¹ On the history of the IISH under German occupation rule, see especially Scheltema-Kleefstra, Annie Adama van, “Herinneringen van de bibliothecaresse van het Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis”, Tijdschrift voor sociale Geschiedenis, Amsterdam (06 1978), pp. 141–176Google Scholar, and The International Institute of Social History, History and Activities (Amsterdam, 1985)Google Scholar; Hunink, Maria, De Papieren van de Revolutie, Het Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1935–1947 (Amsterdam, 1986) [hereafter, Hunink].Google Scholar

² Rosenberg to Lieutenant-Commander E. Kautter in Berlin–Charlottenburg, 27 January 1941. Bundesarchiv Koblenz [hereafter, BA], NS 8/217, folio 81.

³ Rosenberg, to Ley, , 27 01 1941.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/193, folio 75ff. The first draft, which was neither sent nor signed by Rosenberg, is dated 6 January 1941, and does not yet include the proposal to place this academy “within the scope of the DAF”. It is called the “academy for ideological social issues” in the first draft. A handwritten notation has been added: “not sent 8/1”. Ibid., folio 92f.

⁴ Nürnberg Document 136-PS.

⁵ Rosenberg, to Ley, , 27 01 1941Google Scholar (see n.3), folio 76.

⁶ Ibid., folio 78.

⁷ See Deutsch, Harold C., Das Komplott der Entmachtung der Generäle, Blomberg-und Fritsch-Krise–Hitlers Weg zum Krieg (Munich, 1974)Google Scholar, and Müller, Klaus-Jürgen, Armee und Drittes Reich (Paderborn, 1987), pp. 89ff.Google Scholar

⁸ Kautter, to Koeppen, , 14 11 1938.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/217, folio 87.

⁹ File note: Protokoll über die Besprechungen Luyken und Kautter am 21., 22. und 23. III. 1939 auf Grund ihrer Beauftragung durch die Reichsleiter Rosenberg und Lutze. BA, NS 8/217, folio 88. The following citation is also quoted from above.

¹⁰ Ibid., folio 89.

¹¹ Nürnberg Document 136-PS.

¹² Kautter, to Rosenberg, , 5 05 1941.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/217, folio 79.

¹³ See Messerschmidt, Manfred, Die Wehrmacht im NS-Staat–Zeit der Indoktrination (Hamburg, 1969), pp. 306ff., 441ff.Google Scholar, and Besson, Waldemar, “Zur Geschichte des natio-nalsozialistischen Führungsoffiziers (NSFO), Dokumentation mit einer Vorbemer-kung”, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte (1961), pp. 76ff.Google Scholar

¹⁴ In his role as “Commissioner of the Führer for the Supervision of All Mental and Ideological Training and Education”, Rosenberg concluded a work agreement with the head of the Armed Forces High Command of which the army was notified on 23 December 1940, and which guaranteed him extensive opportunity to influence the ideological indoctrination of the army. This agreement has been reprinted in Messer-schmidt, Die Wehrmacht, p. 247.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Hunink, , pp. 129f.Google Scholar; Scheltema-Kleefstra, Annie Adama van, “Herinneringen”, p. 168.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The closing was justified by the international character and the financial backing of the IISH. See Hunink, , p. 130.Google Scholar

¹⁷ An initial agreement was made shortly before the invasion of Austria when the secret service of the DAF (Amt Information) was disbanded in 1937–38 and transferred to the security service of the SS. The sector of its records relevant to security police work was turned over to the Gestapo, the files relevant to social history or social science were transferred to the Central Archive of the Arbeitswissenschaftliche Institut. In the case of the Austrian occupation, the SD obviously left the majority of the documents and the library of the Wiener Arbeitskammer (Vienna Chamber of Labor) to the DAF; however, the figure of 600,000 volumes that Prinzing mentions in his report is definitely an exaggeration. See BA, R58/447; Richter, Hans, “Dokumentation in der Sozialwissen schaft: Arbeiten und Pläne der Zentralbücherei der Deutschen Arbeitsfront am Arbeits-wissenschaftlichen Institut der DAF”, in Deutsche Gesellschaft für Dokumentation (ed.), Die Dokumentation und ihre Probleme; Vorträge, gehalten auf der 1. Tagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation vom 21. bis 24. September 1942 in Salzburg (Leipzig, 1943), pp. 151ff.Google Scholar, and “Das Zentral-Archiv der Deutschen Arbeitsfront – eine Stätte dokumentarischer Tatsachenbestände des sozialen Geschehens”, in Arbeitswis-senschaftliches Institut der DAF (ed.), Wirtschafts-und Sozialberichte (May, 1944), no. 1/2, p. 42.

¹⁸ In a report, the Reich Archive had expressly entitled the Deutsche Arbeitsfront to the right of disposal over the files of the disbanded unions and of the former entrepreneurial associations, and had been thus proceeding with the distribution of the captured foreign archives and libraries since 1938. On the limitations of competence within the Reich, see the undated Gutachten über die Errichtung eines Zentralarchivs bei der Deutschen Arbeitsfront written by Erwin Hölk, Archivrat in the Reich Archive, Zentrales Staats-archiv Potsdam, Reichsarchiv, no. 26.

¹⁹ Report of the SS Obersturmführer Dr. Prinzing, 24 August 1940, re: The International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam. Quote reprinted in Hunink, Doc. no. 43, p. 309. The following quote is also taken from the above-mentioned source.

²⁰ See Hunink, , p. 135.Google Scholar

²¹ See Nürnberg Documents 137-PS and 138-PS.

²² See Roth, Karl Heinz, “Searching for lost archives. The role of the Deutsche Arbeits-front in the pillage of West European trade-union archives”, International Review of Social History, XXXIV (1989), pp. 272–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ A ministerial department for archival affairs was set up in the office of the Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Dutch Territories, and the military administration for France established an archival affairs group in its administrative staff. See Roth, Karl Heinz, “Eine höhere Form des Plünderns. Der Tätigkeitsbericht der Gruppe Archiv-wesen in der Militärverwaltung Frankreich 1940–1944”, 1999, 4 (1989) no. 2.Google Scholar

²⁴ On this point, see the scattered material in: BA, NS 8 and NS 30; the trial protocol of the Nürnberg Trials against the main war criminals, especially from 17 April, 13 and 14 June and 31 August 1946; from the accompanying documentation of the PS-series, above all the memorandum of the staff leadership of Reichsleiter Rosenberg's task force dated 12 July, 1943 on the Library for Research on the Jewish Question (Nürnberg Document 171–PS).

²⁵ Cf. Hunink, , pp. 135f.Google Scholar

²⁶ Heydrich, to Rosenberg, Reichsleiter, 2 05 1941Google Scholar, quoted here from Hunink, doc. 45, p. 311.

²⁷ Quote cited Ibid.

²⁸ Kautter, to Koeppen, , 16 06 1941. BA, NS 8/217, folio 72.Google Scholar

²⁹ Kautter, to Rosenberg, Reichsleiter, 16 06 1941.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/217, folio 73.

³⁰ Kautter's report to Reichsleiter Rosenberg on the IISH, 28 April 1941. BA, NS 8/252, folio 40–57.

³¹ Rosenberg, to Heydrich, , 19 06 1941Google Scholar, quoted here from Kautter's undated draft version, BA, NS 8 8/217, folio 74. The Kautter draft corresponds to the version of the letter actually sent as reprinted in Hunink (doc. 46, p. 312).

³² Rosenberg to Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, 19 06 1941Google Scholar, quoted here from an undated and corrected draft. BA, NS 8/217, folio 76f.

³³ Heydrich, to Rosenberg, Reichsleiter, 7 10 1941Google Scholar, quoted as reprinted in Hunink, document 48, pp. 351f.

³⁴ A written approval by Seyss-Inquart of the transfer to Rosenberg's task force has not been found to date. However, Kautter informed Reichsleiter Rosenberg in a memoran dum that the “question concerning ownership of the Amsterdam institute” was now settled: Kautter, to Rosenberg, Reichsleiter, 7 08 1941Google Scholar, BA, NS 8/217, folio 60. During his examination in the Nürnberg Trial of the major war criminals on 31 August 1946, Seyss-Inquart denied having permitted the removal of the IISH library.

³⁵ See Kautter, to Rosenberg, Reichsleiter, 6 07 1941.Google Scholar B A, NS 8/217, folio 67.

³⁶ Prior to his transfer to the Reich Commissioner's Office of the Netherlands, Fritz Schmidt was Reichsamtsleiter, directly subordinate to Martin Bormann, secretary to the Führer and staff leader. He thus represented the NSDAP in the Reich Commissioner's Office and resisted the growing influence of the SS and thus also that of the SD. On the confrontations, see Veld, M. K. C. A. In't (ed.), De SS en Nederland, Deel I ('s-Graven-hage, 1976), pp. 597ff., 674ff., 812ff., 831f.Google Scholar

³⁷ In Kautter's correspondence with Rosenberg's adjutant, this report of Schmidt to Bormann is discussed and finally announced, however no evidence of it has yet been found. See B A, NS 8/217, folio 59ff.; yet evidence of Bormann's involvement in Hunink, p. 133.

³⁸ See Bollmus, Reinhard, Das Amt Rosenberg und seine Gegner (Stuttgart, 1970), pp. 54ff.Google Scholar

³⁹ Reconstructable using the file NS 8 in the BA; expanded upon using Bollmus, Amt Rosenberg, pp. 85ff.Google Scholar, who only works out the process of the “systematic diffusion of power” (p. 102) without questioning the indeed grave, substantial differences between the two Reichsleiter, differences that stemmed from their respective functions of social rule.

⁴⁰ This was based primarily on the training work and the broad scope of activities of the Nazi community “Strength through Joy” (Kraft durch Freude). See BA, NS 8/178–180.

⁴¹ See Ley, to Rosenberg, , 3 06 1941.Google Scholar B A, NS 8/193, folio 48f., in which he points out his priority claim. In his function as Reichsorganisationsleiter of the NSDAP, Ley had indeed assembled a series of Order Castles and in this context developed for the first time the model of a “Supreme School” as being the “highest level” of the Nazi indoctrination system. See Scholtz, Harald, “Die NS-Ordensburgen”, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 15 (1967), pp. 269ff.Google Scholar

⁴² Kautter, to Rosenberg, , 6 07 1941.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/217, folio 67.

⁴³ Kautter, to Rosenberg, , 14 07 1941.Google ScholarIbid., folio 65.

⁴⁴ Ibid.

⁴⁵ See Arbeitswissenschaftliches Institut der DAF (ed.), Das Arbeitswissenschaftliche Institut der Deutschen Arbeitsfront 1935–1942 (Berlin, 02 1943).Google Scholar On the staff planning of the peacetime organization of the institute, see additionally BA, NS 22/279 (preliminary).

⁴⁶ On this point see Hamburger Stiftung für Sozialgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts (ed.), Sozialstrategien der Deutschen Arbeitsfront, Edition der Denkschriften, Jahrbücher und Periodika des Arbeitswissenschaftlichen Instituts der DAF (Munich, London, New York, Paris, 1986)ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Ibid., part B/sec. 2: Denkschriften, Gutachten und Veröffentlichungen.

⁴⁸ Arbeitswissenschaftliches Institut der DAP (ed.), Sozialpolitische Probleme in Holl-and im Jahre 1937 (Berlin, December 1937)Google Scholar; Arbeitswissenschaftliches Institut, Arbeits-losigkeit, Arbeitslosenunterstützung und Arbeitseinsatz in den Niederlanden bis Sommer 1939 mit Ergänzungen bis Mai 1940 (Berlin, 24 05 1940)Google Scholar, and Arbeitswissenschaftliches Institut, Beiträge zur niederländischen Sozialpolitik (Berlin, 09 1940).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Arbeitswissenschaftliches Institut der DAF (ed.), Beiträge zur niederländischen Sozialpolitik (see n.48), part B: Die Gewerkschaften (completed 18 05 1940), pp. 25ff., especially pp. 41ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts Bonn [hereafter, PAA], file Inland I Partei, package 48/1 to 50/2.

⁵¹ See Bolhuis, J. J. van and Slotemaker, B. C., “De Duitse Penetratie in Vakcentralen en Sociale Wetgeving”, Onderdrukking en Verzet, Nederland in Oorlogstijd, vol. III, pp. 369ff.Google Scholar, and Hirschfeld, Gerhard, Fremdherrschaft und Kollaboration, Die Niederlande unter deutscher Besatzung 1940–1945 (Stuttgart, 1984), pp. 68ff.Google Scholar

⁵² See Jong, L. de, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, 11 vols (Den Haag, 1969–1985), vol. 4, 1, p. 452CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kupers, E., “Labor and Employer Organizations”, in Posthumus, N. W. (ed.), The Netherlands during German Occupation (Philadelphia, 1946), pp. 61ff.Google Scholar The bureau Hellwig was disbanded in the late summer of 1940 and subordinated to General Commissioner z.b. V. Schmidt; but the influence of the DAF on the labor market and social policies of the Reich Commissioner's Office remained. For example, the DAF Arbeitswissenschaftliches Institut conducted a comparative study in February and March 1941 on the development of the cost-of-living in the Netherlands and the German border regions, a study that was to be very important for the labor market and price policies in the occupied Netherlands: Arbeitswissenschaftliches Institut der DAF, Die Lebensverhältnisse des holländischen Arbeiters (Schriften zur Sozialstatistik), no. 2 (Berlin, 10 1941).Google Scholar On the subordination of the bureau Hellwig under General Commissioner Schmidt, see Fraenkel-Verkade, E. (ed.), Correspondentie van Mr. M. M. Rost van Tonningen (Den Haag, 1967), 1Google Scholar, Inleiding, pp. 105f.

⁵³ See Hunink, , p. 133, n.14.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Copy of a memorandum of the German Consul General of Amsterdam, 3 July 1937, to the Foreign Office, an enclosure to a memorandum of the Consul General, 12 May, 1939, to the Foreign Office, re: Internationales Institut für Sozialgeschichte in Amsterdam. PAA, Inland I Partei, package 49/4.

⁵⁵ See n.22.

⁵⁶ Kautter, to Rosenberg, Reichsleiter, 26 06 1940.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/217, folio 83.

⁵⁷ See Kautter, to Rosenberg, Reichsleiter, 5 05 1941, and 6 07 1941.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/217, folios 79 R and 67.

⁵⁸ See Arbeitsschulung, Zeitschrift des DINTA, 1 (1929)ff., and Bäumer, Peter C., Das Deutsche Institut für technische Arbeitsschulung (Dinta), Schriften des Vereins für Sozial-politik, vol. 181 (Munich and Leipzig, 1930)Google Scholar; for a critical presentation, see Hinrichs, Peter, Um die Seele des Arbeiters–Arbeitspsychologie, Industrie-und Betriebssozio-logie in Deutschland 1871–1945 (Cologne, 1981), pp. 271ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ First Karl Arnhold was “praised away” in May 1940 to assume the direction of a special department for occupational training and business management in the Reich Ministry for Economics and finally left the DAF completely at the end of November 1942. See the DAF directive no. 13/40 and 40/42, reprinted in Amtliches Nachrichtenblatt der Deutschen Arbeitsfront (1940), no. 3 (1942), no. 7.

⁶⁰ The controversy was over the first director of the Institute for Research on the Jewish Question, Wilhelm Grau, who was fired following an intrigue. See Ley, to Rosenberg, , 04 25, 1941.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/193. For background information see Bollmus, , Amt Rosenberg, p. 122.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Kautter, to Rosenberg, Reichsleiter, 5 05 1941.Google Scholar B A, NS 8/217, folio 79 R.

⁶² Rosenberg, to Ley, Reichsorganisationsleiter, 5 05 1941.Google Scholar B A, NS 8/193, folio 54.

⁶³ Ley, to Rosenberg, Reichsleiter, 3 06 1941Google Scholar (copy). BA, NS 8/193, folios 47f.

⁶⁴ Rosenberg, to Lieutenant-Commander Kautter, 7 07 1941.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/217, folio 71.

⁶⁵ See Kautter, to Rosenberg, Reichsleiter, 7 08 1941.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/217, folio 60.

⁶⁶ Rosenberg, to Ley, , 10 07 1941.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/217, folios 36ff., quote on folio 38.

⁶⁷ Ley, to Rosenberg, Reichsleiter, 28 07 1941.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/193, folio 33.

⁶⁸ Reichsamtsleiter and director of the DAF Arbeitswissenschaftliche Institut, Wolfgang Pohl, to Reichsleiter Rosenberg, 19 August 1941. B A, NS 8/196, folios 32f.

⁶⁹ See the weekly report of the Netherlands work group in Reichsleiter Rosenberg's task force for the period from 7 to 15 September 1941, p. 1. BA, NS 30/15.

⁷⁰ See “Das Zentral-Archiv der Deutschen Arbeitsfront–eine Stätte dokumentarischer Tatsachenbestände des sozialen Geschehens”, in Arbeitswissenschaftliches Institut der DAF (ed.), Wirtschafts-und Sozialberichte, no. 1/2 (05, 1944), p. 42.Google Scholar

⁷¹ SA Sturmbannführer and Rosenberg adjutant Langer to Wolfgang Pohl, DAF Ar-beitswissenschaftliches Institut, 23 September 1941. BA, NS 8/196, folio 26. Kautter drafted this letter as well, see Ibid., folio 27.

⁷² Files in: BA, NS 30/19 and 55.

⁷³ See for example the letter of the Ratibor command to Otto Gohdes, Nazi Order Castle “Die Falkenburg am Krössinsee”, 5 February 1944; Castle Commander of the Order Castle Krössinsee, 18 May 1944 to the Ratibor command of the Rosenberg task force. BA, NS 30/19.

⁷⁴ See the directory of the agencies and institutions in contact with the Eastern Library(Ostbücherei–OBR), 15 December 1944. BA, NS 30/55. All of the leading addresses of the Third Reich were represented on this list: the Eastern European Institute of Breslau(Osteuropa Institut Breslau), the Science Department of the Nitrogen Syndicate (Wissen schaftliche Abteilung des Stickstoff-Syndikats), the Hamburg Archive of International Economy (Welt-Wirtschaftsarchiv), the Eastern Department for Foreign Armies of the Army High Command (Abteilung Fremde Heere Ost), the heads of the security police and the SD, the I.G. Farben industry, the AEG, etc.

⁷⁵ See the signature lists according to the Alphabetized Author Directory of the Western European Department, German language books (Alphabetischen Verfasserverzeichnis der Westeuropäischen Abteilung, Deutschsprachige Bücher), with the handwritten note: “to Krössinsee”. BA, NS 30/19.

⁷⁶ See the personnel directory under the rubric “II. Institut” in the weekly and monthly reports of the Netherlands work group of the Rosenberg task force (Arbeitsgruppe Niederlande des Einsatzstabs Rosenberg). BA, NS 30/15.

⁷⁷ Zentrales Staatsarchiv Potsdam, file 62.03 DAF, no. 39 902.

⁷⁸ Rosenberg, to Ley, , 3 05 1944.Google Scholar BA, NS 8/194, folios 42–43.

⁷⁹ See the file note of the director of the Netherlands work group, Schmidt-Stähler, on the operation locations of the central Netherlands work group for the period from 24 May to 6 June 1942. BA, NS 30/15.

⁸⁰ See the list on the number of boxes packed by the Netherlands work group by 1 January 1943. BA, NS 30/15.

⁸¹ The shipment was delivered to Annenheim in Kärnten. The central library of the “Supreme School”, directed by Dr. Walther Grothe, was located in the Grandhotel Annenheim/St. Andrä. See the annual report of the central library for the year 1943, in BA, NS 8/267.

⁸² See Hunink, , p. 138.Google Scholar

⁸³ Rosenberg, to Seyss-Inquart, , 11 09 1944.Google Scholar Quote cited by Hunink, document 49, p. 316.

⁸⁴ See the detailed description of this by Hunink, ch. 7, pp. 151ff.

⁸⁵ See BA, NS 30/15.

⁸⁶ An undated report of the Netherlands work group of the Rosenberg task force on the confiscation of libraries in Holland, p. 7, Nürnberg Document 176-PS. The time period has been estimated on the basis of the comparison of the acts of pillage that had occurred to that point and the regular monthly reports.

⁸⁷ Nürnberg Document 149-PS. The Führer order was officially announced on 5 July 1942, by a circular of the head of the Reich Chancellery to the supreme Reich authorities (Oberste Reichsbehörden) and the “offices directly subordinate to the Führer”, see Nürnberg document 154-PS.

⁸⁸ Monthly report of the Netherlands work group for March 1942, p. 3: “4. Sonderaktion M.”. BA, NS 30/15.

⁸⁹ See Hüttenberger, Peter, “Nationalsozialistische Polykratie”, Geschichte und Gesell-schaft, 2 (1976) 4, pp. 417ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See Annie Adama van Scheltema-Kleefstra, “Herinneringen”, and Hunink, , pp. 21ff.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See Browder, Georg C., “The SD: The Significance of Organisation and Image”, in Mosse, George L. (ed.), Police Forces in History (London and Beverly Hills, 1975), pp. 205ffGoogle Scholar; Koehl, Robert “Toward an SS Typology: Social Engineers”, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 18 (1959) 2, pp. 113 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Ramme, Alwin, Der Sicherheitsdienst der SS (Berlin, 1970).Google Scholar

⁹² See Siebert, Erich, “Entstehung und Struktur der Auslandswissenschaftlichen Fakul-tät an der Universität Berlin (1940 bis 1945)”, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 15 (1966), 1, pp. 19ff.Google Scholar

⁹³ See Baumgärtner, Raimund, Weltanschauungskampf im Dritten Reich (Mainz, 1977), pp. 42ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ On this point the writings of the later IISH commissioner are an important additional source: Kautter, Eberhard, Wirtschaftsgeist, Sozialgeist, Wehrgeist (Berlin, 1935)Google Scholar, and Kautter, E., Das Sozialproblem im Wandel deutscher Geschichte, Nationalpolitische Aufklärungsschriften, vol. 7 (Berlin, 1937).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See above all Ley, Robert, “Die Überwindung des Geistes von 1789”Google Scholar, in the Zentralamt für Internationale Sozialgestaltung und Arbeitswissenschaftliches Institut der DAF (ed.), Neue Internationale Rundschau der Arbeit, 1 (1941) 1, pp. 1ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Ley, Robert, “Die deutschen Sozialwerke als Ausdruck unseres Leistungswillens”, Neue Internationale Rundschau der Arbeit, 1 (1941) 2, pp. 135ff.Google Scholar, and “Die Wissenschaft im Dienste der Sozialordnung”, in Arbeitswissenschaftliches Institut der DAF (ed.), Wirtschafts- und Sozialberichte, nos. 5–7 (09, 1942), pp. 83ff.Google Scholar Both articles were written by the DAF Arbeitswissenschaftliche Institut for Ley.