were taken as hostages and sent to escort military trains. At the time when the resistance was carrying out acts of sabotage to railways and blowing up trains, university professors from Ghent, Liège and Brussels, whom I know, were taken and put in the first coach after the locomotive so that, if an explosion took place, they could not miss being killed. I know of a typical case, which will show you that it was not exactly a pleasure trip. Two professors of Liège, who were in a train of this kind, witnessed the following scene: The locomotive passed over the explosive. The coach in which they were, by an extraordinary chance, also went over it; and it was the second coach containing the German guards which blew up, so that all the German guards were killed.

On the other hand, several professors and intellectuals were deported to that sinister camp of Breendonck, about which you know, some for acts of resistance, others for entirely unknown reasons; others were deported to Germany. Professors from Louvain were sent to Buchenwald, to Dora, to Neuengamme, to Gross-Rosen, and perhaps to other places too. I must add that it was not only professors from Louvain who were deported, but also intellectuals who played an important role in the life of the country. I can give you immediate proof. At Louvain, on the occasion of the reopening ceremony of the university this year, as Secretary General of the University, I read out the list of those who had died during the war. This list included 348 names, if I remember rightly. Perhaps some thirty of these names were those of soldiers who died during the Battles of the Scheldt and the Lys in 1940, all the others were victims of the Gestapo, or had died in camps in Germany, especially in the camps of Gross-Rosen and Neuengamme.

Moreover, it is certain that the Germans hated particularly the intellectuals because, from time to time, they organized a synchronized campaign in the press to give prominence to the fact that the great majority of intellectuals refused categorically to rally to the New Order and refused to understand the necessity for the struggle against bolshevism. These articles always concluded by stressing the necessity of taking measures against them. I remember well certain newspaper articles which simply proposed to send these intellectuals to concentration camps. There can be no doubt therefore that the intellectuals were deliberately selected.

M. FAURE: I shall ask you no questions on anything relating to deportations or to camps, because all that is already well known to the Tribunal. I shall ask you, when replying to the following question, not to mention deportation.

Now, my question concerns the whole of the atrocities which were committed by the Germans in Belgium and, especially, at the time of the December 1944 offensive by the German armies. Can you give information concerning these atrocities?

VAN DER ESSEN: Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, I can give you exact and detailed information, if necessary, on the crimes and atrocities committed during the offensive of Von Rundstedt in the Ardennes, because as a member of the War Crimes Commission I went there to make an inquiry, and I questioned witnesses and survivors of these massacres; and I know perfectly well, from personal knowledge, what happened.

During the Von Rundstedt offensive in the Ardennes they committed crimes which were truly abominable in 31 localities of the Ardennes, crimes committed against men, women, and children. These crimes were committed, on the one hand, as it happened elsewhere and as it happens in all wars, by individual soldiers, so I shall let that pass; but what I particularly want to stress are the crimes committed by whole units who received formal instructions, as well as crimes committed by known organizations; if I remember rightly, I think they were called Kommandos zur besonderen Verwendung, that is to say, commandos with special tasks which operated unchecked not only in the Belgian Ardennes but which also committed the same kind of crimes, carried out in the same way, in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

As regards the first, the crimes committed by whole units, I should like merely to give one very typical example, in order not to take up the time of the Tribunal. It happened at Stavelot, where about 140 persons—the number varies, let us say between 137 and 140—first it was 137, then they discovered some more bodies—about 140 persons, of whom 36 were women and 22 were children, of which the oldest was 14 years and the youngest 4 years, were savagely slaughtered by German units belonging to SS tank divisions, one the Hohenstaufen Division, the other the SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler Division. This is what the divisions did. We have full information about this from the testimony of a soldier who took part in it. He was arrested by the Belgian Security Police. He deserted during the Von Rundstedt campaign, dressed himself as a civilian, and then worked as a laborer on an Ardennes farm. One day as he was working stripped to the waist, he was seen by Belgian gendarmes, who saw by the tattooing on his body that he was an SS man. He was immediately arrested and interrogated.

This is the method used by the soldiers of the Hohenstaufen Division. There was a line of tanks, some were Königstiger (Royal Tigers), followed and preceded by Schützenpanzer. At a certain moment the Obersturmführer of this group stopped his men and delivered them a little speech telling them that all civilians whom they encountered should be killed. They then went back to their tanks, and as the tanks advanced along the road, the Obersturmführer would point to a house. Then the soldiers entered it with machine guns in their hands. If they found people in the kitchen, they killed them in the kitchen; if they found them sheltering in the cellar, they machine-gunned them in the cellar; if they found them on the road, they killed them on the road. Not only the Hohenstaufen Division, but also the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler Division, and others acted in this manner on formal orders according to which all civilians were to be killed. And what was the reason for this measure? Precisely because, during the retreat in September, it was mainly in that part of the Ardennes that the resistance went into action and quite a number of German soldiers were killed during that retreat. It was therefore to revenge this defeat, to avenge themselves for the action of the resistance, that orders were given that all civilians should be killed without mercy during the offensive launched in this region.

As far as the other method is concerned, this is still more important from the point of view of responsibility, for it concerns persons commanding troops of the Sicherheitspolizei, that is to say, of the Security Police, who in most villages they came to immediately set about questioning the people as to those who had taken part in the resistance, about the secret army, where these people lived, whether they were still there or whether they had fled. In short, they had special typed questionnaires with 27 questions, always the same, which were put to everyone in the villages to which they came.

Here again I shall proceed as I did in the first case. In order not to take up too much of the Tribunal’s time, I shall simply give the example of Bande, in the Arrondissement of Marche. At Bande one of these SD detachments, the officers of which said they were sent especially by Himmler to execute members of the resistance, seized all men between 17 and 32 years of age. After having questioned them thoroughly and after sorting them out in a quite arbitrary manner—they didn’t keep any people belonging to the resistance, for most of them had never taken part in it; there were only four who were members of the resistance—they led them away along the road from Marche to Basteuil with their hands raised behind their heads. When they reached a ruined house, which had been burned down in September, the officer who commanded the detachment posted himself at the entrance of the house, a Feldwebel joined him and put his hand on the shoulder of the last man of the third row who was making his way towards the entrance to the house; and there the officer, armed with a machine gun, killed a prisoner with a bullet in the neck. Then this same officer executed in this manner the 34 young men who had been kept back.

Not content with killing them, he kicked the bodies into the cellar; and then fired a volley of machine gun bullets to make sure that they were dead.

M. FAURE: M. Van der Essen, you are a historian; you have taught scholars; therefore you are accustomed to submitting the sources of history to criticism. Can you say that your inquiry leaves no doubt in your mind, that these atrocities reveal that there was an over-all plan and that instructions were certainly given by superior officers?

VAN DER ESSEN: I think that I can affirm it, I am quite convinced that there was an over-all plan.

M. FAURE: I would like to ask you a last question: I think I understood that you yourself were never arrested or particularly worried by the Germans. I would like to know if you consider that a free man, against whom the German administration or police have nothing in particular, could during the Nazi occupation lead a life in accordance with the conception a free man has of his dignity?