Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 16 (part 2 of 3)
DR. STEINBAUER: Is it true that at the beginning of the year 1945 special Kommandos of the Reichsführer SS Himmler began to place time bombs in the public buildings of your province in case of an evacuation of this territory?
SCHWEBEL: As far as these special Kommandos of Himmler’s were concerned, I know nothing about them. I know only one case in which an Oberleutnant appeared, but I believe that that was prior to the time you mentioned. He wanted to take such steps. I immediately got in touch with the Reich Commissioner and the military commander, and I learned that none of these gentlemen knew about this. Thereupon, at the request of the Reich Commissioner, this Oberleutnant was told to cease his activity, to remove the bombs which he had already planted, and to leave immediately. I know of no other cases like that.
DR. STEINBAUER: Do you know that difficulties arose in Gouda as a result of the so-called “Wehrfähige ins Reich” drive, meaning that these who were fit for military service should be taken into the Reich?
SCHWEBEL: Yes; the Armed Forces was carrying through this drive at the time and with them a deputy of Minister Goebbels in his capacity as Reich Delegate for Total War Effort. They set up special agencies in Gouda and in two other places in the province. The director of the Gouda office carried these duties out in an improper way—rather harshly. Thereupon I discussed this matter with the Reich Commissioner, and he immediately got in touch with the commanding general and had this officer dismissed on the spot.
DR. STEINBAUER: Do you know anything about the extent of the resistance movement in your province?
SCHWEBEL: The resistance movement was fought by the Security Police in connection with the Armed Forces. What I know is not from my own experience in my administrative post, but knowledge I received through my connection with the agencies. Thereby I know that the resistance movement approached 50,000, as an estimate. These were people who might be counted as such. By that I do not mean that they were people who were organized in groups or in permanent action.
DR. STEINBAUER: Do you know that the Reich Commissioner started a food drive for 250,000 Dutch children?
SCHWEBEL: Yes, I know that he initiated this drive.
DR. STEINBAUER: You were an eye and ear witness to the attempt on the part of Seyss-Inquart to end the war quickly. Will you tell us briefly how connections were established with the Chief of Staff of General Eisenhower?
SCHWEBEL: At the beginning of April 1945 a M. Van der Vlugt approached me. He was the leader of the so-called IKO. That was an interdenominational organization to assist in the food problems.
DR. STEINBAUER: Witness, please speak a little more slowly and clearly. I cannot understand you even in German.
SCHWEBEL: I was approached by M. Van der Vlugt, who was the director of an interchurch group whose purpose was to supply the population with special foodstuffs. I knew him for that reason. He told me that he was acting on behalf of the Dutch Government in London. He asked me whether the Reich Commissioner would be ready to negotiate with him briefly on three questions:
1. A more extensive food supply for the Netherlands people through the Allies,
2. The stopping of flooding, and
3. The cessation of the fight against the resistance movement.
I immediately got in touch with the Reich Commissioner and he immediately declared himself ready to enter into discussions. Then, 2 days after that, we dealt with M. Van der Vlugt and another representative...
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, the yellow light means that you are going too fast, you see. So when you see the yellow light go a little more slowly.
SCHWEBEL: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You were telling us what Seyss-Inquart did.
SCHWEBEL: Yes. Seyss-Inquart declared himself ready to negotiate about these questions immediately. A discussion then took place between us and M. Van der Vlugt and another representative of the Dutch Government in London. That was Jonkheer Six. This discussion took place among the four of us.
On this occasion we agreed first of all about one point, to the effect that any combating of the resistance movement was definitely to be stopped immediately; and the resistance group, on its part, undertook to dispense with sabotage.
Secondly, the Reich Commissioner declared himself ready to give his permission to a generous food supply for the population on the part of the Allies and to stop the floodings. However, there were to be more detailed negotiations in this respect.
The result of this discussion was communicated to London and I brought two Dutchmen through one part of the front line as truce officers. Then, after various negotiations had been going on for some time, we received an inquiry from London as to whether the Reich Commissioner was ready to negotiate with the Commander-in-Chief, General Eisenhower, and deal with him about these questions. The immediate answer was “yes.” Thereupon, first of all, I crossed the front line on 28 April at Amersfoort, and there I briefly negotiated with General Sir Francis Gengard, who was the Chief of Staff of Field Marshal Montgomery, and...
THE PRESIDENT: You do not need any more detail about it, do you?
SCHWEBEL: ...and in this discussion with Sir Francis Gengard we agreed that another discussion was to take place 2 days later between...
DR. STEINBAUER: Witness, we are not really concerned with the details. We are concerned with the results of this conversation, and how it worked out in the interests of the Dutch population.
SCHWEBEL: Yes. This discussion took place on 30 April, between the Reich Commissioner and the Chief of Staff of General Eisenhower, who was General Bedell Smith. In this discussion the Reich Commissioner agreed completely to the wishes of General Bedell Smith that there should be a very generous food supply for the Dutch population.
THE PRESIDENT: If he said he agreed with the demands of General Bedell Smith, surely that is all you want, isn’t it?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, that is quite sufficient.
[Turning to the witness.] Through these negotiations—I would like to ask you—the war was ended 2 months earlier, was it not?
SCHWEBEL: One cannot say that exactly. The situation was as follows. For the Dutch population, of course, the war ended, practically speaking, on that day, because the supplies that could be carried by air, over highways, over canals, rivers, and by sea to Rotterdam, were so generous. In order to make these transports possible, an armistice had to be arranged from place to place, so that in fact, though not formally, we had a general armistice and the population at that time immediately benefited by it.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to ask this witness.
SCHWEBEL: May I just make a few remarks, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: I think not. If counsel has finished examining you, we do not want any more remarks.
Do any other counsel wish to ask questions?
Is there any cross-examination?
M. DEBENEST: Witness, you spoke a short while ago of the negotiations which you undertook with delegates of the London Government. Are you aware of the fact that these delegates, before undertaking the negotiations with the Reich Commissioner in April 1945, laid down as a condition that no more people would be shot because of attacks against any German civil or military authority unless a court sentence had first been pronounced?
SCHWEBEL: Yes.
M. DEBENEST: As a further question did those delegates not request the Reich Commissioner whether the SS would conform to the conditions of an agreement which would put an end to hostilities?
SCHWEBEL: That also took place. After that time, nothing more was undertaken against the resistance movement.
M. DEBENEST: Very good. Is it correct to say that the Reich Commissioner replied that in his capacity as Obergruppenführer of the SS he was in a position to force the SS to observe the conditions of this agreement and that he could answer for it?
SCHWEBEL: An agreement in its true sense—all these conversations were gentlemen’s agreements...
M. DEBENEST: Wait a minute. No, I am asking you whether the Reich Commissioner made that reply to the negotiators, that is, the delegates of the London Government?
SCHWEBEL: He said he was Obergruppenführer of the SS as well, and in that capacity he was able to see to it that the SS would comply with this agreement.
M. DEBENEST: Thank you. The last question is this: Did you know Kiehl? He was an official in the Reich Commissariat.
SCHWEBEL: Kiehl? Yes, I knew him.
M, DEBENEST: Didn’t he give instructions to flood the Wieringer Sea in April 1945?
SCHWEBEL: Herr Kiehl, to my knowledge, did not give any instructions; he could not do so. Herr Kiehl was an expert on waterworks, and he was a very good expert. But orders for the flooding could be given only by the highest military authority, and that was Generaloberst Blaskowitz.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I object to this manner of questioning the witness. The Prosecution is again questioning this witness in order to charge the General Staff and the OKW. In the objection I mentioned previously I said that if I must not question the witnesses with a view to exoneration, the same must apply to the Prosecution with regard to incriminating questions. I ask that the last statement be stricken from the record.
M. DEBENEST: I beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Debenest?
M. DEBENEST: Mr. President, I merely wanted to say that if I ask this question, it is based on the information that was given to me. There is no question of the Army; but of instructions that were given by a civil servant of the Reich Commissioner, and therefore originating from the Reich Commissariat. Therefore, I do not understand the interference of the defense counsel. There is no question of the Army and I am completely ignorant as to whether the witness is going to tell me whether the Army was responsible or an office of the Reich Commissioner, when I was talking of an official of the Reich Commissioner.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You may ask the question.
M. DEBENEST: Will you proceed?
SCHWEBEL: Herr Kiehl was the hydrostatic expert for the Reich Commissioner; but at the same time, he was a hydrostatic expert under the military commander. He was consulted by both authorities as an expert only. He was a very fine expert. But nobody had given him any right to give instructions...
M. DEBENEST: Please, do not make any speeches; answer directly. “Yes” or “no,” did Kiehl transmit the order to flood the Wieringer Sea?
SCHWEBEL: But I must say how it was! Kiehl? No. He could not have done that.
M. DEBENEST: I am not asking you whether he gave the order; I am asking whether he merely transmitted this order.
SCHWEBEL: I know absolutely nothing about that. I do not know how far Kiehl was involved in this order.
M. DEBENEST: That is sufficient.
What was the interest at that time in flooding the Wieringer Sea? Did not people think that the war was over?
SCHWEBEL: No. When the Wieringer Sea—the Wieringer Polder—was flooded, the war had not yet ended and these agreements had not been concluded either. When the Wieringer Polder was flooded—and I found this out later from military men—there was the danger that an aerial landing on the terrain of the Wieringer Sea would take place, which might place the dike in the hands of the enemy, giving them access to Friesland and North Holland. That was the reason why the military authorities considered this flooding necessary. That is what I was told.
M. DEBENEST: But at that moment in Holland wasn’t the war considered as being lost for Germany?
SCHWEBEL: No. At that time, it was not considered lost. At any rate, our Army had, at that time, the order to defend us which it had to carry out. There was the danger that this landing would take place.
M. DEBENEST: I have finished, Mr. President.
DR. STEINBAUER: I would not have had to put another question to you if the French prosecutor had not broached a certain subject. What did General Smith tell you about the flooding of the Wieringer Sea?
SCHWEBEL: General Smith said toward the end of the negotiation that any flooding that had been undertaken up to that time could be justified on the basis of military necessity. But no more was to be undertaken from that moment.
DR. STEINBAUER: Was any undertaken after that?
SCHWEBEL: No, none was undertaken after that.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to ask this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
[The witness left the stand.]
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, with this I have concluded my examination of witnesses. Now I should like to refer to those documents contained in my document books and which I have submitted to the Tribunal. I was notified that Document Book Number 3 has been submitted to the Tribunal, and to conclude my case I should like to submit another document, as Number Seyss-Inquart-91, concerning the Apostolic letter of the Catholic bishops on the plebiscite in Austria. In this statement, reference is made to the attitude of Gauleiter Bürckel. We can gather from it that the persecution of the Churches cannot be charged to Seyss-Inquart, but rather the responsibility is to be placed on Bürckel. In order to save time, I should like to ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of this document without my reading it, and I conclude herewith my presentation of evidence on the case of Seyss-Inquart.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, have you offered all the documents that you want to offer in your books? Have you offered them as evidence?
DR. STEINBAUER: I did not understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you offered all the documents that you want to offer as evidence and given them exhibit numbers?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Mr. President. Only a few affidavits are missing, affidavits which were admitted by the High Tribunal: Völkers’, Bolle’s, and Rauter’s. I hope that we shall have them within a short time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you see, you must offer each of these documents as evidence; you must say so. Merely putting them in the book does not offer them as evidence; and, therefore, you must offer these things to us as evidence, if you wish to do so, giving them the numbers. You can offer them all together, saying you offer...
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to offer your Documents Numbers 1 to—I do not know what the last number is; 105 seems to be the last one.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Mr. President. I ask that all numbers in my three document books be included, up to 107.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, are the numbers given in the books the exhibit numbers which you wish to give to the documents?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Mr. President. They are in numerical order and they are found in that order in my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: You wish, then, to offer Numbers 1 to—whatever the last number is, as evidence. Is that right?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: You offered some in the course of your presentation of the witnesses.
DR. STEINBAUER: Some of them I submitted and quoted according to the numbers given in my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: You now wish, then, to offer the remainder?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, the remainder as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Under the numbers which they bear in your document book?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you are offering all the originals under those numbers?
DR. STEINBAUER: Insofar as they are in my possession and I can say upon oath that the extracts tally with the books.
THE PRESIDENT: You have certified that they are true copies of the originals in accordance with the Tribunal’s rules?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Mr. President, I ask the permission of the High Tribunal that the Defendant Fritzsche be absent Monday and Tuesday of next week. He requires this time for the preparation of his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, I wanted to put the same request on behalf of my client, as he will be in the witness box immediately after Von Papen, who is the next, and I ask that he have permission to be absent Monday or Tuesday.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I shall only take a little of the Tribunal’s time, but I must make a motion which is particularly important to me, a motion which concerns procedure; and I should like to give the reasons for my motion.
I move that the Tribunal, first of all, rescind the resolution given on 8 June 1946, and secondly...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Latemser, if your motion is an important motion, it should be in writing. If it is not in writing, it must be put in writing. You know perfectly well that is the rule of the Tribunal.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, it is very important to me that this motion should appear in the record. May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Laternser, it will appear in the record if you make the motion in writing. You have been here for many months and you know perfectly well what the rule of the Tribunal is, that motions be made in writing.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, but since we are concerned with a motion which applies to procedure and which applies to a resolution announced by word of mouth, I believe I am justified in putting my motion in this manner.
THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal does not think so. The Tribunal would wish to have your motion in writing in accordance with the rule of the Tribunal.
Now the Tribunal will continue with the case against the Defendant Von Papen, which is, I believe, the next.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I am beginning with my presentation of evidence on behalf of my client, Von Papen, by calling the Defendant Von Papen as a witness.
[The Defendant Von Papen took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
FRANZ VON PAPEN (Defendant): Franz von Papen.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.
[The defendant repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Please give the High Tribunal, briefly, a picture of your life, especially from the time you entered politics.
VON PAPEN: In order to describe my life briefly, I shall emphasize only such points as are essential for the High Tribunal to form a judgment of my personality and how they influenced my life and my political attitude and opinion.
I was born on soil which has been in the possession of my family for 900 years. I grew up with conservative principles which unite a man most closely to his own folk and his native soil, and as my family has always been a strong supporter of the Church, I of course grew up in this tradition as well.
As the second son I was destined for a military career. At the age of 18 I became a lieutenant in a cavalry regiment and I went...
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think you gave us the date of your birth.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Please give the date of your birth.
VON PAPEN: The date of my birth is 29 October 1879.
THE PRESIDENT: You have told us you joined a cavalry regiment at the age of 18.
VON PAPEN: Important for my development was my marriage with the daughter of a Saar industrialist, Geheimrat Von Boch. The relatives of this family brought me in contact with many French and Belgian families, and in this way I acquired an intimate knowledge of the spiritual and cultural factors of these neighboring countries, which made a very strong impression on me at the time. From that time on, that is from 1905, I have been convinced of how wrong a certain political attitude can be, namely, that France and Germany should be condemned to consider themselves eternal enemies. I felt how much these two peoples had to offer each other on a mutual basis, provided their peaceful development was not disturbed.
In the years that followed I graduated from the Kriegsakademie (War Academy), and in 1913, after training for 5 years, I was taken into the General Staff. At the end of 1913, at the command of His Imperial Majesty, I was appointed military attaché in Washington and Mexico. In this capacity, in the summer of 1914, I accompanied the U.S.A. Expeditionary Corps, which was dispatched to Vera Cruz as a result of the incident at Tampico. In Mexico, I was surprised by the outbreak of the first World War. Until the end of 1915 I remained at my post in Washington.
This period is of decisive significance for my political life. Our strife, carried on with legal methods, against the unilateral supplying of our enemies with war materials, led to heated polemics and propaganda. This propaganda, which was fostered by the enemy, tried by all means to cast suspicion upon the military attachés of Germany, accusing them of illegal acts and especially of having organized acts of sabotage.
At the end of 1915 I left the United States. I regret to say that I never tried to rectify and correct this false propaganda; but this propaganda followed me until the thirties and even until today, and has impressed its stamp upon me. In order to cite just one example, even after 1931, the Lehigh Valley Company stated before the Mixed Claims Commission that their claim of $50,000,000 against the German Reich was justified, since I, the German military attaché, had caused an explosion which had taken place in the year 1917, 2 years after I had left the United States.
I am just mentioning this fact, Mr. President, since this propaganda honored me with titles such as “master spy,” “chief plotter,” and other pretty names; for this propaganda was the background for the judging of my personality, as I found out in 1932 when I entered public life.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
Afternoon Session
MARSHAL: If it please the Tribunal, the report is made that the Defendants Funk and Speer are absent.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kubuschok.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, we stopped when you were talking about the formation of public opinion concerning you personally. Please continue telling us of your career.
VON PAPEN: I had spoken about the propaganda about myself which was carried on in the United States at the time of the first World War. No effort was in fact ever made to investigate whether this opinion was true or false. What I was able to accomplish in those years, that is, the fact that I opposed sabotage and fought against submarine warfare, never became known.
This propaganda was public defamation, and it reached its height in 1941 in a pamphlet published in New York, with the beautiful title “The Devil in Top Hat.” It repeats all these fairy stories without criticism, and adds new ones. Thus a so-called public opinion was formed about me which, I believe, gives a completely distorted picture of my character, my opinions, and above all my motives during the period from 1932 to 1945. I ask the Tribunal to keep in mind these psychological associations as I attempt to give now a true picture of my thoughts and my acts.
After returning to Germany in 1916 I did my duty as a soldier, as a battalion commander and as a General Staff officer in the war in France. In 1917 I became Chief of the Operational Section of Army Group Falkenhayn in Turkey. When Falkenhayn was recalled in 1918, I became Chief of the General Staff of the Fourth Turkish Army until the Armistice.
Perhaps I may recall briefly—after so many bad things have been said about me by the world—an episode which shows that I was able to do something useful for the history of humanity. On 8 December 1918, after a hard struggle with the German and Turkish headquarters, I succeeded in getting Falkenhayn to evacuate Jerusalem. Because of this decision the city was not shelled or destroyed by the British Army.
THE PRESIDENT: The translation came through to me, I thought, the 8th of December 1918. That must have been 1917.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, My Lord, 1918.
VON PAPEN: 8 December 1918.
When in November 1918 I was negotiating with Ataturk about the evacuation of the German troops, we received the news of the collapse of the German armies and the abdication of the German Kaiser. This fact meant for me not only the loss of the war, a whole world had collapsed for me. The German Reich had collapsed after a thousand years of development, and everything that we had believed in was shrouded in the mists of the future. At this juncture I decided to face the issue.
After my return to Germany, I asked for and received my release from the Army. I went back to my home where I lived on a modest agricultural estate. There I was on traditional soil and devoted myself to home tasks. Before long my farmer friends entrusted me with the administration of their community affairs. They elected me honorary mayor and in 1923 they sent me to the Prussian Parliament.
When I was requested to do this, I decided not to join the Right, the German National Party, but the Center Party. This decision was influenced by my conviction that in this party I would be able to do much more in making adjustments in the social sphere than among the Conservatives. At the same time this party represented the principles of a Christian concept of the State.
The 8 years in which I belonged to Parliament were filled with struggles for the internal recovery and strengthening of the German Republic. In the Center Party I represented the conservative ideas of my agricultural electors. I endeavored to make this party, which in Prussia had formed a coalition with the Left, form a coalition with the Right also. Thus I wanted to help create an outlet for the tensions out of which National Socialism was really born. Also, into the same period fall my efforts to remove the discriminations against Germany through the numerous terms of the Versailles Treaty, and that by way of reaching a better understanding with the French people. I became a member of the German-French Study Committee, a committee founded by the Luxembourg industrialist Meirisch, comprising a large number of outstanding men of both countries. Close relations and conversations also united me with the veterans’ organizations of both countries, on the French side with the well-known leader of the Gueules Cassées, Colonel Piccat. I took an active part in the congresses of German-French Catholic circles which took place in Paris and Berlin. All these efforts had as their aim to place European peace on the basis of a deeper knowledge and closer co-operation of our two countries.
This realization of mine was further strengthened when I moved to the Saar in 1929 which at that time was, as is well-known, under international control. When in 1929 the Young Plan was accepted by Germany I asked Herr Stresemann to arrange with M. Briand a settlement of the Saar question without plebiscite, because I was always of the opinion that a candid solution of this thorny question by both sides would leave less resentment and an increased sense of solidarity than a decision brought about by an election campaign carried on heatedly on both sides. Unfortunately, this did not come about.
Then in 1930 the great economic world crisis set in embracing victors and vanquished alike. Germany’s new democratic regime was not able to cope with such a burden, and under the ever-increasing economic pressure and increasing internal tension, the Papen Cabinet was formed in the spring of 1932. Here starts the political development which I am pleased to be able to account for before the Tribunal. I should like to add a request to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has ruled that the defendants have to be brief because the Defendant Reich Marshal Göring has completely presented the history of National Socialism. I ask that it be taken into consideration that I am not speaking here for National Socialism. My defense will be that of the other Germany.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In questioning the witness it will be necessary to go into the details of the events and the activities of the witness as Reich Chancellor in the year 1932. The Indictment covers the time from 1 June 1932, the date of the appointment of Herr Von Papen as Reich Chancellor. The Indictment sees in the conduct of his official activity as Reich Chancellor the preparation for Hitler’s Government.
The defense will set forth that the Papen Government consistently fought for a new program, entirely independent of the ideas of National Socialism, a program representing Papen’s own basic political ideas to which he remained loyal in the following period also. As the Indictment...
THE PRESIDENT: It is not proper for a counsel to make a statement of that sort. You must elicit the evidence from the witness by questions; and the questions ought to be questions which are not leading questions, which do not suggest the answers. You are now telling us what the witness is going to say. We want to hear it from the witness.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, I wanted only to point out that this period of time before 1933 must also be discussed and I wish to ask for your indulgence. We shall...
THE PRESIDENT: We have not attempted to stop you from giving the evidence—from eliciting the evidence. Ask the witness. But you must not state the facts yourself.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, will you explain to the Court what the situation was in Germany when Hindenburg called upon you on 1 June 1932 to form a Cabinet?
VON PAPEN: Before I answer this question, will you please permit me, as one of the last Chancellors of the Reich, to make a brief statement on the Government directed by me? If and to what extent the Charter of the Tribunal, in our opinion, is compatible with the sovereignty of the Reich and its different governments, will later be expounded by one of the other counsels.
When the Prosecution deals with my activity as Reich Chancellor in 1932, I assume that this is done in order to get a clear, historically accurate picture of the developments and to form a judgment on my character as a whole. For this reason I will comment on this part of the accusation. However, I must state here emphatically that this Cabinet of 1932 governed, to the best of its knowledge and ability under the Constitution and under the emergency powers of the President, at a time of the most severe internal economic depression. It is a historical fact that the activity of my Cabinet would not justify the slightest suspicion of a crime in the sense of the Charter. I believe I must make this statement, My Lord, to uphold the integrity of my ministerial colleagues, and above all, the integrity of the President, Field Marshal Von Hindenburg, the last great historical figure of Germany.
As to your question: Dr. Brüning, my predecessor in office, was highly esteemed by all of us and had been welcomed with great expectations. During his period of office came the great economic crisis, the customs blockades by other countries, with production and trade almost completely at a standstill, with no foreign currency for the procurement of necessary raw materials, increasing unemployment, youth out on the streets, and the economic world depression leading to bankruptcy of the banks. Government was possible only through emergency decrees; that is, by one-sided legislative acts of the President. Support of the unemployed empties the Treasury, is unproductive, and is no solution. As a result of the wide-spread unemployment, the radical parties were increasing. The political splitting up of the German people reached its height. In the last Reichstag election there were 32 parties.
After the war we had all hoped that we might be able to build up an orderly democracy in Germany. The English democracy was our model, but the Weimar Constitution had given the German people a great number of rights which did not correspond to its political maturity. In 1932 it had long been clear that the Weimar Constitution made the mistake of giving the Government too little authority. I remind you that the forming of governments often took weeks because all parties wanted to participate.
In Prussia, the Social Democrats had ruled since 1919. They shared with the “Zentrum” in filling political offices in Prussia. The dualism between Prussia, the greatest of the provinces, and the Reich was constantly increasing. My wish that Brüning should return to the old construction of Bismarck’s, to be Reich Chancellor and at the same time Prime Minister of Prussia, in order to co-ordinate the policy of the greatest province with that of the Reich, was rejected by Brüning. In all these years, in the last years, nothing was done to restrain the ever-increasing National Socialist movement, that is to direct it into a politically responsible course.
The entire political confusion and the realization that something had to be done in order to make it possible for the Reich Government to govern and to make it more independent, forced Hindenburg to the decision to appoint a Cabinet independent of the parties, directed by experts. The members of this Cabinet of mine were all experts in their fields. Von Neurath was an old diplomat; the Minister of the Interior, Gall, was an old administrative official; the Agricultural Minister was general director of great agricultural societies; the Finance Minister was formerly Ministerial Director in his Ministry; the Railroad Director, Eltz, had been president of the board of directors of a railroad, and so forth.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did the intention to govern authoritatively bring about a struggle of the parties?
VON PAPEN: Field Marshal Hindenburg had great confidence in Brüning, but he did not forgive him for failing to succeed in winning over the rightist parties, which had elected Hindenburg for the first time in 1925, for his re-election as President in 1932. At that time Hindenburg had been elected over the determined opposition of the Left and the Center. Now, in 1932, he was to be elected precisely by these leftist parties who had opposed him, and against the Right.
Beside the great old soldier of the World War, the opposing candidate was an unknown steel-helmeted soldier. This, of course, hurt the Field Marshal deeply. I wish to point out that in the presidential election in 1932 Hitler had already received over 11 million votes, which was more than 30 percent of the total in the presidential election.
Why the President chose me as Chancellor, I do not know. I can only say that I myself did not lift a finger. The course of events was the following.
I am telling this, My Lord, in order to answer the charge that this formation of a Cabinet was the beginning of an intrigue and a conspiracy. On 26 May 1932 I was on my estate in the Saar. Herr Von Schleicher, the Defense Minister, called me up there and asked me to come to Berlin. On the evening of the 27th I arrived in Berlin. On the 28th I went to see Herr Von Schleicher. Herr Von Schleicher said to me: “There is a Cabinet crisis; we are looking for a Chancellor.” He discussed various personalities with me, and finally he said: “The President would like to have you.” I was greatly surprised, and said as much. I then asked for time to think it over. On the next day I discussed the matter with my friends. On the 30th I went to see Herr Von Schleicher again. I said to him: “I have decided not to accept.” Herr Von Schleicher said: “That won’t do you any good, the President wants you under all circumstances.” I answered Herr Von Schleicher: “The President probably has a wrong conception of the political forces which I would bring to him for this government; he probably thinks that the Center would support me politically. But that is out of the question.”
On the afternoon of this day I went to see the head of the Center Party. I asked him and he said: “Herr Von Papen, do not accept the office; the party would immediately oppose you.” I said: “Thank you, that is what I thought.”
I then went to see Hindenburg and presented the situation to him. Hindenburg stood up and said: “I did not call you because I wanted the support of any party through you; I called you because I want a cabinet of independent men.” Then he reminded me of my duty toward the fatherland. When I continued to contradict him, he said: “You cannot leave me, an old soldier, in the lurch when I need you.” I said: “No, under these circumstances I will not leave you in the lurch; I will accept.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: As proof for that discussion...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, the Tribunal think this might be dealt with in slightly less detail. The facts could be stated with less detail.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: We will act accordingly.
As proof for the discussion with the Center Party I refer to Document Book 1, Document 1, Page 1. I submit Document Book 1 as Exhibit Number 1.
Witness, you have been accused of having intrigued against Brüning in some way. Is that true?
VON PAPEN: In no way. I have already said that I had a very high opinion of Dr. Brüning personally, and that from the day when Herr Von Schleicher called me in—that is, 3 days before my appointment—I never had the slightest idea of being appointed Brüning’s successor.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you previously talk to Hitler about the government to be formed by you?
VON PAPEN: No, that is a completely false imputation on the part of the Prosecution. The History of the NSDAP by Volz, in which that is stated—and that is Document 3463-PS—is a purely private work and was probably sponsored by Goebbels and his Ministry. I state that my government, according to the wish of the Reich President, was to be created by a fait accompli, without any negotiations with any party or the head of any party.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: You did not promise Hitler the dissolution of the Reichstag beforehand either?
VON PAPEN: This statement of the Prosecution is also untrue. I did not previously discuss the dissolution of the Reichstag with Hitler for the Reichstag was dissolved on 4 June, and I saw Hitler for the first time in my life 5 or 6 days later. The dissolution of the Reichstag, as such, was a matter of course, because the new Government wished to have the opinion of the electors on the new course and on the Government’s program.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What were the political aims of your Cabinet? Please state this briefly.
VON PAPEN: The central problem which occupied us was the economic one: The big economic crisis, and the 1½ million unemployed young people, the 6 to 7 million completely unemployed, and the 12 to 13 million in part-time employment. Attempts of my predecessors to help with purely State means proved inadequate. They were a burden on finances and had no result. The aim of my Government, therefore, was to employ private economy to solve this problem. We wanted to bring the whole production machinery into working order again. With the investment of 2,200 million marks we wanted to put this process into operation and expected to return into the production process 1¾ million workers in the current year.
Such a program could not have been agreed upon with the parties. The political aim was to achieve, simultaneously with the reorganization of the economy, the practical co-operation of the strongest of the opposition parties, the NSDAP. That was the central problem of German internal policy. It had been shown, through National Socialist Government in Thuringia, in Brunswick, and in Oldenburg, that this attempt could be made without becoming exposed to the danger of revolutionary movements. I could hope, therefore, through a national and social program to find the approval of the Reichstag.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: For the Government’s statement, I refer to Document 1, Exhibit 1, Pages 2 and 3.
You spoke of the solution of the social problem as the main task of your Government. Will you please explain briefly how you regarded the problem and how you attempted to solve it?
VON PAPEN: In no country in the world, I believe, was the problem of capital and labor as acute as it was in Germany, as a result of overindustrialization and alienation of the soil. The reason is known; I need not speak of it. However, one of the reasons, which is generally overlooked, was the German inflation which had destroyed all mobile fortunes in Germany. This inflation had deprived the middle class and the workers, who form the backbone of the nation, of their savings and fortunes and it had proletarianized the workers, tradesmen, and the middle class.
Simultaneously with the social processes in Germany, a new social order had arisen in our great neighboring country, the order of a classless society and the totalitarian state. The democratic powers of the world resisted the exportation of this system. They took protective measures in the economic field, but these protective measures, the “New Deal,” and “Ottawa,” weakened the German position all the more.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, I think the defendant must realize that this is all very familiar ground to the Tribunal, and it is not necessary to restate it in detail.
VON PAPEN: I only wanted to explain to the Tribunal that this social problem was the basis for the whole historical development.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The question of the social problem is at the same time a question of the development of the NSDAP, and the witness is going to comment later from this point of view.
Witness, you said a little while ago that you had no contact with Hitler before the formation of the government. When did you see Hitler for the first time and what agreements did you reach?
VON PAPEN: I have already said that I saw Hitler for the first time on 9 or 10 June. The aim of the talk was to determine under what conditions Hitler would be willing to tolerate my Government. My program contained so many points in the social field that an approval of that program by the National Socialists was to be expected. Hitler’s condition for such an approval of the Government program was the lifting of the ban on uniforms for the SS; that is, the political equalization of his party with the other parties.
I agreed to that at that time; all the more so as the ban of the SS by the Brüning Government was an obvious injustice. The SS, or rather the SA, had been prohibited; but the uniformed formations of the Socialists and the Communists, that is, the “Rotfront” and the “Reichsbanner,” had not been prohibited.
The result of my promise to Hitler was that Hitler obligated himself to tolerate my Government.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to correct a mistake made by the witness. He spoke of the SS, meaning the SA. There was no SS at that time.
I refer to Document 1, Page 3, which is a statement of the President concerning the lifting of the ban against the SA. The President points out that he decreed the lifting of this ban under the express condition that there would be no more acts of violence in the future. He says furthermore that he was determined—that he would use all constitutional means at his disposal to act against all violations of any kind if this expectation were not fulfilled.
Will you, Witness, make a brief statement concerning your efforts, and the course of the Lausanne Conference in June 1932 which had such a great influence on the growth of the NSDAP?
VON PAPEN: I ask for permission to go somewhat more into detail about this conference, because the result was closely connected with the enormous increase of the NSDAP immediately thereafter. This conference had been prepared long beforehand, as is known. It was to abolish reparations.
But I went to Lausanne with many other aims and hopes. The abolition of reparations was, so to speak, a cause jugée. But what was necessary was to remove Germany’s moral discomfort, if Europe was to return peacefully to normalcy. This moral dissatisfaction had many causes. Germany had become a “second-rate nation.” It had been deprived of important attributes of its sovereignty: No military sovereignty; the Rhineland unprotected; the Corridor, the Saar, and others. I have already described the economic conditions. These economic and political difficulties helped advance political radicalism, and the extremists increased in every election.
If therefore help was to be forthcoming, then not merely the reparations question had to be solved—that was a negative help—but positive, moral aid was required. My program was the restoration of the sovereignty of the Reich. In the first place, the famous Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty was to be struck out. That was the article which stated Germany’s sole responsibility for the war. Historians of all countries had long established that we were not the only ones responsible. In the second place, relations with France based on confidence were to be established.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, the Tribunal do not think that this really is very important for them.
VON PAPEN: I shall briefly...
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I explain quite generally that the events of 1932, the internal and foreign political events, formed the key for judging the growth of the NSDAP which, after all, led to the 30th of January 1933. If we discuss certain questions here, we will be able to refer to them when we discuss the events of 1933. I believe we will thus save time. Therefore, I ask that a discussion of this period be permitted in somewhat greater detail.
VON PAPEN: I will make it as brief as possible, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better go on, as you suggest, from 1933. Is that not what you were suggesting, that you should go on to 1933, and then possibly comeback to 1932, if it is necessary?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, that is not what I suggested. I said that the discussion of conditions in 1932 provides the key for the growth of the NSDAP and the formation of the Hitler Government.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; but the defendant has been discussing the conditions of 1932 for a long time now. Surely we can get on to something which has something to do with the National Socialist Party, now.
VON PAPEN: I will come to that immediately, Mr. President. I wanted only to say that I took up these subjects at Lausanne and tried to bring about understanding for the internal situation in Germany. I negotiated with the French Prime Minister, M. Herriot, about the cancellation of that famous article. I negotiated a consultation pact with him, but nothing came of all this, for reasons which I do not want to discuss any further. The final result of the conference of Lausanne at any rate was negative, so that the elections which were subsequently held...
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was your point of view in the armament question?
VON PAPEN: I had established my point of view in the armament question, which played a role even in the year 1933, already at that time in Lausanne. I had discussed it with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Macdonald, and M. Herriot. Later, in an interview, I discussed this point of view with M. Herriot, so that it is on record. It is Document 55. In this document I said that it was not a question of German rearmament, but a question of the fulfillment of the disarmament promise of the other nations. Nothing is said about German rearmament, but only about German equality and equal treatment for Germany.
I need not quote this document. It is in the hands of the Court, Document 55.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I submit Document 55 as Exhibit 55, and further refer to Document 1, which has already been submitted, Page 9; and Document 6, which I submitted as Exhibit 3, Page 22.
VON PAPEN: At the conclusion of the Lausanne Conference, I told Macdonald and Herriot, “You must provide me with a foreign political success, for my Government is the last bourgeois government in Germany. After me there will be only extremists of the Right and the Left.” But they did not believe me, and I returned from Lausanne with only partial success.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this would be a good time to break off.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, you said that the outcome of the Lausanne Conference did not come up to your expectations. Why did you, in spite of that, sign the Treaty of Lausanne?
VON PAPEN: In the first place, I had to sign it because otherwise the conference would have ended in a complete failure and Germany would have been confronted with an economic vacuum. We were faced also with the Reichstag election and I had to try to make the best of the situation.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In connection with this question, I should like to submit Document Number 7, to become Exhibit Number Papen-4. This document is a statement by Von Papen, in the Trierische Landeszeitung of 12 July 1932, about Lausanne. I take the liberty of reading a short extract in which Papen says:
“But just as little as we are unable to erase by a one-sided act the signatures given since 1918 by former governments, just as little was this possible with regard to the solemn obligations which were undertaken by the then governing parties in the name of the German people. The present Government simply had to liquidate a situation which had been created by all the former governments since the signing of the Versailles Treaty. The question as to whether this situation can be liquidated by Germany’s denying the validity of her signature and thus, at the same time, placing herself outside the conception of cultural and other standards, must be answered with an emphatic ‘no.’”
In mentioning this quotation, I should like to point out that this attitude under the then prevailing situation and especially in view of the propaganda by the NSDAP is especially noteworthy.
On 18 July 1932 the Reich Minister of the Interior decreed a general ban on demonstrations after, as you have already said, the ban on uniforms had been lifted for National Socialists on 16 June. What were the reasons for the new ban on demonstrations?
VON PAPEN: The condition under which Hindenburg had rescinded the ban on uniforms for the SA was not fulfilled. Election campaigns became more and more radical and therefore I decided to suggest to the Reich President a decree prohibiting demonstrations. Contrary to the decree banning the uniforms, this decree applied to all parties equally. Therefore it did not only prohibit the SA, but all fighting formations of the other parties.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Now I shall turn to the 20th of July 1932. The Prosecution calls your action on that date a coup d’état. The witness Severing has also fully elaborated on that point. What was the reason for your action on the 20th of July 1932?
VON PAPEN: The action was based on the necessity of restoring orderly conditions. I had received reports about the co-operation of the police department of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior with the Communists. The situation of the Reich Government in Berlin must in this case be specifically taken into consideration, and I do not know whether the High Tribunal is cognizant of the legal position. The Reich Government at Berlin was not an extraterritorial area like Washington, D. C., in the United States, but came within the police power of the Prussian State. My own protection, that is, the protection of the Reich Chancellor, lay in the hands of the Prussian police. If, therefore, combinations with the Communists were made in the Prussian Police Ministry, then this affected the security of the Reich Government. This action against the Prussian Government did by no means constitute an action against Socialism as such. Neither did a Nazification of the republican police take place, as the witness Severing testified here. The officials, with the exception of a few higher officials, remained completely unchanged. How I regarded the situation there, I made known to the German people in a radio speech on the evening of the 20th of July. The High Tribunal will find this speech in Document 1, Page 4. However, I shall forego the reading of this speech.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should further like to point to Document 2, which I wish to submit as Exhibit Number 5. I should like to point out, on Page 15, the part where the Defendant Von Papen gives his account about the necessity of this measure.
[Turning to the defendant.] Was this action of yours on the 20th of July brought before the highest German tribunal, the Reich Supreme Court, and was any decision made?
VON PAPEN: Yes. The Prussian Cabinet brought an action against the Reich Government before the Reich Supreme Court at Leipzig; there the matter was properly argued and judgment passed. This sentence upheld entirely the action of the Reich President. It is therefore impossible for the Prosecution to characterize this matter as a Putsch.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to call your attention to Document 8, which I wish to submit as Exhibit Number 6. This is an extract—I beg your pardon?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, is it necessary for you to give the document exhibits numbers different from the document numbers? You see, it becomes a little bit confusing. Each one of these documents has got, at the head of the document, a number; 1, 2, 3, and so forth, and they follow each other...
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to acquiesce to the suggestion of the High Tribunal and retain the same number. Therefore, Document 5 shall become Exhibit Number 5.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be much less confusing, I think, if you could.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, indeed, My Lord. This Exhibit Number 5 is an extract from the judgment of the Reich Supreme Court, dated 25 October 1932. On Page 19, at the beginning, is the opinion which says that the decree of the Reich President of 20 July 1932 was entirely legal.
How did the Prussian Government, and specifically Prime Minister Braun, react to this judgment of the Supreme Court?
VON PAPEN: The Prussian Government and the Prussian Prime Minister absolutely accepted the judgment, which became apparent from the discussions which I personally had later on in October with the Prussian Prime Minister.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Regarding the position taken by the Prussian Government, I should like to submit Document Number 86, which is contained in Volume III of my document book, which, however, because of technical difficulties, is not completely translated and cannot be submitted today.
Witness, on 29 July 1932 you had an interview with a United Press correspondent and you stated in detail your position on the armament problem. Since this topic is of special significance for your case and your defense, I should like to have you comment on this matter.
VON PAPEN: I should like to clarify my attitude on the armament question, for it is the same which I held at the time when I was Vice Chancellor in the Government of Hitler. I should like to refer to Document 1, which sets forth my interview for the United Press, and I will quote from Document Number 86, which is the radio speech which I made on 12 September. On that occasion I said:
“We want disarmament....”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Perhaps, Witness, you could just give us the contents in a few words.
VON PAPEN: If the Tribunal would like to check on the contents of my speech, in Document 86 the Tribunal will find that I was speaking for disarmament and for peace. On that occasion I appealed to the major powers, and I would like to quote this sentence:
“In these days Germany is undertaking a gigantic attempt, through the mobilization of her last internal reserves, to bring about work and social peace. That gives us a right to expect that the leading statesmen of the major powers, now, for their part, will decide to bring to an end the poisoning of foreign political relations through agreements which cannot be kept.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On 31 July 1932 the Reichstag election took place. First of all, I should like to submit a diagram in which the election results of the various elections held in the years 1930 to 1933 are tabulated. This is Exhibit Number 98, which I hereby submit. From the figures shown there we can see the internal political development of Germany.
Witness, what was the result, and what were the political conclusions you drew from the result of the elections?
VON PAPEN: On 30 July, the eve of the elections, I spoke to the United States and I said:
“The world does not realize that Germany is confronted with a civil war. The world did not help us to overcome our difficulties at Lausanne, and it is unbearable that 14 years after the end of the war there is no equality of rights for us.”
The election of 31 July brought more than a doubling of the Nazi votes, from 6.4 million to 13.7 million votes, or 230 members of the Reichstag as against 110. The conclusions to be drawn from the results of this election were that no majority could be formed, from the extreme right to the Social Democrats, without the NSDAP. With that, the Party had achieved a parliamentary key position. The Prosecution is trying to ascribe the increase of the Nazi vote to the lifting of the ban on uniforms. That is an explanation which is altogether too simple. Actually, the ban on uniforms was lifted from 16 June till 18 July, for 1 month. And already 2 weeks prior to the election I had issued a decree prohibiting demonstrations. The real reason for the increase in the Nazi votes was the desperate economic situation of Germany and the fact of the general disappointment about the lack of foreign political successes at Lausanne.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Now, what was your conclusion from the results of this election?
VON PAPEN: The conclusion I drew was the same opinion which I had held before. On the next day I gave an interview to the Associated Press, and through this interview I told the entire world:
“The National Socialists have to be given responsibility, and when that has been done we have to bring about a reform of the Constitution.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Regarding these historical facts I refer to Exhibit Number 1 which has already been submitted, and especially to Pages 4, 5, and 6.
Witness, please tell the Tribunal briefly about your negotiations with Hitler.
VON PAPEN: As a result of this opinion of mine I had a long discussion with Hitler on 12 August. I impressed upon him the necessity of his participation, and my own readiness to resign as Chancellor in a few months if the co-operation should prove successful, and after Von Hindenburg had gained confidence in Hitler.
Of the political parties, the rightist parties, as is well known, had supported my Cabinet. The Center Party was in opposition. Now, after these elections, the Center Party wanted Hitler as Chancellor, but Hitler himself did not want to become the head of a majority government.
The correctness of my statements is shown in Document 1, Page 6, the first paragraph, last line. I quote:
“Kaas, the leader of the Center Party, demands a so-called total solution of this crisis by the full responsible participation of the former opposition in the Reich Government.”
I made an offer to Hitler that he should enter my Cabinet as Vice Chancellor. Hitler declined. On the next day we continued with our negotiations in the presence of the Reich President.
Hitler voiced the demand to the Reich President to join the Government with his Movement, but only on condition that he himself be appointed Chancellor. And this may be seen in this document on Page 6.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: It is Document Number 1, Page 6, Your Honor.
VON PAPEN: The Reich President did not believe that he should transfer complete authority to Hitler and rejected his proposal. At this point our efforts of drawing National Socialism into a responsible government activity had failed.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Defendant Von Papen voiced his opinions about this in a speech at Munich, which can be found in the document book, Exhibit Number 1, Pages 10 and 11.
After the failure of these negotiations, the National Socialists entered into the most intense opposition against the Government. Did this in any way change your basic course?
VON PAPEN: The oppositional attitude of the Nazis against my Government did not change my basic course at all. I spoke fully about this matter at Münster on 28 August.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: [Turning to the Tribunal.] This speech may be found in Document Number 1, Exhibit Number 1, Page 7. And on this page I would also like to call your attention to a report on a judgment of a special court at Beuthen. There the first death sentence was passed on the basis of the terror decree of 9 August. This terror decree, with which the Prosecution wishes to incriminate the Defendant Von Papen, resulted in the death sentence against five National Socialists.
[Turning to the defendant.] On 4 September you issued an emergency decree to revitalize economy. As this decree is the nucleus of your Government’s activity in the solution of economic problems, I should like to have you comment on this emergency decree.
VON PAPEN: I have already discussed this emergency decree and stated that it concerned a program involving 2,200 million Reichsmark with the aim of creating work for 1¾ million workers. We made this gigantic effort without increasing our foreign debt by a penny. It was, if I may characterize it in these words, the straining of our utmost and our last reserves of strength. The success became noticeable already in the first month through a decrease of 123,000 in the number of unemployed.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In 1 month?
VON PAPEN: Yes, in 1 month.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Within this general labor procurement program was rearmament contemplated?
VON PAPEN: Not at all. My Government did not spend a penny for rearmament.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The details of this emergency decree may be found in Document 1, Pages 8 and 9.
Why was there another dissolution of the Reichstag on 12 September? What did you say about this on that evening over the radio?
VON PAPEN: The new Reichstag met according to the Constitution. My Government, as I have already said, could not obtain a majority; but the formation of any other government without Hitler was quite impossible. Therefore, I was justified in the hope that this Reichstag would give my Government time to test itself, especially as I had submitted to it a comprehensive and decisive economic program. But just then something unexpected and unheard-of happened.
The thing that happened was, so to speak, the prostitution of the German Parliament. Herr Göring, the President of the German Reichstag, gave to the Communist delegate, Clara Zetkin, the floor for a vehement attack on my Government. When I, the responsible Chancellor of this Government, asked for the floor in order to give an account of what I wanted to do, I was refused permission to speak, and the Reichstag President asked for a vote on a motion of no confidence brought in by the Communists, the Socialists and the National Socialists. The fact of this concerted motion on the part of the three parties should really show what would have taken place in Germany if these three parties were to have ruled in Germany together, and should also show how imperative it was for me to try not to crowd National Socialism into the leftist wing, but to bring it into my Government instead.
I was forced to put the order for the dissolution of the Reichstag on the table, and to leave.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: These historic facts may be found in Document 1, Page 8, and in the document which I have already referred to without having submitted it, Document 86, Page 192.
In a speech in Munich on 12 October you also dealt with the question of reforming the Constitution. Please tell us briefly just what opinion you voiced on that occasion.
VON PAPEN: The reform of the Constitution, as I have already mentioned, was one of the most urgent aims of my Government. The reasons for it are set forth in this document, on Page 9. This reform was to include an electoral reform, in order to end the multiplicity of parties, and the creation of an upper House. Above all, it was to give the Government more authority and more opportunities to govern than was possible under the Weimar Constitution.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: As an explanation I should like to mention that the reform of the Constitution which was to do away with the conditions at that time—that Government measures were issued solely on the authority of Article 48, the emergency decree. To what extent this took place may be seen in Document 4, which gives a picture of the great number of emergency decrees which were issued.
Witness, on 6 November 1932 the election for the Reichstag took place. What was the election slogan of the Government and what was your opinion about the result?
VON PAPEN; Unfortunately, we had to vote once again. The program of my Government was the same as it had been before—that is, the endeavor to establish a new state leadership, a state leadership with the co-operation of an effective parliament with a government vested with strong authority.
In this manifesto to the electors of 4 November I addressed Hitler and I told him:
“It is the exclusiveness of your Movement, your demand for everything or nothing, which the Reich President could not recognize and which led to his decision of 13 August. What is at stake today is this: The question is not whether this or that party leader occupies the Chancellor’s chair, whether his name is Brüning, Hitler, or Von Papen, but rather that we meet on common ground so that the vital interests of the German people can be assured.”
I hoped that through this Reichstag election the National Socialists whom I opposed would be weakened in such a way that this party would be squeezed out of the central parliamentary position.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was the result?
VON PAPEN: This result was not achieved. The National Socialists lost 34 seats, but that was not sufficient to crowd them out of their key position, for again the formation of a majority in the Reichstag from the Socialists to the extreme Right was possible only with Hitler; without him, no majority.
In order that we might be in a position to continue governing in a constitutional way, I tried once more to negotiate with the various parties and the National Socialists.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Please give us a description of these negotiations.
VON PAPEN: These negotiations are interesting, and the Tribunal must be made familiar with them so that they can judge the events of 30 January 1933.
First of all, I tried to clear the situation with those parties that were in opposition to my Government, and especially with the Social Democrats and with the Center Party. The Center Party took an adverse position. They desired a majority government with Hitler, but Hitler did not wish to govern with a parliamentary majority. From Document 2, Page 13, we can see what the attitude of the Center Party was.
Since Hitler’s collaboration in a coalition government was out of the question, I again turned to Hitler in order to ask him whether he was now ready to enter my Government. I did this out of a sense of responsibility in order to achieve any sort of result at all; and, therefore, I wrote him the letter dated 13 November 1932, which is Document D-633, which was submitted by the Prosecution as an “undignified” document because, after all of my failures, I had once more turned to Hitler. In this letter I said:
“I would consider it a violation of duty if I did not turn to you, in spite of everything; and I am of the opinion that the leader of such a great Movement, whose service to the country and the people I always appreciated despite much that I had to criticize, that this leader should not refuse to confer with the responsible statesman.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Then on 8 November you again turned to the foreign press and spoke to them on foreign political matters...
VON PAPEN: May I interrupt you for a moment? I should like to add here, with regard to the opinion on the letter as voiced for the Prosecution by Mr. Barrington: It is customary in every parliamentary state that, if the leader of the government turns to the opposition in order to obtain its co-operation, he writes a courteous and cordial letter to the leader of the opposition; that he does not call him an ass. Therefore, I cannot quite see why these remarks of mine are characterized as lacking dignity.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On 8 November you turned to the foreign press and spoke about the revision of the Versailles Treaty. Can you explain briefly the statement you made at that time?
VON PAPEN: I only mention the speech made to the representatives of the foreign press in order to show to the High Tribunal the frequency of my appeals to foreign countries—appeals to foreign countries, to the victorious powers—to urge them to undertake a moral reconciliation; for then, Gentlemen, the radical tendencies in Germany would have disappeared of their own accord.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: This speech before the foreign press will be found in Document 1, Pages 11 and 12.
What were the consequences of the failure of your negotiations with the party leaders?
VON PAPEN: The failure of my negotiations with the party leaders and Hitler led to my resignation on 17 November. I was instructed to carry on the affairs of the Government until a new government could be formed.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What efforts were made by the Reich President, after your Cabinet resigned, towards forming a new government?
VON PAPEN: My resignation gave the Reich President the opportunity to try once more to form a parliamentary majority.
He immediately tried to do that and beginning on 18 November he received all the party leaders, from the Right to the Center; and on the 19th he received Hitler. The topic was: How can we form a parliamentary majority government? He instructed Hitler to form a majority government; Hitler would then be Chancellor.
On 23 November Göring presented Hitler’s answer to Hindenburg; it was: “Hitler could not undertake the formation of a majority government.”
On the 24th, Hindenburg received Monsignor Kaas, the leader of the Center Party. He declared that Hitler had not even tried to find out whether a majority government could be formed, but Monsignor Kaas promised the Reich President to try once more to form a majority government. On 25 November he reported to Hindenburg that the attempt had been in vain, that the leader of the Nazi faction, at that time Herr Frick, had stated that the Party would not be interested in such discussions. The result: The formation of a majority government with Hitler is impossible.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did other possibilities for a coalition present themselves? Were there other possibilities for a coalition?
VON PAPEN: No. There was only the possibility of a cabinet such as I had had, or a majority cabinet.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: With regard to these negotiations I should like to refer you to Document 2, Pages 14 and 15.
After the discussion between the Reich President and the party leaders had failed, a conference took place on 1 December between the Reich President and you and General Von Schleicher. This consultation is especially important for the future political development and has a considerable historical significance. Therefore I ask you to go into the details of this conversation.
VON PAPEN: The Field Marshal on 1 December asked General Von Schleicher and me to meet him for a conference. I should like to remark that previously no conversation between Herr Von Schleicher and myself about the possibilities for the formation of a future government had taken place. Herr Von Hindenburg asked us about our attitude; I set forth the following:
The attempt to include the Nazi movement into the Presidential Cabinet of Hindenburg had twice failed. Hitler equally refuses to form a majority government. On the other hand, he is exercising a tremendous amount of opposition and is trying to have all my decrees rescinded by the Reichstag. If therefore there is no possibility to form a parliamentary government or to include Hitler in our Government without making him Chancellor, then a state of emergency has arisen which requires extraordinary measures. Therefore, I proposed a recess of Parliament for several months and immediate preparation of a constitutional reform bill later to be presented to the Reichstag or to a national assembly. This proposal involved a violation of the Constitution.
I emphasized that I knew how the great soldier and statesman cherished the sacredness of his oath, but my conscience led me to believe that a violation of the Constitution seemed to be justified in view of the extraordinary situation, for which the German Constitution provided no remedy.
Then Herr Von Schleicher spoke. He said:
“Field Marshal, I have a plan which will make it unnecessary for you to break your oath to the Constitution, if you are willing to put the Government into my hands. I hope that I will be able to obtain a parliamentary majority in the Reichstag by splitting the National Socialist Party.”
During the discussion of this plan, I said that it was doubtful to me whether a splitting of the Party which had sworn loyalty to Hitler could be achieved. I reminded the Field Marshal of the fact that he should free himself of weak parliamentary majorities through a basic reform.
However, the proposals were thrown overboard through the solution offered by Schleicher. The solution offered by Schleicher was only a provisional matter, and a very doubtful one.
DR. KUBUS CHOK: What was the decision of the Reich President?
VON PAPEN: The decision of the Field Marshal was perhaps the most difficult that he had to make in his long life. Without giving any further reasons, he told me: “I have decided in favor of the solution of Herr Von Papen, and I request you to start immediately negotiations for the formation of a government to which I can give the instructions in accordance with your proposals.” The conference was over.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What did Herr Von Schleicher do then?
VON PAPEN: I exchanged only a few brief words with Herr Von Schleicher and tried to persuade him to recognize the decision that the Reich President had made. Herr Von Schleicher said “no.”
Then, the same evening, I started discussions with several ministers with regard to the formation of a new government. These ministers told me, “The plan is excellent, but Herr Von Schleicher has told us that we will have a civil war and in that case the Reichswehr will not be in a position to keep law and order in the country.”
I interrupted the discussion and called the Cabinet together the next morning, presenting the situation and informing them of Hindenburg’s decision. Then I asked Herr Von Schleicher to tell the Cabinet now why he believed that there would be a civil war and why the Reichswehr would not be in a position to keep law and order in the country. Herr Von Schleicher called on one of his General Staff officers to tell the Cabinet that this case had been considered from a practical and theoretical point of view and that they had come to the decision that the Reichswehr and the police were not in a position to keep law and order in the country. Then I said to the gentlemen: “This is a new situation which I have to report to the Reich President.”
I went to Hindenburg and reported to him. Herr Von Hindenburg, deeply stirred about my report, said to me, “I am an old man and I cannot face a civil war of any sort in my country. If Herr Von Schleicher is of this opinion, then I must—as much as I regret—withdraw the task with which I charged you last night.” With that, Herr Von Schleicher was appointed Chancellor on the conditions which he had offered to the Reich President at this meeting.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did Herr Von Schleicher offer you the post of Ambassador to Paris?
VON PAPEN: Herr Von Schleicher, who for a long time knew of my interest in German-French relations, asked me whether I wanted to become Ambassador in Paris. This would have been quite in accordance with my inclinations. But the Reich President objected to this, and...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, the Tribunal think that this is going in far too great detail into all this, all of which is known through history, and most of which we have heard before.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Now we shall turn to the year 1933. On 4 January a conference between Hitler and you took place at the home of the banker, Schröder. The Prosecution is presenting this conference as the actual beginning of your common conspiracy. Please give the Tribunal a description of how this conference came about.
VON PAPEN: I was...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, we have been hearing for the whole of the afternoon the background of the conference. Surely we can hear of the conference now.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The defendant is charged with the fact that he was the promoter of the negotiations, which supposedly started on 4 January, for the formation of the government formed on 30 January. The role which Von Papen played in it is of decisive importance. Therefore, I consider it necessary that he tells us briefly about the background...
THE PRESIDENT: The negotiations did not start on 4 January. The defendant told us earlier, about a couple of hours ago, that they started on 12 August 1932. The negotiations started earlier than this.
VON PAPEN: I may perhaps quite briefly say, Mr. President, what it concerns. This conference on 4 January, on the occasion of which the Prosecution asserts that I pledged myself to National Socialism, was a conference which took place on the initiative of Hitler. At this conference nothing was said about the overthrow of the Government of Von Schleicher; and there was nothing said about the formation of a government by Hitler, as it later actually took place on 30 January. We merely discussed the necessity for Hitler to decide to take a responsible part, not as Chancellor, but with his Party. And, My Lord, that I did not engineer this conference or have it called may be seen clearly from the statement of Herr Von Schröder, at whose home this conference took place.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: This may be seen from Document 9, Page 26.
Witness, you are accused of the fact that in this conference you discussed plans for the overthrow of the Cabinet of Von Schleicher. Did you keep the fact of this conference from Herr Von Schleicher?
VON PAPEN: On the contrary. Immediately after this conference at Cologne, I wrote a letter to Herr Von Schleicher, which must have reached him the next morning. And after I had returned to Berlin, I went at once to Herr Von Schleicher and told him just what had been discussed at this conference. Thereupon, Herr Von Schleicher caused an official communiqué to be issued. Document Number 9.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 9(a)—I submit Document 9(a).
VON PAPEN: In this document it says:
“The conversation revealed the complete lack of foundation for the assertions deduced from this meeting by the press about controversies between the Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher and Herr Von Papen.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you then, that is, during the time until 22 January, participate in any political discussions about the formation of a new government?
VON PAPEN: No. Between 9 and 22 January I did not participate in any political discussions about the formation of a government.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Please give us a short summary of the political development from 10 until 21 January.
VON PAPEN: The Prosecution asserts that now, in the interval between 9 and 30 January, I was the chief factor in forming the government of Hitler on 30 January. A chronological recapitulation of the days between the 11th and the 30th will reveal how completely wrong this assertion of the Prosecution actually is. Therefore, I shall have to mention a few dates in this connection.
On 11 January: Hitler was in Berlin. He did not see Von Schleicher, Hugenberg, or Von Papen. But the Reichstag decided through the Council of Elders: “We have to give a reprieve to the Government of Von Schleicher.”
On 13 January: Schleicher receives Hugenberg, the chief of the rightist movement.
On the 14th: Hindenburg receives Hugenberg.
Later on we shall see that on both of these days, Hugenberg, the leader of the Right, negotiated with Von Schleicher about his entry into the Cabinet, not about the formation of a government with Hitler.
Then on 15 January, the well-known elections in Lippe took place. The Lippe elections gave the National Socialists a new impetus.
On 20 January, the Reichstag, the Council of Elders, decided to postpone their meeting from the 24th to the 31st.
The State Secretary of the Reich Government, Schleicher, declared in this connection: “The Reich Government intends to clarify the political situation as quickly as possible, but the Reich Government is not interested in majority questions.”
From that can be seen that Herr Von Schleicher no longer considered the formation of a government on the basis of a majority.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Now we can leave the political developments and turn to your personal...
THE PRESIDENT: If you are going into another subject, we had better adjourn.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 17 June 1946 at 1000 hours.]
ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SIXTH DAY Monday, 17 June 1946
Morning Session
MARSHAL: If it please the Tribunal, report is made that the Defendants Fritzsche and Speer are absent.
[The Defendant Von Papen resumed the stand.]
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I am now going to deal with the events of January 1933 and I should like to say that I shall then not require any more time. The rest of the examination will be shorter so that I shall be able to conclude my examination of the defendant in the course of today.
Witness, on Friday you told the Tribunal that during the well-known conversation with Hitler on 4 January 1933 at the home of Schröder, you did not discuss the formation of the Cabinet which took place later, on 30 January. You also said that up to 22 January you did not take part in any political discussion. The Prosecution, however, asserts that you influenced the Reich President to name Hitler Chancellor on 30 January. Did you influence Hindenburg to that effect?
VON PAPEN: Before I reply, may I make a brief correction? Your Lordship asked me on Friday for the date of the evacuation of Jerusalem. I said it was 1918, but of course Your Lordship was right; it was in 1917. I beg your pardon.
Now in reply to your question: I did not exert any such influence on Reich President Von Hindenburg, but even if I had done so, it would not have carried any weight in the final decision of the Reich President. The political situation, as we shall see, left the Reich President only the choice between a violation of the Constitution and a Hitler Cabinet.
Furthermore, and I already mentioned this at the conclusion of the last session, it is plain from the historical events of January as reproduced in Document 9, Pages 27 through 31, that during the entire month of January until the 22d almost daily negotiations without my participation took place between the Reich Government and the various parties or among the parties themselves. All of these negotiations were concerned with the possible formation of a majority in the Reichstag, but all of them were of no avail. I have explained that the Reich Chancellor, Von Schleicher, was trying to bring about a majority in the Reichstag by splitting the Party. This attempt, too, finally failed on 20 January; and that was obvious to the world, for on that day the Reich Chancellor authorized a statement in the Reichstag to the effect that he no longer attached importance to forming a majority in the Reichstag.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In this connection I should like to refer to Document 9 in the first document book. I shall just read a few extracts from this document, Document 9, Page 27. The heading is:
“January 11, Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher receives leader of the German People’s Party, Dingeldey.”
On the next page, Page 28, is proof that on 12 January efforts to split the NSDAP through Strasser had not yet been abandoned. I shall quote from the beginning of the page:
“At the same time it has only now become known that the Reich President received Gregor Strasser last week for a conference. Strasser apparently expressed his intention of keeping in the background for the time being; only in the event of an unexpectedly sharp conflict between Hitler and Schleicher’s Reich Cabinet would Strasser be likely to play a definite part.”
In the meantime the Lippe elections took place and gave a clear picture of the development of the NSDAP.
I am quoting now from the middle of the paragraph under 15 January:
“The electoral victory of the NSDAP not only surprisingly refutes the assertions of the opposition concerning a decline of the National Socialist movement, but is also proof that the Movement is no longer at a standstill, and that a sharp rise has now become apparent.”
Significant for the talks on the creation of a parliamentary majority were Schleicher’s negotiations with the Center Party, led by Prelate Dr. Kaas. I quote from the last paragraph on Page 28:
“Reich Chancellor Von, Schleicher receives Prelate Dr. Kaas, Chairman of the Center Party, for a lengthy conference.
“In regard to the predictions on a reorganization of the Cabinet, the fiction is kept up in government circles that a Strasser-Hugenberg-Stegerwald combination is possible, despite the difficulties which these plans have undoubtedly encountered. Privy Councillor Hugenberg is said to have laid down the condition that undisturbed activity within the Cabinet for at least 1 year should be guaranteed.”
On the next page, Page 29, I would like to refer to the last 10 lines or so of the statement of State Secretary Planck before the Council of Elders of the Reichstag.
“In the conversations referred to, the National Socialists are to assume the lead and to attempt to form all groups, from the National Socialists to the Center, into a majority front of the sort which failed to materialize at the end of 1932. The conduct of these negotiations, in which the Schleicher Cabinet is in no way involved, rests with Hitler. If on 31 January the Reichstag should be summoned and a conflict arise between Government and Reichstag or if such a conflict is brought about by other events, the proclamation of the often discussed state of emergency must to an increased extent be expected. The Government would then dissolve the Reichstag and set the date for the new elections in the early fall.”
On the following page, Page 30, I should like to refer finally to the first heading...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, the Tribunal does not think it necessary to read all this detail. It is evident from the headlines of these entries that there were political negotiations which led to the assumption of power by the National Socialist Party. Is that not all that you want to say?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I want to prove that the formation of the Government on 30 January was an imperative solution arising out of the political parliamentary incidents of the day. Therefore, it is of relevance to note what took place at the time, what attempts failed, what other possibilities existed, and what...
THE PRESIDENT: What I mean is this: It appears, does it not, from the headlines of these entries. Really, you can read the headlines without reading the details. For example, on Page 30, the entry on 21 January, and those other entries, give the substance of the matter.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Very well, Mr. President. May I then be permitted to read Page 31, part of the text describing the historical events of the overthrow of Chancellor Schleicher on the 28th? Regarding the decisive conversation between the Reich Chancellor and the Reich President the following was officially announced:
“Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher submitted to the Reich President today his report on the situation, and declared that the present Reich Cabinet, on account of its character as a minority Government, would be in a position to represent its program and its views in the Reichstag only if the Reich President placed the dissolution order at his disposal. Reich President Von Hindenburg stated that in view of the prevailing situation he could not accept this proposition. Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher hereupon submitted the collective resignation of the Reich Cabinet, which the Reich President accepted; the Cabinet was entrusted with continuing provisionally to discharge official business.”
As proof for the fact that the possibility of Hitler forming a parliamentary government did not exist, I want to refer to a brief extract on Page 32:
“National Socialist sources again state categorically that for the National Socialists only a Hitler government can be considered. Any other attempts towards a solution must be prevented with the utmost vigor. This, of course, applies to a Papen cabinet; but a Schacht cabinet also is out of the question.”
I should now like to refer to the next document, Document 8. In this document all the possibilities for the formation of a government are discussed in detail.
Witness, how did Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher react to this political situation?
VON PAPEN: After his efforts to split the Party and to bring about a majority in the Reichstag had failed, Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher asked the Reich President to give him dictatorial powers, which meant a violation of the Constitution. Thus he wanted the very thing which I had proposed to the Reich President on 1 December 1932 as the only way out of the situation, a proposal which the Reich President had accepted at that time but which General Von Schleicher had thwarted.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: A discussion took place on 22 January at the home of Von Ribbentrop at which, besides yourself, Göring, Meissner, and Oskar von Hindenburg were present. Was this discussion arranged on your initiative, or who suggested it?
VON PAPEN: The initiative for this discussion on the 22d was Hitler’s, and he also suggested that Herr Von Ribbentrop should place his home at our disposal. The Reich President wished to know what Hitler thought about the solution for the political crisis, and what his proposals were. Therefore, the conversation of the 22d concentrated exclusively on the demands of the National Socialists, while the formation of a government as it took place on the 30th was not discussed.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On 28 January, at noon, the Reich President instructed you to begin negotiations for the formation of a new government. What possibilities for the formation of a government did you consider the political situation offered?
VON PAPEN: The idea of forming a parliamentary majority government had been abandoned since 20 January; it was impossible. Hitler was not willing to lead or participate in such a government.
Secondly, further support of the Schleicher presidential cabinet by means of a declaration of a state of emergency and the prorogation of the Reichstag, which was against the Constitution, had been rejected by the Reich President on the 23d. He had rejected these proposals, as we know, because Von Schleicher had told him in December that a violation of the Constitution would mean civil war and a civil war would mean chaos, “because I am not in a position,” he said, “to maintain law and order with the Army and with the Police.”
Thirdly, since Hitler offered to participate in a presidential cabinet, this was the only remaining possibility, and all the forces and political parties which had supported my Government in 1932 were available for this.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What were the instructions which the Reich President gave you?
VON PAPEN: The instructions given me by Von Hindenburg were as follows:
Proposal for the formation of a government under the leadership of Hitler, with the utmost restriction of National Socialist influence and within the framework of the Constitution.
I should like to add that it was quite unusual for the Reich President to ask any person to form a government which would not be headed by the person himself. In the normal course of events Hindenburg should, of course, have entrusted Hitler himself with the formation of a government; and he entrusted me with this task because he wished to minimize Hitler’s influence in the government as far as possible.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: And with whom did you negotiate?
VON PAPEN: I negotiated with the leaders of the rightist groups which might participate in the formation of this government; namely, the NSDAP, the German National People’s Party, the “Stahlhelm,” and the German People’s Party.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On what lines did you suggest the formation of the new cabinet to the Reich President?
VON PAPEN: I suggested the only possibility which existed, namely, a coalition cabinet consisting of these groups.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, the Tribunal thinks that the defendant is going into far too much detail about this, because he has given his account of why the President sent for him and why he had anything to do with it. And that is the only matter that concerns him. After he has given that explanation, it should not be necessary to go into any further detail about it at all.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, the Prosecution has made the charge that the very act of forming the government was a crime; he is therefore defending himself by stating that he tried to provide for a safeguard against the preponderant influence of Hitler in the government. It is relevant...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; but that is what I said. He has given that explanation. He does not need to add all sorts of details to support that explanation.
I have written down, some moments ago, that the President asked him because he wished to minimize the influence of Hitler. Now he is going on with all sorts of details.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, he is merely trying to set forth in what way he wanted to limit Hitler’s influence, and that is a very important point. He is going to tell us for what safeguards within this government he provided; the selection of personalities, all the other restrictions which were agreed upon to rule out the possibility of Hitler’s influence becoming overpowering. This is a very important point in reply to the Prosecution’s charges.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can do it as shortly as possible, and not do it in too great detail. That is all the Tribunal wants.
VON PAPEN: I shall be very brief, My Lord.
The safeguarding measures which I introduced at the request of the Reich President were the following: 1) A very small number of National Socialist ministers in the new cabinet; only 3 out of 11, including Hitler. 2) The decisive economic departments of the cabinet to be placed in the hands of non-National Socialists. 3) Experts to be put into the ministry posts as far as possible. 4) Joint reports of Reich Chancellor Hitler and Vice Chancellor Von Papen to Hindenburg in order to minimize the personal influence of Hitler on Hindenburg. 5) I tried to form a parliamentary bloc as a counterbalance against the political effects of the National Socialist Party.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: To what extent did Reich President Von Hindenburg himself select the members of the new cabinet?
VON PAPEN: The Reich President reserved the right to appoint the Foreign Minister and the Reichswehr Minister. The first of these two key posts was given to Herr Von Neurath, in whom the President had special confidence; and the Reich Defense Ministry was given to General Von Blomberg, who also enjoyed the particular confidence of the Reich President. The National Socialist members of this cabinet were only the Reich Minister of the Interior, Frick, whose activity as Minister of the Interior for the State of Thuringia had been completely moderate, and the Minister without Portfolio, and later Prussian Minister of the Interior, Göring.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In this connection I should like to refer to Document Book 3, Document Numbers 87 and 93, namely, an affidavit of the former Minister, Dr. Alfred Hugenberg, and an interrogatory of Freiherr von Lersner.
THE PRESIDENT: What page in Book 3 did you say?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Hugenberg’s statement is on Pages 194-195; Lersner’s on Pages 210-212.
The Prosecution asserts that the Government formed on 30 January took over the program of the NSDAP as its own. Will you explain now, Witness, what the basis of that Government’s policy was.
VON PAPEN: The view held by the Prosecution is completely incorrect. The program which on 30 January we decided to adopt was not the program of the Nazi Party, but it was a coalition program. And this is perfectly plain from the proclamation which this Government issued to the German people on 1 February. And to give historical proof of this, may I quote two sentences from that proclamation? It says:
“The National Government will consider it as its first and foremost task to restore the spiritual and political unity of our people. It will consider Christianity as the basis of its general moral outlook and will firmly protect the family as the determining unit of the nation and the State.
“The tremendous problem of reorganizing our economy will be solved with two large Four Year Plans.”
I should like to add just one sentence:
“This Government is fully conscious of the magnitude of its duty to support the maintenance and affirmation of peace, which the world now needs more than ever.”
In addition, this coalition program, which the Prosecution describes as the Nazi program, contained the following points: Continued existence of the Länder and the federal character of the Reich; protection of justice and the legal system, permanent tenure of office for judges; reform of the Constitution; safeguarding of the rights of the Christian churches; and, above all, abolition of the class conflict through a solution of social problems, the restoration of a true national community.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you yourself do anything else to assure the application of your own political ideas?
VON PAPEN: I did everything within my power, together with my political friends, to carry through the ideas which I myself had contributed to this political program. At that time the essential point seemed to me the creation of a counterbalance to National Socialism; and therefore, I asked the leaders of the rightist parties to give up the old party programs and to unite in a large, common political organization with the aim of fighting for the principles which we had enunciated. However, the party leaders did not act on this suggestion. Party differences were too marked and no changes took place. The only thing I accomplished was the establishment of a voting bloc of all three parties, and on behalf of this voting bloc I made many speeches in which I presented this program, this coalition program, to the country.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I want to refer to a speech delivered by the witness on 11 February on behalf of the voting bloc; it may be found in Document 12, Pages 54 and 55. I quote from about the middle of Page 55, the following brief passage:
“Therefore, I consider the circumstance that the present Reich Cabinet is not made up of one single party or movement, but of various groups of the national movement, of free politicians and experts, not a disadvantage, but rather an advantage.”
What specific questions were emphasized and underlined in the program of this voting bloc? You spoke of these questions in various speeches. In order to save time, I should like only to submit to the Tribunal the document dealing with this point, Document Number 10. Will you briefly explain your attitude, and comment on the various questions; first of all, the social problem?
VON PAPEN: The social problem was, of course, at the head of my program, because this question dominated all others. It was our task to make well-satisfied citizens out of the workers who were now engaged in class conflict and to give to each the opportunity of a livelihood and a home. I stated in the speech, which is contained in this document, that there would always be differences in property but that a small group should not possess everything while the great mass of the people had nothing. And above all, I again and again emphasized the fact that if we could succeed in solving the social problem we would, in that way, make an eminent contribution to peace in Europe.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was your program in foreign political matters?
VON PAPEN: The program was very simple. It consisted merely of the desire to do away, in a peaceful manner, with the discriminations against the German people and against our sovereignty.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was your platform on religious questions?
VON PAPEN: It is plain from all of my speeches that I considered the regeneration of the German people in a Christian sense as the prerequisite for the solution of the social and all other problems which confronted us. I shall return to this point later.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to submit as evidence the document which I have already mentioned, Document Number 10; and I ask that the High Tribunal take judicial notice of it. Since a mistake affecting the sense of the translation has been made on Page 39 and since the question of dissolving the trade unions will play an important role later, I should like to read a brief paragraph on Page 39, about the middle of the page:
“I recognize that the trade unions have done much to imbue the working classes with professional honor and professional pride. Many trade unions, for instance the Union of Clerks, have made exemplary achievements in this respect. The conception of class conflict, however, stood in the way of real reform and constructive work in this direction.
“The Socialist parties prevented the trade unions’ efforts to convert the workers into a class. If the trade unions would recognize the signs of the times and remain out of politics to a greater extent, then they could, especially now, become a strong pillar of the national life.”
Please comment on the results of the elections on 5 March 1933.
I just want to draw the Court’s attention in this connection to Document Number 98, in which I have set down a diagram of the election results in the years in question.
VON PAPEN: This election became extremely significant for later developments. First of all, I should like to state that this election was a truly free one, for it was conducted together with the old functionaries of the Republic; and that it was actually free is also shown by the fact that the votes of the Communists and of the Social Democrats did not decrease at all. I, personally, had expected that the NSDAP would be successful at the polls. In November 1932 I had taken away 36 of its seats in the Reichstag, and I expected that it would regain some of those seats. I had also hoped that my own voting bloc would be very successful. I hoped that the people would realize the necessity of creating a counterbalance. However, this did not happen...
THE PRESIDENT: Surely the figures are sufficient for us. We can form our own conclusions from the figures. We can see the figures. We do not need to have them all explained and commented on to us. There are very much more important things for us to consider.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, will you now describe the events leading up to the Enabling Act of 23 March 1933.
VON PAPEN: The Enabling Act arose out of the necessity to have the economic measures carried out in an untroubled Reichstag session. Negotiations were conducted with the Center Party to obtain a 1-year parliamentary truce, but these negotiations failed. Hence this law which had some parallels in the past became a necessity. The Prosecution has emphasized this law as clear proof for the existence of a conspiracy. May I say, therefore, that I myself tried to provide for a certain check by desiring to maintain the veto power of the Reich President. The Cabinet records of 15 March show, however, that State Secretary Meissner did not consider the participation of the Reich President necessary.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to refer to Document Number 25, which is identical with Exhibit USA-578, to the attitude taken by Von Papen in this Cabinet discussion and to the standpoint just mentioned of State Secretary Meissner.
“Meissner, State Secretary of the minority Cabinet, of the Cabinet of the Reich President, and his excellent assistant.”
I should also like to refer to Document 23, because from the enumeration of the emergency decrees in that document it is clear that in the state of emergency which obtained then it was not possible to govern by means of Reichstag laws and that the Enabling Act was to be a substitute for these emergency decrees which were being repeatedly issued.
I must make one correction: The standpoint of State Secretary Meissner is contained in Document 91, Exhibit USA-578.
[Turning to the defendant.] On 21 March 1933, an amnesty decree was issued. The Prosecution has described this decree as an unheard-of law. What can you say about it?
VON PAPEN: The Prosecution calls this law “sanction of political murder.”
I should like to say the following about it: This law was issued in an emergency decree of the Reich President, not of the Cabinet; and it was a natural end of a revolutionary period which had lasted 7 weeks. There are very many historical parallels for this amnesty decree; for example, the law which was issued by the young German Republic on 21 July 1922 and which includes murder in the amnesty measures.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I now refer to Document 28, Page 99 of Document Book 1. This contains the law of 21 July 1922, which concludes “the period of a state of unrest which obtained in the years 1920 and 1921.” May I also refer to Page 100 of this Document Number 28 which contains the law of 20 December 1932 which has been mentioned.
On 23 March the law dealing with the special courts was issued. What can you say in that connection?
VON PAPEN: These special laws, or special court laws, are also not entirely new. I, personally, as Chancellor of the Reich issued such a law on 9 August 1932; and I based my action then on a directive of the Brüning Cabinet dated 6 October 1931. In revolutionary periods punishable political acts must be brought to speedy trial under the law.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I now point out Document 27, Page 89 of Document Book 1, especially the introduction preceding Paragraph 1, which shows that this emergency decree was based on the Brüning emergency directive of 1931.
On 1 April 1933 the Jewish boycott was carried out. Was this a measure taken by the Government? Did you participate in it in any way?
VON PAPEN: The assertion of Dr. Goebbels that the Cabinet had approved this measure was completely false. On the contrary, at the suggestion of the Cabinet Hitler had on 10 and 12 March made public announcements which my counsel will submit.
The Prosecution refers to the telegram which I sent to New York on the 25th as a “white lie of the greatest magnitude”; I can only say, however, that this assertion is completely unfounded. The public statements of Hitler gave us, in fact had to give us, the assurance that such excesses would not take place again. In that belief I sent my telegram. It would be inconceivable that on the 25th I should send a telegram to New York...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, I thought your question was: Did the defendant participate in these measures? I do not know what his answer is. He has been answering for some minutes, but I do not know what the answer is.
The question was: Did you participate? And I do not know what he has answered.
VON PAPEN: I said that the assertion of Goebbels that the Cabinet had approved this Jewish boycott was a lie.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not answer directly; did you or did you not participate?
VON PAPEN: No, we did not participate.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I refer to Document 33, Page 113, a statement by Hitler on 10 March, the last two lines:
“Annoying individuals, obstructing automobiles, or disturbing business life must absolutely be discontinued.”
On the same page, Page 113, a declaration of Hitler on 12 March, last sentence of the paragraph next to the last:
“Whoever, from now on, attempts by individual action to cause disturbances in our administrative or business life, acts consciously against the National Government.”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, I did not intend to prevent the defendant telling the Tribunal what he had done with reference to his telegram to the New York Times, but I wanted him in the first instance to answer your question.
Now, if he wants to add anything about what he telegraphed to the New York Times, let him do so.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Will you then, please, go back to this point in connection with the New York Times.
VON PAPEN: I can only add, My Lord, that it would be quite inconceivable that on 25 April I should send this telegram to New York knowing that 3 or 4 days later a new Jewish boycott would be carried out; that is completely nonsensical. Moreover, I might point out that on the same day Herr Von Neurath sent a similar wire to Cardinal O’Connell.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Will you now give an account of your attitude to the Jewish problem?
VON PAPEN: My attitude toward the Jewish problem can be briefly delineated; it has always, throughout my life, been the attitude expected by the Catholic Church of its members. I stated my view on the question of race, as regards National Socialist doctrine, quite publicly in a speech in Gleiwitz in the year 1933, and my counsel will submit that speech as evidence.
A completely different question not connected with my basic attitude toward the Jewish problem was, however, the kind of foreign monopoly, the overwhelming influence of the Jewish element in the spheres which form the nation’s public opinion, such as press, literature, theater, film, and especially law. There seemed no doubt in my mind that this foreign monopoly was unhealthy and that it should be remedied in some way. But as I said, that had nothing whatever to do with the racial question.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer now to Document 16, Page 68, which contains an extract from the speech which, as the defendant mentioned, he made in the year 1934 at Gleiwitz. I quote:
“There are certainly no objections to race research and eugenics which endeavor to keep the characteristics of a nation as pure as possible and at the same time to kindle the feeling of a racial community. This love of one’s own race will never degenerate into hatred of other nations and races. That is the decisive point. Eugenics must never be brought into conflict with Christianity for they are not opposed, they only differ. It was Christianity which first made of the German tribes a German nation, and it is really not necessary to create a new Nordic-Germanic religion in order to give testimony to our race.”
May I refer also to Document 29, Page 103, which deals with the second topic discussed by the defendant; it is an excerpt from the diary of Mr. Dodd on 4 July. I then refer to Document 35, Page 115, which contains an article from the Völkischer Beobachter dated 19 August 1932. The heading of that, article is:
“The Papen Government Has Inscribed the Protection of Jews on its Banner.”
THE PRESIDENT: That was August 1932? Where is it?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 35, Page 115. I just read the heading of this article in the Völkischer Beobachter dated 19 August 1932.
“The Papen Government Has Inscribed the Protection of Jews on its Banner.”
The article deals with a statement of Herr Kareski, Berlin, as representative of the Jewish People’s Party. Kareski was head of the synagogue in Berlin. He stated at that time—and I quote the last paragraph of this article:
“Fortunately, the Constitution of the German Republic still protects the legal position of the Jews and the Papen Government has inscribed the protection of the Jews on its banner.”
The Civil Service Law of 7 April 1933 contains certain exceptions applying to Jews. Originally these exceptions were planned to be much more extensive; did you do anything to restrict them to the form in which they were then issued?
VON PAPEN: May I just add one thing? I believe you forgot to submit to the Tribunal Document 33, relevant to the question of foreign monopoly in the German legal system.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I shall submit that document after your answer to the question I have just put.
VON PAPEN: I approved of the Civil Service Law of 7 April 1933 only insofar as it applied to Jewish civil servants appointed after the year 1918. For after the war large-scale immigration into Germany had taken place from the east, especially from Poland, a country which was strongly anti-Semitic at the time.
I successfully pleaded with Hindenburg that soldiers who had taken part in the war should under no circumstance be affected by this law, for I always held the view that a German, no matter of what race, who had done his duty to his country should not be restricted in his rights.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer now to Document 33, Page 114. It is a report of the Ministry of Justice, which shows that when the Civil Service Law was issued 3,515 Jewish attorneys were practicing. On the basis of the mitigation which the witness has just mentioned, 735 ex-service men and 1,383 other attorneys who had been admitted to the bar before 1914 were exempted from this law. Thus 2,158 Jewish attorneys remained, whereas 923 had to resign from office.
What was your view of the Civil Service Law as a whole?
VON PAPEN: I think it was completely normal that the National Socialists, since they were partners in the coalition government and controlled more than 50 percent of the German people’s vote, should have a part in filling civil service posts.
I might point out that the National Socialists, in the propaganda which they conducted for years, fought with all means against the so-called “Bonzentum” (boss rule); but one could not, of course, predict that they themselves would later make that same mistake.
THE PRESIDENT: Would this be a convenient time to adjourn?
[A recess was taken.]
DR. KUBUSCHOK: We have been speaking of the Civil Service Law, which in the points we have discussed corresponds to some extent to the trend of thought of the NSDAP. Why did you feel impelled to urge certain concessions which were then, in fact, made?
VON PAPEN: I was convinced at the time that with this Civil Service Law we were creating something basic. I did not anticipate, and I could not guess, that the Party would continually in the following years introduce new laws in this field and would thereby completely ruin the civil service.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was your attitude towards the dissolution of the parties?
VON PAPEN: The exclusion of parties was a necessary result of the Enabling Act. For 4 years Hitler had demanded the reforms which we wanted to make. Document 25 shows that I asked Hitler to create a new basic State law, and, in his speech of 23 March Hitler promised that. In that speech he spoke of a reform of the Constitution to be carried through by the appropriate existing constitutional organs. That reform would have given us, in my opinion, in a revolutionary way, a new and sounder democratic and parliamentary form of government. Moreover, I must say that I saw no danger in the temporary use of the one-party system. There were excellent examples for it in other states, for instance in Turkey and Portugal, where this one-party system was functioning very well. Finally, I should like to point out that in my speech at Marburg on 17 June 1934 I criticized this development and said that one could only regard it as a transitional stage which a reconstructed Constitution would have to terminate.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What is your view of the Reichsstatthalter Law of April 1933? Will you also state your attitude to the question of German federation?
VON PAPEN: This question, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, has been brought up by the Prosecution in order to accuse me of duplicity, untruthfulness, or deceit. The Prosecution has alleged that in 1932 my views on the federal character of Germany were different from those I expressed in 1933. But even if I had changed my mind in this respect, I cannot see why the question of a federal or a central government should be a crime within this Charter. Besides, I did not change my mind at all. The view I expressed in 1932 was this: I recognized the advantages of a federal system for Germany, and I wanted to maintain it; but I always wished, even in 1932, that there should be joint agreement on the bigger political issues in Germany. That a federal country is governed on uniform principles is surely a matter of course. That was the only question, and it was also the basis of my intervention in Prussia on 20 July.
If one knows the history of Germany, one will be aware that Bismarck overcame that difficulty by combining the offices of the Reich Chancellor and the Prussian Prime Minister. Therefore, when in 1933 we appointed Reichsstatthalter in the various Länder, we merely intended to establish a common political line. Besides, the rights of the Länder remained unaffected. They had their own financial, legal, and educational systems, and their own parliaments.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: With regard to the Reichsstatthalter Law, may I refer to Document 31, particularly Page 111 of that document. The passage quoted there from the Pfundtner-Neubert works shows that the authority of the Länder was abolished only by the later Reichsstatthalter Law in the year 1935, when the Defendant Von Papen was no longer in office.
Why did you on 7 April 1933 resign as Prime Minister of Prussia?
VON PAPEN: My letter to Hitler dated 10 April 1934 has been submitted by the Prosecution. It contains the reasons for my resignation. In Prussia—I have already stated this—I had already carried through the co-ordination of political aims on 20 July. The Reichsstatthalter Law enabled the Reich Chancellor to be Prime Minister of Prussia himself or to nominate a substitute. And so my task in Prussia was completed. Apart from that, I should like to mention the following point: The elections of 5 March had given the National Socialists a strong majority also in the Prussian Parliament. The Prussian Parliament then met and naturally desired that a National Socialist should become Prime Minister of Prussia. For all these reasons I resigned.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Prosecution charges that, as a prominent lay member of the Catholic Church, you were particularly able to consolidate the Nazi regime in the field of the churches. We must therefore discuss your attitude regarding the Church. Will you give an account of the situation of the German Church at that time?
VON PAPEN: This charge, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, is for me the most serious of the entire Indictment—the charge that I, as a Catholic, contributed to this conspiracy against world peace. May I be permitted, therefore, to discuss my attitude in the Church question quite briefly.
The Catholics in Germany had organized themselves in the Center Party. Before 1918 the Center Party, as a moderate party, had always endeavored to establish a balance between the left and the right political wings. After the war that picture was altered entirely.
We then find the Center Party mostly in coalition with the left. In Prussia, this coalition was maintained during all the years from 1918 until 1932. Undeniably the Center Party deserves much credit for the maintenance of the life of the State during the years after the collapse; but the coalition with the Social Democrats made co-operation of the Center Party with the right impossible, particularly with regard to Church policy. In political questions and matters of internal party policy the Center Party, therefore, followed a line of compromise which was the result obtained through the concessions of others in the field of Church policy. That this state of affairs...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, to what is this all relevant?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Prosecution has said:
“Papen used his position of a prominent Catholic to consolidate the Nazi regime. He was double-faced, and that characteristic is especially obvious in this connection and throws light on his personality.”
The defendant is now explaining what his attitude in Church matters has been from the beginning of his political activity. Since he was first a member of the Center Party and then left it, it is necessary to discuss the split which developed between him and the leaders of the party. Later we shall...
THE PRESIDENT: Why is it necessary to go into this extreme detail? Surely the thing that he wants to show is that he was not assisting the Nazi Party. He was undoubtedly a Catholic, and he wants to show that he was not assisting the Nazi Party. He does not want to go into all of these details about Catholic influences and his part in Catholic influences.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, may I say quite generally that in dealing with the case of Papen it is our intention to prove that from the very beginning the defendant consistently adhered to his principles. For this purpose it is essential that the conditions prevailing at particular times should be elucidated. We are now not very far from the point at which we can leave the internal political conditions, and the other subjects will be very much briefer. I do think, however, that for the sake of completing the picture of the defendant’s personality, I must go into certain details; but of course we shall make every effort to omit all superfluous and avoidable particulars.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, we are perfectly well aware that the case of every one of these 21 defendants is different from the others. We are perfectly aware of that, but what we desire is that their cases should be put forward fairly but without unnecessary and burdensome detail. They hope that you will try to confine the defendant to the really essential matters. Will you go on?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Very well, Mr. President. We shall do our best.
[Turning to the defendant.] Will you continue, please.
VON PAPEN: Perhaps I may wind up this question by saying that my opposition within the Party, my plea for the use of conservative forces, gave me the reputation of being a bad Catholic. A foreign judge, a non-German judge cannot know that in those years a Catholic who was not a member of the Center Party but belonged to the right-wing parties was regarded as a bad and inferior Catholic; and that is the state of affairs against which I always fought.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In his government statement of 4 June 1932 Von Papen referred to the fact that the outcome of the previous coalition policy in Prussia was fully evidenced in the entire public life of Germany. I refer to Document 1, Page 2, and I quote the last part of the first long paragraph:
“The disintegration of atheistic-Marxist thoughts has already too deeply invaded all the cultural fields of public life, because the Christian forces of the State were all too easily ready for compromises. The purity of public life cannot be maintained or re-established by way of compromises for the sake of parity. A clear decision must be made as to what forces are willing to help reconstruct the new Germany on the basis of the unchangeable principles of the Christian ideology.”
I also refer to Document Number 37, on Page 119, a speech at Munich on 1 March 1933, when the witness discussed the aspects which he has just mentioned.
Witness, how did you think the position of the churches was safeguarded by the new Government, and what did you do in that respect?
VON PAPEN: First of all, I asked Hitler to make a clear-cut statement on this question; and he did so in a positive manner. In the foreword to my speeches made at that time, there is the observation that it is the first and most important task to revise the Nazi program with reference to the religious problem, since such a revision is a prerequisite for a united front of the two Christian confessions in that coalition. Secondly, I attempted to protect Church policy by giving it, after the conclusion of the Concordat, a certain foreign political context.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In this connection may I refer to Document 37, Pages 119 and 120, containing an extract from several speeches delivered by the witness, and to Volume I, Document 38, further down on Page 119, which is a speech made at Dortmund in February 1933. In it the Defendant Von Papen said...
THE PRESIDENT: We have that document before us.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 37, Page 119.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have got that, yes. All I was suggesting was that it was sufficient to refer us to the document. As a matter of fact, you have already got to the time when he resigned his post as Prime Minister of Prussia in 1934, and now you are going back to 1933.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: He resigned in Prussia in 1933. May I draw the Tribunal’s attention, then, to this speech on Page 120.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he resign in 1933 or 1934?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 1933.
I draw the Court’s attention to this speech, and to Page 120, a proclamation of the Reich Government of 1 February 1933.
[Turning to the defendant.] What were the events leading up to the Concordat?
VON PAPEN: I reiterate that I wanted to secure a Christian basis for the Reich at all costs. For that reason, I suggested to Hitler in April 1933 that the rights of the Church should be firmly laid down in a Concordat, and that this Concordat should be followed by an agreement with the Evangelical Church. Hitler agreed, although there was strong opposition in the Party; and thus the Concordat was concluded. The Prosecution has adopted the view that this Concordat was a maneuver intended to deceive. Perhaps I may in this connection point to the facts that the gentlemen with whom I signed this Concordat were Secretary of State Pacelli, the present Pope, who had known Germany personally for 13 years, and Monsignor Kaas, who for years had been the Chairman of the Center Party, and that if these two men were willing to conclude a Concordat, then one can surely not maintain that this was a maneuver intended to deceive.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Document 39, Page 121. I should like to read now a quotation from Document 40, on Page 122. After the conclusion of the Concordat, Hitler published a decree, which is worded as follows—near the middle of Page 122:
“I therefore order:
“1. All Catholic organizations which are recognized by the present Treaty and which were dissolved without directions from the Government are to be immediately reinstated.
“2. All measures of coercion against members of the clergy and other leaders of these Catholic organizations are to be rescinded. A revival of such measures is prohibited in the future and will be punished under prevailing laws.”
I read that quotation to prove that only later did Hitler change his mind, probably under the influence of the circle nearest to him.
I refer to Document 41, Page 123, a telegram of Von Papen. In the English translation of this telegram there is a mistake which changes the sense considerably. Paragraph 2 of the telegram says, “Thanks to your generous and wise statesmanlike conception....” The English translation reads “sportsmanlike” instead of “statesmanlike.”
On the next page I draw attention to the telegram addressed by Von Papen to the Bishop of Treves. There are also affidavits relevant to the questions which have been discussed. Document 43, Page 127 is the affidavit of Freiherr von Twickel, and it takes the place of an affidavit which the late Cardinal Von Galen was to have signed. The matter had already been discussed with Cardinal Von Galen; but before being able to put it into writing, he died. Freiherr von Twickel, who discussed the questions with him, has now stated the details in his affidavit, Document 43, on Page 127.
I also draw particular attention to Document 52, on Page 139. This is an affidavit of the Abbot of the Benedictine Abbey at Grüssau, Schmitt, who for many years had been the spiritual adviser of the defendant. In the last but one paragraph on Page 139, he discusses the question of the Concordat, and says:
“Herr Von Papen was deeply upset by the disloyal attitude of the German Government, which became apparent soon after the conclusion of the Concordat. He continually and fully discussed with me his great anxiety in this respect, and he pondered ways and means of ending these violations. I can also testify, from my own experience, that he personally worked actively in the interests of the Church to assure a loyal observance of the Concordat.”
Witness, did you, apart from the Concordat, endeavor to see to it that your views on Church policy were adopted?
VON PAPEN: Yes. On 15 June 1933 I created an organization in Berlin which we called the “Cross and Eagle,” and a little later I founded the Union (Arbeitsgemeinschaft) of Catholic Germans. Catholic forces were to gather within these two organizations, outside the political parties. The Union of Catholic Germans had the particular task of collecting complaints and reporting them to me, so that I could try my best to help.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Prosecution charges that by dissolving the Union of Catholic Germans you yourself violated the Concordat. What can you say to that?
VON PAPEN: Yes, and furthermore the Prosecution already describes the period which followed the Concordat as “the characteristic development of the Church policy of the conspirators, and Papen’s participation in it.”
The accusation raised by the Prosecution, with regard to my own sabotage of the Concordat, is a tremendous accusation, which is connected with the dissolution of the Union which I have just mentioned. The documents show that this Union had already been paralyzed during the Röhm Putsch on 30 June 1934 and that its later dissolution through me was merely a formal affair. Moreover, this Union had no connection whatever with the Concordat. It was a political union which never enjoyed the protection of the Concordat.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Document 45, on Page 129. It is an exchange of telegrams between Hitler and Hindenburg on the question of the appeasement of the Evangelical Church.
For the subject of the Union of Catholic Germans I refer to Document 74, Pages 130 to 132. This document contains an affidavit—I beg your pardon, I gave a wrong figure—I refer to Document 47, on Page 130, which is an affidavit of the executive of the Union of Catholic Germans, Count Roderich Thun. He discusses the dissolution on Page 131, and I quote the second paragraph:
“On 30 June 1934 the office of the Union of Catholic Germans was occupied by officials of the Gestapo. The files were confiscated and taken away. I myself was arrested.”
The fact that as a result of these measures the dissolution became a mere formality is mentioned in the last paragraph of Page 131:
“Even after my release, which was effected after a time, the confiscated files were not returned. In view of the attitude taken up by the Party authorities, a revival of any further activity on the part of the organization could no longer be considered. Furthermore, in practice, any further activity of the Union of Catholic Germans was no longer possible, as the only person who could have undertaken the constantly necessary interventions, Herr Von Papen, was out of the picture since he had moved to Vienna. The only question which remained for the heads of the Union was that of officially declaring an end of the Union’s activities, which in practice had already occurred. But one had to consider that in the event of an official announcement of the enforced dissolution, the large number of Catholics who had distinguished themselves through their work for the organization would be persecuted. In order to prevent this the dissolution was pronounced by the Union’s own leaders.”
Then I quote the last sentence:
“In order to do everything still possible to safeguard Catholic interests, this pronouncement did not neglect to point out again that official authorities, above all Hitler himself, had solemnly vowed to protect Christian and ecclesiastical interests.”
THE PRESIDENT: Will you remind me of the date when the Defendant Von Papen moved to Vienna?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On 15 August 1934 he went to Vienna; he was appointed at the end of July 1934.
[Turning to the defendant.] In the summer of 1934 it became obvious that the Party was sabotaging the Concordat, and that Hitler’s assurances were not being kept. How do you explain Hitler’s behavior in this respect?
VON PAPEN: I believe that in those days Hitler himself had been entirely willing to keep peace with the Church, but that the radical elements in his Party did not wish it, that most of all Goebbels and Bormann continually instigated Hitler to violate assurances in the Church question. Often and repeatedly I protested to Hitler, and in my speech at Marburg I branded these violations publicly. I stated at Marburg, “How can we fulfill our historic mission in Europe if we ourselves strike our name from the list of Christian peoples.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I draw attention to Document Number 85 on Page 186 and ask that judicial notice be taken of it. It is an affidavit by Dr. Glasebock, former leader of the Front of German Conservative Catholics.
Witness, on 14 March 1937 Pope Pius XI expressed his burning anxiety in an Encyclical and solemnly protested against the interpretation and the violations of the Concordat. The Prosecution said that if you had been serious in giving the assurances contained in the Concordat, you would at that point have had to resign from your official post. What do you say to that?
VON PAPEN: What could I have improved by resigning? Apart from the Austrian affair, I no longer had any political influence at all on Hitler; and my own conviction that in the critical time of 1937 there was an urgent necessity for me to remain in Austria did not permit me to leave my post there. We shall see that later from the developments.
Besides, if the Prosecution assumes that on account of the certainly quite justified Encyclical of the Pope I should have left my post, then I must ask what did the Church do? The Church did not recall the Papal Nuncio from Berlin, and Bishop Berning did not leave the State Council in which he represented Catholic interests. No doubt all this was quite justified, because all of us at that time still hoped for inner changes.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I draw attention to Document 48, Page 133. The document has already been submitted as Exhibit USA-356; it is on Page 133 in my document book. It is the speech of Pope Pius XII on 2 June 1945. I quote:
“It must, nevertheless, be recognized that the Concordat, in the years that followed, brought some advantages, or at least prevented worse evils. In fact, despite all the violations to which it was subjected, it gave Catholics a juridical basis for their defense, a stronghold behind which they could shield themselves in their opposition—as long as this was possible—to the ever-growing campaign of religious persecution.”
A practical effect of the Concordat is shown in Document 49, on Page 134 of my document book. It has already been presented as Exhibit USA-685. It is a letter from the Deputy of the Führer to the Reich Minister of Education and deals with the dissolution of the theological faculties of the universities. I quote the last paragraph of that letter:
“In this case, as you have likewise pointed out in your letter, the directives of the Concordat and the Church treaties are to be taken into consideration. In the case of those faculties which are not mentioned by a specific directive in the Concordat and the Church treaties, as for example, Munich and a few others, the dissolution may begin at once. This is equally true of the theological faculties in Austria: Vienna and Graz.”
[Turning to the defendant.] During the following years public discussion of questions regarding Church policy was almost entirely suppressed, since the Catholic press and, in violation of the Concordat, even Catholic Church papers were to a large extent banned. What did you do against this?
VON PAPEN: It appeared to me necessary, since the Catholic press had been completely muzzled, to do something to continue public discussion of the struggle against tendencies inimical to the Church. I very often talked about this question with Bishop Hudal, an outstanding churchman in Rome, whose book written in 1936 will be submitted to the Tribunal by my counsel. This book contains my severe criticism of the antireligious tendencies and contains also an objective appreciation of the positive social ideas of National Socialism; it is all the more notable because a high authority of the Church was then, in 1936, making yet another attempt to create a synthesis between Christian ideas and the healthy doctrines of National Socialism.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In what way do you consider the book of importance with regard to the charge brought by the Prosecution?
VON PAPEN: I consider it to be relevant for the following reason: The Prosecution makes its task very easy: In view of the criminal end of National Socialism, it shifts all blame to the initial years of development and brands as criminals all those who, out of pure motives, attempted to give the Movement a constructive and creative character. But here in this book of 1936 a churchman of high rank lifts his voice in an attempt, made on his own initiative, to bring about an improvement of conditions. Today we know that all such attempts failed and that a world crumbled in ruins. But is it right, on that account, to accuse millions of people of crimes because they tried to attain something good in those days?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to extracts from Bishop Hudal’s book, contained in Document 36, Page 116, and ask that judicial notice be taken of that document. With reference to the subject which the witness has just mentioned, the attitude of high-ranking churchmen to the question of a possible synthesis of ideas, I refer to Document Number 50, Page 135, which is an appeal made by Cardinal Innitzer on behalf and at the request of the Austrian bishops.
Witness, as you have said, Bishop Hudal aimed at a change in Hitler’s ways along the lines proposed in his book. What was Hitler’s reaction to the book?
VON PAPEN: At first Hitler was, I thought, very much impressed by this book; but then the anti-Christian forces among his advisers gained the upper hand once more and convinced him that it would be dangerous in the extreme to allow such a book to appear in Germany. The book had been printed in Austria, and therefore a permit for its publication in Germany was required. All I could obtain was permission to print 2,000 copies, which Hitler wanted to distribute among leading Party members for a study of the problem.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you think that the foreign policy of the Reich was being pursued on the principles laid down when the Government was formed?
VON PAPEN: Yes. While I was a member of the Cabinet it was certainly conducted on the agreed principles. I might mention the Pact of Friendship with Poland, which was concluded at that time and which was an important step towards peace. Hitler concluded this treaty although, on account of the problem of the Corridor, it was most unpopular. I might also mention the Four Power Pact concluded in the summer of 1933, which affirmed the Locarno Treaty and the Kellogg Pact. I mention also the visit in January 1934 of Mr. Eden, to whom we submitted proposals for the demilitarization of the SA and the SS. Thus we tried to remove the discriminations against Germany by peaceful means. In my opinion, the great powers made a disastrous mistake by not showing understanding and assisting Germany during that phase and thus checking radical tendencies.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On 14 October 1933 Germany left the Disarmament Conference. Was this a departure from the previous policy which you have just discussed?
VON PAPEN: The withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference was not in any way intended to be a departure from our political principles, but it took place because the equality of which we had been definitely assured on 11 December 1932 was then revoked.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, would you tell me, is the defendant saying that the principles adopted in 1933 were contained in any document or not?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The proclamation of the Reich Government of 1 February 1933 contains the principles of the policy of the new Cabinet. These principles are supplemented in the statement of the Reich Government dated 23 March 1933, a statement which deals with the Enabling Act.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you give me the reference to the first document that you mentioned?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I shall give it to you after the recess, Mr. President.
[Turning to the defendant.] What were the reasons for, and what was the attitude regarding Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations?
VON PAPEN: The withdrawal from the League of Nations was a question on which there could be many differences of opinion. I myself was in favor of remaining in the League of Nations; and I remember that on the day before Hitler decided on this step, I myself traveled to Munich in an effort to persuade him to remain a member of the League. I was of the opinion that we would have gained much by remaining in the League, where we had many good connections dating even from the time of Stresemann. Nevertheless, if we left the League it was perhaps a tactical question insofar as we might then hope that direct negotiations with the major powers would be more promising. Besides, Herr Von Neurath’s discussion with Ambassador Bullitt, which is Document L-150, shows—Herr Von Neurath says in that document that Germany had proposed a reorganized League of Nations, which she would rejoin.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Lersner’s interrogatory, Document 93. In question Number 5, the witness speaks of Von Papen’s journey to Munich; this is Page 213, Document 93.
Mr. President, I come now to a rather more lengthy question; may I ask therefore whether this would be a suitable moment for a recess?
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn at this time.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
Afternoon Session
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Before the recess, I was questioned about the documents on the Governmental Proclamations of 1 March 1933 and of 23 March 1933. Excerpts from the Governmental Proclamation of 1 March 1933 are contained in Document Papen-12, Page 53. This is only a short extract. I shall submit the proclamation in its entirety later.
The Proclamation of 23 March 1933, in Document Papen-12, Pages 56 to 58, has also been submitted in extract form. This proclamation has already been submitted in full under USA-568.
[Turning to the defendant.] On 2 November 1933, in a speech in Essen, you stated your opinion in connection with the forthcoming plebiscite on the withdrawal from the League of Nations, and you approved the Government’s policy. The Prosecution has drawn conclusions from this speech which are unfavorable to you.
What reasons caused you to make that speech at that time?
VON PAPEN: Our withdrawal from the League of Nations was an exceptionally important decision of foreign policy. We wished to emphasize to the world that this withdrawal was not to be construed as a change in our methods of foreign policy. Therefore, Hindenburg and Hitler in free appeals emphasized that the German people should decide by means of a plebiscite the question of whether a withdrawal from the League of Nations would be in the exclusive interests of peace and our equality of rights.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to refer to Document Papen-60, Page 167, and Documents Papen-61 and Papen-62, on Pages 147 to 152 of the document book. These are the statements made by Hitler, by the Reich Government, and by Hindenburg. The purport of all these proclamations: Only a change in method, not a change in our attitude toward affairs.
[Turning to the defendant.] At that time you were Reich Commissioner for the return of the Saar. What policy did you follow in connection with the Saar question?
VON PAPEN: As far as the Saar question was concerned, I always worked on the basis of a friendly understanding with France, and with a view to finding a solution for the Saar problem without recourse to a plebiscite. Our reasons for not wanting this plebiscite were not in any way selfish, for the plebiscite was at all times certain to be in favor of Germany. My proposal was rather a sacrifice willingly made in the interest of understanding, and at the same time I proposed that France should receive compensation to the amount of 900 million francs for the return of the Saar mines. And I should like to repeat that even after our withdrawal from the League of Nations, my commissioner for Saar questions, Freiherr von Lersner, always negotiated with the League of Nations organs about the Saar on the principle of a friendly settlement of the Saar. In the summer of 1934 my commissioner negotiated with the French Foreign Minister M. Barthou on this question.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to refer to Document Papen-59, Page 145. This document contains the published comments of the witness with regard to the Saar problem. Freiherr von Lersner in his interrogatory (Document Papen-93, Page 212) in reply to Question 3 defined his attitude on this question of the Saar.
[Turning to the defendant.] Were there any signs that after leaving the League of Nations this generally peaceful policy was just a policy of expediency and that a policy of aggression was planned for the more remote future?
VON PAPEN: Not at all. Leaving the League of Nations was for us simply a change in method. And at that time we were conducting direct negotiations with the major powers. The fact that we were pursuing a policy of peace was something I emphasized in many public statements. And in this connection I should like to refer to Document Papen-56, which will be submitted by my counsel.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document Papen-56, Page 44, contains a speech made by the witness at Kottbus on 21 January 1934. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this document.
[Turning to the defendant.] Did you know of any rearmament measure which might have led to the expectation of an aggressive policy in the future?
VON PAPEN: It seems to me that the proceedings so far conducted before this Tribunal have shown clearly that the actual rearmament did not begin until much later. If Hitler, in fact, did take steps to rearm in 1933 or 1934, then he discussed these measures personally with the Defense Minister and the Air Minister. In any event I was never concerned with such measures. Apart from that, it has already been ascertained here that this much-talked-of Reich Defense Committee in 1933 and 1934 was purely a committee of experts under the direction of a lieutenant colonel.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: A short time ago you mentioned the safeguards adopted when the Hitler Government was formed, in order to minimize the influence of the Party. How did Hitler’s position and the influence of the NSDAP develop in the course of the year 1933 and at the beginning of 1934?
VON PAPEN: A confidential relationship gradually developed between Hitler and Hindenburg.
This led in the end to the joint report which was agreed upon at that time. The influence exerted by Hitler on Reichswehrminister Blomberg was a very decisive factor in this development. Even at that time, in 1933, Hitler tried to exert a decisive influence on the Army. He wanted to have the then General Von Hammerstein removed and replaced by General Von Reichenau, who at that time passed for a friend of the Party. At that time I persuaded the Reich President not to grant Hitler’s wish in this connection and advised him to take General Von Fritsch. Another reason for this development was the integration of the “Stahlhelm,” that is, a rightist conservative group, into the SA of the NSDAP. Then there were new cabinet members who were selected from the Party. Hugenberg, the leader of the conservative Right, left the Cabinet, and the two important ministries which he filled, the Ministries of Economy and Agriculture, were occupied by National Socialists. A decisive psychological factor, as I have already mentioned, was the election result of 5 March, for the governments of all the Länder had National Socialist majorities, and these local governments exerted constant pressure on Hitler. Hitler drew his support now from Party dynamics and thus changed in an ever-increasing degree from a coalition partner ready for compromise into an autocrat who knew no compromise.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to refer to the affidavit of the former Minister Hugenberg, Document Number Papen-88, Pages 196 to 198 in the document book. I should further like to refer to Document Papen-13, Pages 59 to 61 in the document book, an affidavit by Dr. Conrad Josten.
On what was your position as Vice Chancellor based?
VON PAPEN: As Vice Chancellor it was intended that I should be the Reich Chancellor’s deputy, but without a department of my own. It very soon became apparent that the position of deputy was quite impossible, as Hitler dealt with every question himself. The fact that I had no department of my own weakened my position, for this position was now based upon nothing but the confidence of Hindenburg, a confidence which decreased proportionately with the growth of Hitler’s importance.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was the constitutional basis of Hitler’s position in the Cabinet?
VON PAPEN: The position of the Reich Chancellor in the Cabinet is constitutionally provided for in Article 56 of the Constitution of the Reich. This article says: “The Reich Chancellor will lay down the general principles of policy and will be responsible for them to the Reichstag.” If the policy of a department minister is not in accordance with these principles laid down by the Reich Chancellor, no decision will be made by the Cabinet on a majority ruling, but the Reich Chancellor alone will decide the point in question. And under Article 58 of the Constitution, it says: “The Reich Chancellor cannot be outvoted by the Cabinet in cases where his policy is opposed.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In connection with this question, which has so far been incorrectly submitted in the evidence taken, I should like to refer to the leading commentary on the Weimar Constitution by Gerhard Anschütz, Document Papen-22, Pages 80 and 81 of the document book.
I should like to refer to Page 81, Note 4 to Article 56. This note states clearly that if differences of opinion should arise as to the application of the basic principles of the policy, the Reich Chancellor alone will decide, and that in these basic problems no vote will be taken and no majority decision made.
[Turning to the defendant.] What conclusions did you think had to be drawn from this development of affairs?
VON PAPEN: In the middle of the year 1934 the internal tension in Germany grew more and more serious. The situation was such that the concessions which we as partners of the coalition had made did not lead to any definite internal agreements but were considered by the Party as being only the beginning of a new revolutionary movement. This was quite obviously a divergence from the Coalition Pact concluded on 30 January. The many objections which I made in the Cabinet were without success. Then, since there was no possibility in the Cabinet of forcing the Reich Chancellor to change his policy, as we have just shown from the Constitution, the only possibilities left were a resignation or a public statement. If I resigned, I should no longer be in a position to speak. Therefore, I decided to speak at once, and publicly, and I decided to appeal on principle in this matter to the German people. If, as the Prosecution asserts, I had been an opportunist, I would have kept silent and remained in office, or I would have accepted another office. But now I decided to put my case before the public and to shoulder all the consequences that might follow.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On 17 June 1934 you made that speech at Marburg. What did you expect to accomplish with this speech?
VON PAPEN: In this speech I brought up for discussion and put up to Hitler for decision all those points which were essential for the maintenance of a reasonable policy in Germany. In this speech I opposed the demand of a certain group or party for a revolutionary or national monopoly. I opposed the coercion and abuse of others. I opposed anti-Christian endeavors and totalitarian encroachment on religious domain. I opposed the suppression of all criticism. I opposed the abuse and regimentation of the spirit. I opposed violation of fundamental rights and inequality before the law, and I also opposed the Byzantine principles followed by the Party. It was clear to me that if I succeeded in penetrating, even at one point only, the circle of Nazi ideology, we could force the system into order and restore, for instance, freedom of thought and speech.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: This speech may be found in Document Papen-11, Page 40. The Prosecution has already stressed its significance. First of all, I may say that the English text contains a misprint. The date is not 7 July, as appears in the translation, but 17 June. Because of the basic significance of this speech, the critical nature of which is unique in German history since 1933, I am going to read a few passages from it.
I am starting at Page 41, about the middle of the page:
“We know that rumors and whispering propaganda must be brought out from the darkness where they have taken refuge. Frank and manly discussion is better for the German people than, for instance, a press without an outlet, described by the Minister for Propaganda ‘as no longer having a face.’ This deficiency undoubtedly exists. The function of the press should be to inform the Government where deficiencies have crept in, where corruption has settled down, where grave mistakes have been committed, where incapable men are in the wrong places, where offenses are committed against the spirit of the German revolution. An anonymous or secret information service, however well organized it may be, can never be a substitute for this task of the press. For the newspaper editor is responsible to the law and to his conscience, whereas anonymous news sources are not subject to control and are exposed to the danger of Byzantinism. When, therefore, the proper organs of public opinion do not shed sufficient light into the mysterious darkness, which at present seems to have fallen upon the German public, the statesman himself must intervene and call matters by their right names.”
Then on Page 42, just below the middle of the page:
“It is a matter of historical truth that the necessity for a fundamental change of course was recognized and urged even by those who shunned the path of revolution through a mass-party. A claim for revolutionary or nationalist monopoly by a certain group, therefore, seems to be exaggerated, quite apart from the fact that it disturbs the community.”
And now Page 43, a sentence from approximately the middle of the page:
“All of life cannot be organized; otherwise it becomes mechanized. The State is organization; life is growth.”
And on Page 45, just a little beyond the center of the page:
“Domination by a single party replacing the majority party system, which rightly has disappeared, appears to me historically as a transitional stage, justified only as long as the safeguarding of the new political change demands it and until the new process of personal selection begins to function.”
As to the religious question, the witness states his view on Page 46, near the middle of the page:
“But one should not confuse the religious State, which is based upon an active belief in God, with a secular State in which earthly values replace such belief and are embellished with religious honors.”
Then, about five lines following:
“Certainly the outward respect for religious belief is an improvement on the disrespectful attitude produced by a degenerate rationalism. But we should not forget that real religion is a link with God, and not substitutes such as have been introduced into the consciousness of nations especially by Karl Marx’s materialistic conception of history. If wide circles of people, from this same viewpoint of the totalitarian State and the complete amalgamation of the nation, demand a uniform religious foundation, they should not forget that we should be happy to have such a foundation in the Christian faith.”
Then, the third line from the end on this page:
“It is my conviction that the Christian doctrine clearly represents the religious form of all occidental thinking and that with the reawakening of religious forces the German people also will be permeated anew by the Christian spirit, a spirit the profundity of which is almost forgotten by a humanity that has lived through the nineteenth century. A struggle is approaching the decision as to whether the new Reich of the Germans will be Christian or is to be lost in sectarianism and half-religious materialism.”
Then, on Page 48, just a little beyond the center of the page:
“But once a revolution has been completed, the Government only represents the people as a whole and is never the champion of individual groups.”
Then, a little further down, about 10 lines from the bottom:
“It is not permissible, therefore, to dismiss the intellect with the catchword of ‘intellectualism.’ Deficient or primitive intellects do not justify us in waging war against intellectualism. And when we complain frequently today about those of us who are 150 percent Nazis, then we mean those intellectuals without a foundation, people who would like to deny the right of existence to scientists of world fame just because they are not Party members.”
Then, on the first line of the next page—Page 49—it says:
“Nor should the objection be made that intellectuals lack the vitality necessary for the leaders of a people. True spirit is so vital that it sacrifices itself for its conviction. The mistaking of brutality for vitality would reveal a worship of force which would be dangerous to a people.”
In the next paragraph he speaks of equality before the law. I read the last few lines:
“They oppose equality before the law, which they criticize as liberal degeneration, whereas in reality it is the prerequisite for any fair judgment. These people suppress that pillar of the State which always—and not only in liberal times—was called justice. Their attacks are directed against the security and freedom of the private sphere of life which the German has won in centuries of hardest struggle.”
In the next paragraph he speaks against Byzantinism; the second sentence reads:
“Great men are not made by propaganda, but rather grow through their deeds and are recognized by history. Even Byzantinism cannot make us believe that these laws do not exist.”
He deals with education in the next paragraph, and I should like to begin with the second sentence:
“But we must have no illusions regarding the biological and psychological limits of education. Coercion, too, ends at the will for self-expression of the true personality. Reactions to coercion are dangerous. As an old soldier I know that the most rigid discipline must be balanced by certain liberties. Even the good soldier who submitted willingly to unconditional authority counted his days of service, because the need for freedom is rooted in human nature. The application of military discipline to the whole life of a people must remain within limits compatible with human nature.”
Then on the next page—Page 50—I should like to read the second sentence of the last paragraph:
“The Movement must come to a standstill sometime; a solid social structure must sometime come into existence which is held together by an impartial administration of justice and by an undisputed governmental power. Nothing can be achieved by means of everlasting dynamics, Germany must not go adrift on uncharted seas toward unknown shores.”
As my last quotation, I shall read the first paragraph on the following page:
“The Government is well informed on all the self-interest, lack of character, want of truth, unchivalrous conduct, and arrogance trying to rear its head under cover of the German revolution. It is also not deceived about the fact that the rich store of confidence bestowed upon it by the German people is threatened. If we want a close connection with and a close association among the people, we must not underestimate the good sense of the people; we must return their confidence and not try to hold them everlastingly in bondage. The German people know that their situation is serious, they feel the economic distress, they are perfectly aware of the shortcoming of many laws born of emergency; they have a keen feeling for violence and injustice; they smile at clumsy attempts to deceive them by false optimism. No organization and no propaganda, however good, will in the long run be able to preserve confidence. I therefore viewed the wave of propaganda against the so-called foolish critics from a different angle than many others did. Confidence and readiness to co-operate cannot be won by provocation, especially of youth, nor by threats against helpless segments of the people, but only by discussion with the people with trust on both sides. The people know what great sacrifices are expected from them. They will bear them and follow the Führer in unflinching loyalty, if they are allowed to have their part in the planning and in the work, if every word of criticism is not taken for ill-will, and if despairing patriots are not branded as enemies of the State.”
Witness, what were the consequences of the Marburg speech?
VON PAPEN: This speech was banned at the instigation of Propaganda Minister Goebbels. Only one or two papers were able to publish the contents, but that sufficed to attract attention to it both at home and abroad. When I heard of the ban placed on it by the Propaganda Minister, I went to the Reich Chancellor and tendered my resignation. I told him: “It is an impossible situation for the Vice Chancellor of your Government to be forbidden to open his mouth. There is nothing to be done but to take my leave.”
However, Hitler said: “That is a blunder on the part of the Propaganda Minister; I shall speak to him and have him rescind this decree.”
In that way he stalled me along for several days. Today I know that even at that time he lied to me because my Codefendant Funk had stated that he was instructed by Hitler to go to Hindenburg and tell Hindenburg that the Vice Chancellor had uttered sentiments contrary to the policy of the Cabinet and of Hitler, and must be dismissed. If the witness Gisevius testified here to the effect that Herr Von Papen was silent and that he should at least have mobilized the diplomats then I should like to point out that Mr. Dodd’s diary makes it very evident that the world—the outside world—was well informed of this last appeal of mine.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to refer to the last remark made by the witness, which may be found in Document Papen-17, Pages 71 and 72, in Ambassador Dodd’s diary.
I beg your pardon, it is on Pages 69 and 70 of the English text. I quote from the second paragraph, the first line:
“There is great excitement everywhere in Germany.”
He had previously mentioned the Marburg speech.
“All the older and more educated Germans are highly delighted.”
Then, under the date of 21 June, he reports that the speech was cabled to The New York Times, that the papers in London and Paris were featuring the “Von Papen episode,” as he calls the Marburg speech. I refer in this connection to the beginning of Page 72, in the English text on Page 70.
As regards the Government’s measures against the Marburg speech and its propagation, I want to refer you to Document Papen-15, Page 66, an affidavit by Westphalen, which shows that even possession of a copy of the speech was sufficient to cause disciplinary action to be taken against an official.
Witness, the events of 30 June 1934 took place in the meantime. To what extent did these incidents affect you personally?
VON PAPEN: On the morning of 30 June, I received a telephone call from Minister Göring, asking me to come to have a talk with him. I went to see Göring; he told me that a revolution had broken out in the Reich—an SA revolution—that Hitler was in Munich to put down this uprising there, and that he, Göring, was charged with restoring law and order in Berlin. Herr Göring asked me, in the interests of my own safety, as he said, to return to my apartment and stay there. I protested quite vehemently against this demand, but Herr Göring insisted. On my way back to my apartment, I went first to my office in the Vice Chancellery. On arriving there, I found my office occupied by the SS, and I was permitted only to enter my own room and get my files. I went on home to my apartment, where I found a large number of SS. The telephone was disconnected; the radio was disconnected; and I was completely cut off from the outside world for 3 whole days.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What measures were taken against your staff?
VON PAPEN: I naturally did not hear about the measures taken against my staff until 3 July, after I had regained my freedom. I learned that my press adviser, Herr Von Bose, had been shot in his office. I further learned that two of my male secretaries, Herr Von Tschirschsky and another gentleman, had been taken to a concentration camp and a few days later, I learned of the death of my friend and colleague—a private colleague of mine—Herr Edgar Jung.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you try to inform the Reich President?
VON PAPEN: I finally succeeded, on the third day of my arrest, in contacting Göring by telephone. I demanded to be set free at once. Herr Göring apologized and said that it was only a mistake that I had been kept under arrest for this long period of time. I then went immediately to the Reich Chancellery. There I met Hitler, who was about to start a Cabinet session. I asked him to step into the next room so that I could speak to him and I refused to comply with his request that I should attend the Cabinet meeting. I said to him: “What has happened here to a member of your government is so incredible and fantastic that there is only one answer for me to give: A repetition of my request to resign—and at once.”
Herr Hitler tried to persuade me to remain. He said: “I will explain to you in the Cabinet and later in the Reichstag how everything happened, and why it happened.”
I said to him: “Herr Hitler, there is no explanation and no excuse for this incident; I demand that the fate of these members of my staff be made the subject of immediate investigation and the facts be cleared up.” I demanded that he publish my resignation immediately.
When he saw that I could not be persuaded to remain, Herr Hitler told me that he could not make my resignation public because the agitation among the German people was too great. He said that he could not make my resignation public for some 3 or 4 weeks.
When I left Hitler, I tried personally and through one of my secretaries to get in touch with Hindenburg, but that attempt failed. My secretary found out—I must add that Herr Von Hindenburg was then in Neudeck in East Prussia—my secretary, who had gone to East Prussia, found that it was impossible to reach Hindenburg. He was completely cut off. My own telephone calls did not get through.
I went to my friend General Von Fritsch, the Chief of the Armed Forces, and said to him: “Why don’t the Armed Forces intervene? The Armed Forces are the only means for maintaining order that we still have in the country. When General Von Schleicher and his wife were murdered, as well as other officers, it would in my opinion have been quite proper for the Wehrmacht itself to try to restore order in this situation.”
Herr Von Fritsch said to me: “I can take action only when I have Field Marshal Von Hindenburg’s order in my hands.”
But Hindenburg was not accessible to us. He had obviously been informed by the other side of the complete legality of the events which had taken place, and which Hitler declared in the Reichstag to be in conformity with the law. I did not attend that session of the Reichstag, either, as the witness Gisevius testified; and during the time that elapsed between 30 June and my appointment to Austria, I did not participate in a single act carried out by the Government.
I should like to add that at the same time I asked the Reich Chancellor to hand over to me the body of my friend Bose. We knew that the Gestapo had cremated the bodies of the others. I succeeded
THE PRESIDENT: I believe it would be a good time to recess now.
[A recess was taken.]
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Hess is not present in this session.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Will you please go on. You were just answering the last question.
VON PAPEN: I was only going to finish the question by saying that I succeeded in having the mortal remains of my friend Bose properly buried and that on that occasion, at his grave, I made a speech emphasizing that one day this injustice would be avenged.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In this connection I draw your attention to Document Number Papen-14, Pages 62 and 63, an affidavit by Maria Rose, who for years was the private secretary of the witness. On Page 63 she refers to Bose’s funeral service which we have just discussed.
I further refer to Document Number Papen-19, Pages 77 and 78, an affidavit by Schaffgotsch who devotes particular attention to the witness’ vain attempts to reach Hindenburg in Neudeck. This was Document Number 19, Pages 77 and 78.
Witness, you were offered a Vatican post at that time—a post as Ambassador to the Vatican. Will you please tell us the exact circumstances?
VON PAPEN: It is true that Hitler tried to keep me attached to his staff, and that about a week after the incidents I have described he sent State Secretary Lammers to ask me if I was prepared to accept the post of Ambassador to the Vatican. Of course, I refused this unreasonable request, which I mention here only because a few weeks later I accepted the Vienna post for an entirely different reason, and to prove that I was not interested in obtaining a post as such. I refused this request of Hitler’s most bluntly at the time.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer you to Document Number Papen-18, Pages 75 and 76 of the document book; an affidavit by Martha von Papen, the wife of the witness, who describes Lammers’ visit.
With regard to the subject with which the witness has been dealing, namely, nonparticipation in the Reichstag meeting of 13 July, I refer to Document Number Papen-21, Page 79, an extract from the Völkischer Beobachter regarding the Reichstag meeting.
The names of the ministers present are listed there. The name of the witness Von Papen does not appear.
[Turning to the witness.] When did Hitler approach you on the subject of going to Vienna as Ambassador Extraordinary?
VON PAPEN: It was on the day of the murder of Dollfuss, 25 July 1934...
THE PRESIDENT: Can you remind me, Dr. Kubuschok, whether any question was put to the witness Lammers about this offer?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, a question was put to the witness Lammers. The witness Lammers was asked about it when he was examined.
THE PRESIDENT: What did he say?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: He said that Papen had refused.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
VON PAPEN: On 25 July, the day of the murder of Dollfuss, Hitler rang me up in the middle of the night, and asked me to go to Vienna at once as his Ambassador. I asked: “What gave you this odd idea?” He informed me of Dollfuss’ murder, of which I had not yet heard, and said: “It is absolutely essential that someone who knows the conditions there should take over affairs at once.” I replied that I could not possibly give my decision on such a step over the telephone, whereupon he asked me to come to Bayreuth at once to discuss it.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: How did these negotiations in Bayreuth turn out? Did you state your own terms for accepting the appointment?
VON PAPEN: In the discussion in Bayreuth, Hitler put it to me that I was the only available person who could re-establish a favorable situation in Austria, because, of course, Hitler knew my attitude toward that problem from the numerous protests I had raised in the Cabinet against Austria’s treatment. He also knew that I had been a friend of the murdered Dr. Dollfuss and that I knew Herr Von Schuschnigg. I stated my conditions and these conditions were: The immediate recall of the Party Gauleiter, Herr Habicht, who was in Austria by Hitler’s order. Hitler was of the opinion that if he did this it would amount to an admission of guilt.
THE PRESIDENT: Gauleiter of where?
VON PAPEN: Habicht?
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said that was his name. I wanted to know what Gau he was the Gauleiter of.
VON PAPEN: Perhaps “Gauleiter” is the wrong word. He had been sent to Austria by Hitler as a liaison man, to exert influence on the affairs of the Austrian National Socialists.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, perhaps you ought to point out that his title was “Landesleiter,” which probably corresponds to the title “Gauleiter” in Germany.
VON PAPEN: He was Landesleiter, which was the title given to people who directed the Party organization abroad. Hitler replied that if he recalled this man, it would look like a confession of complicity in the Dollfuss murder. I replied that the whole world was in any case convinced of the complicity of the Party in Germany or its organizations, generally speaking; and that as far as I was concerned, it was only important that those connections should be broken off forthwith. I further demanded an assurance in writing from Hitler that the German-Austrian policy of the future—what is generally termed the Anschluss policy—would move on a purely evolutionary level, that is to say, that no recourse would be had to forcible measures, and aggression. Hitler immediately ordered this man Habicht to be recalled and gave me a written assurance with reference to the second question. And finally, I said that I was prepared to take over the pacification program in Austria, but only until normal and friendly relations had been re-established. This meant that later on in Austria I had the additional title of “Ambassador on a Special Mission.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, we have heard of your political break with Hitler after the speech at Marburg, your resignation from the Cabinet and your treatment on 30 June. I should now like you to give us your reasons for accepting that post in Austria in spite of the events already described.
VON PAPEN: My decision to go to Austria has been made the subject of a special charge by the Prosecution. In order to understand this decision of mine you must be acquainted with German history and you must know that the Austrian problem was the central problem of German policy generally. As Dr. Seyss-Inquart has discussed this problem at length, I can dismiss it quite briefly; and I need only add that the achievement of German unity, for which we had fought for three centuries, was considered by Germany herself to be the most significant and important aim of our national policy. The events of 30 June had brought about the collapse of the coalition which I had formed on 30 January. It had been historically established that I had failed to achieve my intentions and aims in home policy. After the Dollfuss murder, the danger existed that Germany would now suffer bankruptcy also in her one great foreign political aim of the desired unity. All this was in my mind when I weighed the very serious decision as to whether I should accede to Hitler’s request. If he put a Party man in that post, then obviously all hope would be lost. If he appointed a diplomat from the Foreign Office, it could be assumed that that official would have no personal influence on Hitler. Therefore, if the situation was to be saved, it would have to be someone who was at least in a position to influence Hitler and moreover someone who, like myself, was independent and had his own political line. Today, just as at that time, I am fully aware that many of my friends did not understand the step I took and that they interpreted it as lack of character. But I hold the view that this is a question which the individual has to settle with his conscience, without regard to understanding or the lack of it; and my conscience told me that I must do everything to restore order in this one question at least.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: With reference to the subject of Austria generally, I call your attention mainly to the documentary material which has been submitted in the previous case. To supplement this, I will only refer to Document Number Papen-64, Page 157, Document Number Papen-65, Page 158 and Document Number Papen-81, Page 178. This last document has already been presented in connection with the case of Seyss-Inquart. It refers to the views held by State Chancellor Dr. Renner on the Anschluss question. I should like only to quote the last four lines on Page 179:
“As a Social Democrat, and therefore as a champion of the right of self-determination of nations, as first Chancellor of the Austro-German Republic and former president of its peace delegations to St. Germain, I shall vote in the affirmative.”
I have produced the document at this particular point in order to support the testimony of the defendant, who considered the Austro-German question from both points of view as a fateful problem; and the fact that this leading statesman, Dr. Renner, also placed in a difficult situation, expressed himself as in favor of Austro-German friendship is best shown here.
Witness, on 26 July Hitler wrote a letter to you confirming your appointment as Ambassador Extraordinary to Vienna. That letter has been mentioned by the Prosecution. What is the explanation of the contents of that letter?
VON PAPEN: The contents of that letter can be explained very easily. If I was to have a chance of re-establishing normal and friendly relations, if I was to have a chance of creating a proper position for myself in relation to the Austrian Government, then after the events of 30 July a public statement of confidence had to be made. In that letter Hitler was to certify that my mission was one of pacification, and that he intended to disavow his terrorist methods. That is stated in the letter. And I find the Prosecution’s statement that this letter was a “masterpiece of deceit” quite impossible to understand.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. Messersmith, in his affidavit, 2385-PS, alleges that you pursued from Vienna a policy of aggression towards the states of southeastern Europe and quotes as your personal verbatim statement, made on the occasion of the return visit he paid to you, the following:
“....southeast Europe as far as Turkey constitutes the German hinterland; and I have been assigned to carry out the task of incorporating it into the Reich. Austria is the first country on this program.”
Did you make any such statement?
VON PAPEN: I took up my position in Vienna in the autumn of 1934; and one of the first colleagues whom I saw was Mr. Messersmith. I never received an assignment to pursue a policy such as Mr. Messersmith describes in his affidavit; and I never made any such statement to Mr. Messersmith.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In this connection, I refer to Horthy’s interrogatory, Document Number Papen-76, Pages 172 and 173.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, before you turned to the Messersmith affidavit, you were speaking, or the defendant was speaking, of some letter. Is that letter a document which is before us?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, the Prosecution have already presented that letter. It is the letter written on the occasion of the defendant’s appointment. It is Number 2799-PS.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): My Lord, if Your Lordship has the British Document Book Number 11, it is Page 37.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness has just dealt with the statement in the Messersmith affidavit, 2385-PS. The same question, namely the return visit paid to Papen by Mr. Messersmith, is treated in a further affidavit by Messersmith, 1760-PS.
I should like to point out that the wording of the statement referring to the influence of Germany on the states of southeast Europe differs considerably in Messersmith’s two affidavits.
As I have already indicated in my previous question, Mr. Messersmith says in 2385-PS that Papen said that he had been assigned to carry out the task of incorporating southeast Europe into the Reich. In contrast to that, the statement is worded very differently in 1760-PS. There Mr. Messersmith states that Papen said on that occasion that he had been ordered to see to it that the whole of southeast Europe, up to the Turkish border, should be regarded as Germany’s natural hinterland, and that German economic control over that entire area should be facilitated by his work; thus, in one affidavit, incorporation is mentioned and in the other the facilitation of economic control.
In connection with this latter much less strongly-worded affidavit 1760-PS, I ask the witness whether he did at that time make such a statement, namely, that the whole of southeastern Europe as far as the Turkish border was Germany’s natural hinterland and that he had been called upon to facilitate German economic control throughout the entire area on Germany’s behalf.
Did you make such a statement?
VON PAPEN: The actual remark I made to Mr. Messersmith is perhaps...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: [Interposing.] My Lord, I don’t know whether it would be useful for the Tribunal to have the two references, the two passages. The passage in 2385-PS Your Lordships will find in Document Book 11a, that is, the second document book, at Page 24 at the bottom of the page. The reference in 1760-PS is in Document Book 11, Page 22, about one-third down the page, and then it goes on to the next third of the page.
VON PAPEN: My actual remark to Mr. Messersmith is perhaps not quite so far from my defense counsel’s last quotation as the difference between Mr. Messersmith’s two statements would seem to indicate. It is perfectly possible that we discussed the question of southeast Europe and I can well imagine pointing out to him that the economic and political questions of the southeastern area were of great importance not only for Germany’s policy, but also for Austria; for the expansion of our trade toward the Balkans was a perfectly legitimate aim. I kept Berlin informed of everything that I learned in Vienna regarding the policy of the countries of the southeastern area because naturally that was one of the functions of the Ambassador to Vienna. But except for that I did nothing in the whole course of my work in Vienna which tallies in any way with what Mr. Messersmith alleges here.
Apart from that, may I say that it would be extremely foolish and contrary to the most elementary rules of diplomacy if I had made such a disclosure to an unknown ambassador in the course of my first conference with him. That would have made a sensation and would certainly have come to the ears of the Austrian Government and the whole world the next day.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On this point, I refer to Prince Erbach’s interrogatory, Document Papen-96, Page 238, Questions 8 and 9, which deal with this subject. Page 232 of the English text.
VON PAPEN: Perhaps, My Lord, I might add that the Prosecution are in possession of all my reports from the Vienna period, and that these reports are bound to show whether I was pursuing such an objective.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you ever, during your time in Vienna, negotiate with Hungary and Poland about a division of Czechoslovakia? Mr. Messersmith makes such a statement.
VON PAPEN: No, I never did. The policy of the Reich in Czechoslovakia was the exclusive responsibility of our Legation in Prague.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to the Horthy interrogatory already presented as Document Papen-76. I also refer to Document Papen-68, Page 162, a report from Papen to Hitler, dated 31 August 1935.
[Turning to the defendant.] Mr. Messersmith asserts in the affidavit mentioned that you stated during this conference that you were in Austria for the purpose of undermining and weakening the Austrian Government. Did you make such a statement?
VON PAPEN: May I make a general statement with reference to this affidavit. If I may express myself in diplomatic terms, I must describe it as in the highest degree astonishing. In this affidavit, Mr. Messersmith himself relates that on the occasion of my first visit he received me icily. That is perfectly correct. I was quite well aware that Mr. Messersmith was the keenest opponent of the Nazi system. It is therefore all the more astonishing to read here that during the second visit I opened my heart, so to speak, to Mr. Messersmith; the passage quoted here—that I came to undermine and weaken the Austrian Government—is, of course, not true either, because such a statement would naturally have been communicated to the Austrian Government by Mr. Messersmith at once, and would have rendered all my work of pacification and my position generally impossible from the outset. May I refer in this connection to the statement made by the Austrian Foreign Minister Schmidt, to whom such activities on my part were entirely unknown.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer in this connection also to Glaise-Horstenau’s deposition in the case of Seyss-Inquart. Mr. Messersmith further alleges that you said to him during the discussion that you were trading on your reputation as a good Catholic with, among others, certain Austrians like Cardinal Innitzer. Further on in his affidavit he even asserts that you used your wife’s reputation as a fervent and devout Catholic for this purpose, without scruples or qualms of conscience. Will you kindly state your views on this assertion of Mr. Messersmith’s.
VON PAPEN: I think that of all the accusations raised against me, this is the most mortifying. I can understand that the policy pursued by a diplomat may be criticized and misinterpreted, but I cannot understand why anyone should be accused of misusing his own religious convictions for dirty, political, commercial purposes; I can understand even less—and find it the height of bad taste—that anyone should say that I even used the religious convictions of my wife for such purposes. Perhaps I can leave this to the judgment of this High Tribunal.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. Messersmith in his affidavit also refers to a document whose author he does not, however, mention. This document is alleged to have been shown him by Foreign Minister Berger-Waldenegg in January 1935, and is said to reveal the substance of your conference with Hitler, Schacht, and Von Neurath on the occasion of your visit to Berlin. An agreement is alleged to have been made at that conference to the effect that for the next 2 years intervention in the internal political affairs of Austria was to be avoided. Finally Dr. Schacht is said to have made available 200,000 marks monthly for support of the National Socialists in Austria.
What do you say about Mr. Messersmith’s statement?
VON PAPEN: The details given by Mr. Messersmith show that this is obviously an agent’s report received by the Austrian Foreign Minister on my trip to Berlin. The contents of that report are largely incorrect. The inaccuracy of the passage referring to Dr. Schacht has already been shown by Dr. Schacht’s testimony. But in that report there is something which is true. At that time there was a so-called relief fund in Austria, which was managed by a certain Herr Langot.
It has already been testified here in the witness box that this relief measure, which was intended to benefit wives and children of Austrian National Socialists who had emigrated to Germany, existed with the knowledge of the Austrian Government and police. But I neither requested Herr Schacht to make available official funds for this relief fund, nor did I myself pay out such money. Obviously this money originated from Party sources in Germany.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In connection therewith, I refer to the testimony of Glaise-Horstenau, who stated here that the Austrian Government knew of the Langot relief fund.
Mr. Messersmith believes that from information received from the Austrian Foreign Minister, Berger-Waldenegg, he can reproduce the following statement made by you at the beginning of 1935: “Yes, now you have your French and English friends, and you can maintain your independence a little longer.”
Did you make such a statement?
VON PAPEN: Such a statement would have been not only extremely foolish from a diplomatic point of view, but actually impossible, because it would certainly have put an end to all diplomatic activity. In no case could the co-operation, which Mr. Messersmith states was carried on successfully for years, or the political activity which he describes as also having been carried on for years, have been reconciled with an open admission of this kind to the effect that I wanted Austrian independence to be of short duration only.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. Messersmith goes on to say in this affidavit that you had publicly stated you wished to get rid of certain members of the Austrian Government, among them Federal Chancellor Schuschnigg. Is that true?
VON PAPEN: The contrary is true. I never aimed at the removal of Chancellor Schuschnigg; it was rather my aim to give him confidence in my policy, in the policy of reconciliation. I know Herr Von Schuschnigg as an upright Austrian patriot, but also as a man who was far from wishing to deny his German ties, and in spite of many differences in policy these German antecedents of his made an excellent basis for collaboration. I can only ask in addition whether a diplomat who desires a change to come about in the government to which he is accredited would proclaim it from the roof tops.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Prosecution have submitted a report which you made to Hitler, dated 17 May 1935, as proof of your desire to steer Schuschnigg into a government including the National Socialists. This is Exhibit USA-64, included again in my document book as Document Papen-66, on Pages 159 and 160.
Witness, what were your intentions, actually?
VON PAPEN: I must be a little more explicit with reference to this document. This report was written 8 months after the Dollfuss murder, that is, within the first 2 years, during which period the Prosecution themselves admit that I had instructions to remain entirely passive. When this report was written we had news that Starhemberg, in conjunction with Mussolini, was pursuing a policy which would have put serious difficulties in the way of an understanding between Austria and Germany. For this reason I suggested to Hitler a drastic intervention: I proposed that Schuschnigg and the Christian Socialist elements, which were hostile to a Heimwehr dictatorship, should be played off against Starhemberg by the offer of a final agreement on German-Austrian interests. This report states that if Germany were to recognize the national independence of Austria and were to undertake to refrain from influencing the National Opposition in Austria, by which I meant the Nazis, a coalition between these factors would be bound to result. The consequence would be that Germany would participate in the Danube Agreement, which would be tantamount to a peaceful solution of the entire European situation.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: You have just explained that you were pursuing an honest policy of balancing interests?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, the Tribunal would like to understand more clearly what the defendant means, by what he just said.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have just been told that the translation came over very badly; the English translation is said to have come through very badly. Would you suggest, Mr. President, that the defendant repeat the entire answer?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, most certainly. That is the best way. I think it is very unlikely that the English translation came over badly.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, will you please repeat your answer but rather more slowly so that the interpreters will have no difficulty?
VON PAPEN: When this report was written, we had news that Starhemberg—Starhemberg was the chief of the Heimwehr—wanted to link himself with Mussolini in a policy which would be hostile in future to any Germanophile tendencies in Austria. In order to counter Prince Starhemberg’s maneuver, I advised Hitler to suggest to Schuschnigg that, instead of forming a coalition with the Heimwehr, he should do so with the Christian Socialist elements, who were not opposed to a reconciliation of Germany with Austria. In order to induce Schuschnigg to enter into such a coalition, Hitler was to offer him a final settlement of German and Austrian interests. In other words, Hitler was to tell him that Germany would recognize the national independence of Austria and would undertake not to interfere in future in the internal affairs of Austria.
And I went on to say to Hitler that if we achieved this pacification and established good and friendly relations with Austria, we could even join in the Danube Pact. This was the combination of the French, the Italians, and the Czechoslovaks, who were always in favor of a pact of the Danube powers including Austria. We in Germany had opposed the policy of those powers at the time, because we feared that if Austria joined a Danube Pact, she would be estranged from Germany once and for all. If, on the other hand, we were on good terms with Austria and friendly relations were established again, we could, as I pointed out to Hitler, join in this Danube Pact and by this means achieve something extraordinarily constructive for the cause of European peace.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not forgetting your hopes that you expressed this morning?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: You have just said that you pursued an honest policy of the amicable settlement of interests.
Is it true that you persuaded Hitler to make a statement in favor of Austria’s independence in his Reichstag speech on 21 May 1936?
VON PAPEN: Yes, that is perfectly true, because that statement was the prerequisite for any normalcy and settlement of interests in a revolutionary way; for our joint policy could only be advanced by Austria. Austria had been ordered by the Peace Treaty of St. Germain and the Geneva Protocol to remain aloof from Germany. If Austria, therefore, were to take the initiative and improve her relations with Germany, it was essential that we should first recognize her sovereignty.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I draw your attention to a mistake in the translation. In the English translation, instead of the words spoken by the defendant, the words “revolutionary way” were said instead of “evolutionary way.”
Will you please comment on the pact of 11 July 1936?
VON PAPEN: The Agreement of 11 July has been described by Sir David as a deceptive maneuver and an attempt to get the Austrian Government into new difficulties, to undermine it by introducing men of pro-German sympathies, like Glaise-Horstenau or Foreign Minister Schmidt. This judgment passed upon the pact is entirely incorrect, and I think historically untenable; and I think that that has been demonstrated here by the hearings and testimony of the Austrian Foreign Minister.
The pact was the result of my efforts over 2 years to re-establish normal relations between the sister nations. The agreement was desired by both Governments, not by the German Government only, and Chancellor Schuschnigg admitted that himself, as mentioned in a report of mine dated 1 September 1936 on a speech made by Schuschnigg to Austrian workers. Why should the Austrian Government have concluded this pact? They were not compelled to conclude it, unless they themselves wanted to bring about normal, friendly relations with the German Reich.
For that very reason I had asked Hitler to proclaim Austrian sovereignty in his Reichstag speech. That agreement was certainly not intended to imply our willingness to give up the idea of union at a later date, which we wanted, but it acknowledged Austria’s full independence of action. But the aim of union of the two States was now to be pursued in a regular and evolutionary manner.
This corresponded with the agreement which I had made with Hitler on 26 July. There was a second part to that agreement which was not published. That second part contained all the elements necessary for pacification: an amnesty, the regulation of our press relations, and the lifting of the so-called “1,000 mark bar.” This was a frontier bar imposed by Hitler’s decree upon people traveling into Austria. Any German wishing to go to Austria at that time had to pay 1,000 marks. This bar was removed. Herr Schuschnigg, for his part, promised in this unpublished part of the agreement that men in his confidence who were members of the National Opposition were to be drawn in to co-operate in Austria. It appeared to us that the inclusion of the Austrian Opposition in Austrian parliamentary procedure was an essential condition for any further peaceful solution. In other words, the Party was gradually to lose its illegal status and become a legal factor.
Mr. Messersmith, if I may add, stated incorrectly in his affidavit: “Part II of this pact contained a clause that a number of persons who were in the Chancellor’s confidence should be called to positions in the Cabinet.” That, obviously, is a mistaken conclusion on Mr. Messersmith’s part, because we were not concerned with people who had Hitler’s confidence, but with those who had Schuschnigg’s confidence. This was an agreement made by Schuschnigg. Apart from this, Mr. Messersmith says with reference to this agreement that:
“....the first penetration of German nationals into the Austrian Government was achieved through the nomination of Dr. Guido Schmidt as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.”
This is entirely wrong. Dr. Schmidt was an Austrian and made Austrian policy; he represented Austrian interests, as was natural, and at no time did Germany exert any influence to make him, Dr. Schmidt, Foreign Minister.
On the whole, world public opinion at that time regarded this agreement as an instrument of peace and a great step forward. It was left to the Prosecution to call it a deceptive maneuver.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Prince Erbach’s affidavit, Document Number Papen-96 of the English book, Pages 233 and 234, Questions 4 to 7 and Questions 12 and 13, dealing with the subject which we have just discussed.
Did you, after the conclusion of the July Agreement, regard your mission in Austria as terminated?
VON PAPEN: Yes, I regarded it as terminated. That is proved by the resignation which I tendered to Hitler on 16 July 1936.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Document Papen-71, Page 165 of the second document book. I quote the beginning:
“On 26 July 1934, you proposed to the late Field Marshal that I should be sent to Vienna on a temporary mission to restore normal and friendly relations.
“With the Agreement signed on 11 July, the decisive step has been taken in this direction.”
In a later part of the document, he asks to be recalled; I go on to quote the second paragraph from the end:
“Even though the ‘German question’ will need very careful and considerate handling in the future too—especially after the incredible difficulties which have gone before—I would like now, at the end of the task you entrusted to me, to place my resignation in your hands.”
The Prosecution have used the report you made to Hitler on 1 September 1936, 2246-PS, and they accuse you of remaining in contact with the illegal leaders of the Austrian National Socialists, of attempting to bring that Opposition into the Fatherland Front, and of desiring to change the Schuschnigg regime.
VON PAPEN: In the report mentioned I wrote:
“In the normalization of relations to Germany, progress has been hindered by the staying power of the Ministry of Security, where the old anti-National Socialist officials are located. Changes in personnel are, therefore, urgently required.”
The expression which I used in this report: “Changes in the regime,” actually means “Changes in personnel”; in that connection I also go on to say, in the following sentence, that economic negotiations will follow in the near future. This shows quite clearly that these words do not refer to a removal of Schuschnigg’s person. Apart from that, this report speaks of the gravity of the situation in the Danube area, and makes proposals for a peaceful solution.
If I am accused by the Prosecution of having had contacts with the Nazi Opposition, although the July Agreement had excluded all intervention in Austrian affairs, I must point out that I was perfectly entitled to these contacts because I was interested in ascertaining whether and how far Herr Schuschnigg kept his promise to take in men from the nationalist Opposition in whom he had confidence for collaboration. Just how far the Nazi Opposition submitted to that Agreement of 11 July is shown by Leopold’s statement in January 1937, which Mr. Messersmith has attached to his own affidavit.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Document Number Papen-75, Page 171, which contains this file note of Leopold’s. The document is identical with the appendix, which has the number Exhibit USA-57. There is an error in the English translation. In the fifth line from the end, on Page 1, the word “Anschluss” has been translated by “annexation.”
Witness, what do you have to say about Leopold’s proposals?
VON PAPEN: Leopold’s proposals show the following. The leaders of the Austrian Nazis fully accepted the policy of the July Agreement. They recognized that in future the question of the Anschluss would be an internal Austrian affair to be settled by the Austrian Government. They proposed that this solution should be found in an evolutionary manner by the Austrian Government and the Party. In favor of this solution is the fact that by means of the declaration of the sovereignty of Austria these arguments could in the future no longer represent foreign political dangers for Austria, that is, that the Agreement of July was understood by the Austrian National Socialists and approved of, and that they were prepared to proceed in a legal way with the Austrian Government.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 18 June 1946 at 1000 hours.]
ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SEVENTH DAY Tuesday, 18 June 1946
Morning Session
[The Defendant Von Papen resumed the stand.]
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness Guido Schmidt has referred to an incident involving a flag at Pinkafeld, in May 1937. Would you please describe your activities in settling that incident.
VON PAPEN: The flag incident at Pinkafeld is mentioned by myself, or rather by my defense counsel, because it is a typical example of Hitler’s attempts to pass on to an aggressive policy in Austria, even in the days before 1938.
On 1 May 1937 in the small hamlet of Pinkafeld a flag of the German Reich was hauled down by an Austrian official. There was great excitement in the press; I instantly tried to settle the matter amicably with the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs. Thereupon I received a telegram to proceed to Berlin at once. I arrived in Berlin and reported to Hitler. Hitler did not receive me. I waited for 3 days. After 3 days, I wrote and told him, “It appears that you are trying to use the flag incident at Pinkafeld to introduce an aggressive policy against Austria. In that case there is nothing more for me to do, and I beg to hand in my resignation.” A quarter of an hour later he called me to the Reich Chancellery. He gave me a lecture, which lasted half an hour, furious and beside himself with rage over the humiliations which the German Reich could no longer tolerate. After his rage had spent itself I told him that our agreement of 26 June ruled that the policy concerning Austria was to be conducted on evolutionary lines. The Agreement of 11 July emphasized that. “If you wish to pursue a different policy, then dismiss me,” I said.
As a result of this very serious conversation he said, “No, no. Go back and settle everything; we do not want to change our peaceful policy.” I returned to Vienna, and the incident was settled satisfactorily with the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs within 24 hours.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you talk to representatives of other powers regarding the policy which you pursued in Austria?
VON PAPEN: Yes, I repeatedly discussed this policy with representatives of other powers. For instance, in the summer of 1937 I discussed it with the British Ambassador, Sir Nevile Henderson.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this letter which the witness speaks of been produced, or a copy of it? He has spoken of a letter to Hitler: “I wrote a letter.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, we have not got that letter, neither have we a copy of it. The files of the witness were destroyed in Berlin by air attacks.
VON PAPEN: May I add, Mr. President, that the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs has confirmed the incident in Court and the course it took. Herr Von Neurath also knows this incident very well indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Who was the Minister for Foreign Affairs who confirmed it?
VON PAPEN: The Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Schmidt, who was here as a witness; the witness Guido Schmidt.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
VON PAPEN: With reference to that question, may I remark that I, of course, very often spoke to representatives of other powers about our Austrian policy. For instance, in June 1938 I discussed it with Sir Nevile Henderson, the British Ambassador to Berlin. In October 1937 I visited Paris, incognito, and there talked to many of the leading politicians about this problem, among them the President of France, M. Daladier, and M. Léon Blum. I assured these gentlemen that we would seek a solution of the Austrian problem exclusively on an evolutionary basis and that the hoped-for union of the two States would never prove a threat to the interests of France, that on the contrary we were only looking for that solution within the European framework, that is, with the consent of France.
At that time, I was under the impression that in England as well as in France it was being increasingly understood that a general settlement was necessary.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: As proof that the defendant could actually have been convinced that the other powers—by virtue of an evolutionary development in Austria—might eventually be prepared to come to a peaceable agreement, I submitted Document Number 74, Page 169. It is a report from Von Papen to Hitler on the conversation just outlined with Sir Nevile Henderson on 1 June 1937.
I draw your attention to this document and should like to point out that Henderson has stated that he was well disposed toward an amicable solution of the Austrian problem and trusted that he too could exercise a corresponding influence in Paris.
I further draw your attention to Document Number 80, Page 177. It is a statement of the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Spaak, after the Anschluss. I invite your attention to the last sentence: “I have believed, for a long time past, that the Anschluss complied with the logic of facts and had it been ratified in a normal manner, I should not have been surprised.”
Mr. Messersmith alleged that Nazi propaganda in Austria had been paid for out of German funds. Did you ever give or arrange for any funds for that purpose?
VON PAPEN: The Party never received a penny, either from me personally or through the German Embassy. It is, however, quite possible—and even probable—that German Party funds did pour into Austria. I was never informed of this, for it was a well-known fact that I did not enjoy the confidence of the Party in either country.
There is, however, one exception which I particularly wish to emphasize, namely, the donation—and it was known to me—of funds in support of the “Langot” subsidy.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Prosecution has reproached you for your anti-Semitic attitude in connection with your report to Hitler of 12 May, in which you suggested giving financial aid to the Freedom League for the furtherance of their fight against Jewry. What was this Freedom League?
VON PAPEN: The Freedom League was a focal point, a union of the former Christian Trade Unions and the Christian Workers’ Union, under the leadership of the president of the Trade Unions. Dollfuss took over the leadership in 1934. It would be utterly ridiculous to accuse this Freedom League, mainly composed of Catholic workers, of an anti-Semitic attitude in the National-Socialist sense.
The Freedom League fought to purge the administration of Vienna of unsuitable Jewish elements. The problem of this undue alien penetration was absolutely similar to conditions then existing in Germany, conditions which I mentioned yesterday in detail. This fact is also proved by the report submitted yesterday to the Prosecution. I learned that the Czechs were endeavoring to establish close relations with the Freedom League and that for this purpose they desired to support the League with large sums of money.
I thereupon suggested to Hitler that this possible influencing of the Freedom League by Czech politics should be eliminated by supporting it ourselves. But we could not of course tell the Freedom League: “We are now going to subsidize you so that you do not go over to the Czechs.” So I proposed to Hitler that he should give these moneys in consideration of the League’s continued fight against Jewry, which was pure camouflage. Had I wanted to give this money specifically for the fight against Jewry, I would not have written “in consideration of” but “for the furtherance of its fight.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Document Number 32, Page 112 of the document book. It is an excerpt from the Austrian Yearbook of 1933-1934, which is an official publication. I draw your attention to the beginning of the second paragraph, where it is explained that the Freedom League originated in the Christian Workers’ Unions and the Christian Trade Unions.
I further draw your attention to the fifth line from the bottom, and I quote, “At the beginning of 1934 the late Federal Chancellor, Dr. Dollfuss, took over the supreme leadership of the Freedom League.”
I also draw your attention to Document Number 72, Page 166. It is a report of Von Papen to Hitler in which he quotes a report from the Prague Secret Service. Of interest, in this connection, is a reference to the fact that the Freedom League was striving for an understanding with Social Democracy.
The next document, Number 70, has already been presented as GB-243. I draw your attention to the first paragraph which reflects the efforts of the Czech diplomats. Document Number 70, Page 164. This is the document mentioned by the Prosecution, part of which has been submitted under GB-243. The first paragraph is important in that it deals with the activities of Czech diplomacy, mentioned a short time ago by the defendant. Furthermore, there is, with reference to this Freedom League, Von Papen’s report, Document Number 73, Page 176, to which I wish to invite your attention.
Another report of Von Papen’s is interesting, Document Number 69, Page 163. It shows the efforts of the Freedom League to gain a foothold in the political constellation of that day.
Witness, in the summer of 1937 Schuschnigg was making efforts to persuade the National Opposition to collaborate. What do you know about it and what were the subsequent developments?
VON PAPEN: In the summer of 1937 Schuschnigg was making efforts to keep his promise to induce the National Opposition to collaborate. The visit of Minister Glaise-Horstenau to Hitler in June 1938 took place with Schuschnigg’s consent.[1] This choice of members was effected without any participation on my part. But with regard to this “Committee of Seven” I should like to make a statement. Obviously the Chancellor’s attempts for appeasement were either not sufficiently far-reaching for the Party in Austria, or they were too slow. In November 1937 the Austrian police discovered in the office of this “Committee of Seven” documents known as the “Tafs Papers” which led us to believe that new, illegal, and radical purposes were already prevailing. The Austrian Government did not inform me of these papers, and no official démarche took place. But I did learn that amidst the documentation was a plan for my assassination. It was suggested that an attempt be made on my life which would provide a pretext for marching into Austria.
-----
[1] Later he founded the so-called “Committee of Seven” with Dr. Jury and Dr. Tafs.
-----
The Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Schmidt, confirmed this fact the day before yesterday before the Tribunal, and it appears to me that this suggestion, this plan against me, best proves exactly how great was the harmony between my policy and that of the Austrian or German National Socialists, which the Prosecution insists on taking for granted.
At that time I was very pleased that the Austrian Chancellor had also included Dr. Seyss-Inquart, whom I knew personally, in this work of appeasement. At this point I consider it only fair to make a correction. The Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs has reported a conversation which he had with me at Ankara, in October 1943. I told him at the time—and I also repeated my statement during my preliminary interrogation—that Dr. Seyss-Inquart had proved to be the greatest disappointment of my life. I had assumed that it was he who had called for the entry of the German troops into Austria and who was responsible for the Nazification of Austria after the Anschluss. In the light of the knowledge we have gained from various documents, I must correct my previous verdict.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: At the end of 1936 your foremost collaborator, Counsellor of Embassy Prince Erbach, was recalled from Vienna. His successor was Counsellor of Embassy Von Stein. Since he took over your duties after you had been recalled on 4 February 1938, it would be interesting to know what his attitude was toward both the Party and you.
VON PAPEN: Later I learned that Counsellor of Embassy Baron von Stein was appointed my Embassy Counsellor by special request of the Party because he was to have control over my policy as regards the Party. Herr Von Stein was an ardent National Socialist. His relations with me were entirely different from those I had with his predecessor, Prince Erbach. But I want to state that also during that period I continued to pursue my original line of policy and that Von Stein merely had the management of technical matters.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Hossbach Document of 5 November 1937 has been frequently mentioned—did you know of this conference at Berchtesgaden that this report was based on?
VON PAPEN: Of this sensational conference, of this truly important document in the hands of the Prosecution, I, of course, never even had an inkling. I first became acquainted with the document here in this courtroom. But if I may be permitted to say something more: The concatenation of ideas between the events of 11 March and this document appears to be rather tenuous. This document indicates that Hitler only intended to march into Austria by force, only intended to carry out the Anschluss by force, if a certain European constellation would make this possible. He expected this constellation to appear between 1943 and 1945.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, this is mere argument, isn’t it? He says he never saw the document until he came into this Court. He is now arguing to us about his connection with the events of March 1938. Well, that is a matter for you, not for the defendant.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Very well, then I shall deal with that later.
Witness, on 4 February 1938 you were, much to your surprise, dismissed from your post in Vienna. Please inform the Tribunal on the matter.
VON PAPEN: At the end of January 1938 I had been to Berlin to see Hitler; I talked to him about the conversation which I had had with Dr. Seyss-Inquart at Garmisch, and I received no indication of any kind that he intended to dismiss me from his service. I was notified to this effect by a telephone call from Dr. Lammers on 4 February. This sudden dismissal, for which I was given no reasons, coinciding with the dismissals of Von Fritsch and Blomberg and of other leading diplomats, led however to one final conclusion. I was quite aware of the fact that this recall meant a change, at the very least, of the political direction. The following day I discussed the situation with the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs and told him of my troubles. Subsequently I took leave of the Austrian Government in an official note, and on the following day I went to see Hitler. I must, however, introduce the following: I considered this development, through the very fact of my recall, so serious that I decided on the evening of the 4th that all my political reports, compiled during those 4 years, were to be removed to Switzerland. I wanted to be in a position to prove to the whole world that I had pursued a peaceful and evolutionary policy in Austria during those 4 years; I wanted to be in a position to prove this to the outside world in case Hitler should commit an act of aggression. This decision, particularly on the part of a high-ranking official, was certainly not an easy one to reach, because I would have to suffer all the consequences which this forbidden action might entail.
On the following day, I went to Hitler. I felt the urge to tell him that even if he no longer wanted me, he should at least send another reasonable and moderate man to Austria. During the discussion I had with him he did not mention the reasons for my dismissal. I had suspected that this was due to a wish of Herr Von Ribbentrop, who had become Minister for Foreign Affairs on this 4 February; but Hitler told me that this was not the case. During the discussion on the Austrian situation I told Hitler, inter alia, that I very much regretted that he had recalled me because, particularly during recent weeks, Chancellor Schuschnigg had declared himself willing to have a personal discussion with Hitler in order to eliminate all differences between the two States. When Hitler heard this, he told me, “If that is the case, then I should be very glad if you would go back to arrange for this discussion with Herr Schuschnigg.” I told him, “That is rather a peculiar task. Yesterday you recalled me, and today you want me to go back. But if there is something I can do in the interest of the Austrian problem—if I can bring about such a discussion, I am only too willing to do it.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: How did you prepare that conference?
VON PAPEN: On my return, I went to see Herr Schuschnigg, and with him too, I discussed the change in the situation created by my recall and the appointment of the new German Minister for Foreign Affairs. I told Herr Schuschnigg, “It appears to me that in this situation a discussion between the two heads of State regarding the differences which have arisen from the interpretation of the July Agreement could be nothing but helpful.” The Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs has, as a matter of fact, confirmed that we had discussed those personal meetings as far back as November 1937. The proposal was that there should be in Berchtesgaden discussions about all the differences. No definite program was drafted. It was arranged that these conferences should take place on the basis of the July Agreement, that is to say, on the basis of the maintenance of Austria’s sovereignty. The only essential problem discussed was the inclusion of a minister in the Austrian Cabinet who would act as the homme de confiance of both States and whose task would be to keep the peace between the Austrian and German National Socialist Parties, in other words, to eliminate in future all interference by the German Party in Austrian affairs.
Later on, during the Berchtesgaden conference, it was demanded that the Ministry for Security should be handed to Dr. Seyss-Inquart. This demand was entirely unknown to me, nor had I discussed it with Schuschnigg. It was merely mentioned that a suitable man, perhaps Seyss-Inquart, should be given the Ministry of the Interior. Today we know from the testimony of witnesses that, in addition to this official conference of mine, there were Austrian Party channels through which proposals were sent to Hitler, proposals that were unknown to me.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Please give us an idea of the course of the discussion at Berchtesgaden.
VON PAPEN: This conference has been repeatedly described here. I accompanied Herr Schuschnigg and Herr Schmidt there personally; and it is quite possible that when I received them at the Austrian or the German frontier, I told them that, in addition to Hitler, they might find one or several generals up there, because quite possibly I had telephoned to Berchtesgaden in the morning and learned that these generals were present.
The course of the conference differed, of course, very much from that of customary conferences of diplomatic life; but it was not quite so dramatic as has been described here by various sources. To my knowledge, these generals, called in by Hitler on the previous evening and unknown to me, were merely effective by their presence and were only meant to have that effect. As far as I know and within the framework of my own participation, they were not called in to join the political conferences.
The tone in which Hitler negotiated, the accusations which he hurled against Schuschnigg, were to my mind most unpleasant; and for that reason I repeatedly intervened as a mediator. I remember very well an incident which occurred when Hitler and Schuschnigg were negotiating together and the discussion became extraordinarily loud. I entered the conference room to find that Hitler was accusing Herr Schuschnigg of being no German, of lacking in national feeling, so that I intervened and told Herr Hitler, “You are completely misjudging Herr Schuschnigg. Herr Schuschnigg’s way of thinking is as German as yours and mine, only he does not want a union of our two countries under the state doctrine which you are now representing in Germany.” During this conference, a program was submitted to Herr Schuschnigg and Herr Schmidt, which was unknown to me personally, as I already said. After negotiating, a number of points were removed from this program, for instance, the commanding of the Austrian Army by General Von Glaise, and all economic demands; and therefore, toward evening, when the conference was coming to an end, I told Herr Schuschnigg that he had better accept the remainder so that further peaceful development should not be prejudiced. Apart from this, Herr Schuschnigg only made the express reservation in connection with this program or this agreement that the stipulations would have to be confirmed by the Austrian Government and the Austrian President. Therefore the possibility for later correction on the part of Austria certainly was provided.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In one point your relation has not been quite clear. Did you arrive at Berchtesgaden only when Schuschnigg and Dr. Schmidt did? Were you already in Berchtesgaden, or had you spent the night elsewhere?
VON PAPEN: I traveled from Vienna to Salzburg with Herr Schuschnigg, spent the night there with him, and went on with him the next morning to Berchtesgaden. In other words, I was not in Berchtesgaden before him. However, Herr Schuschnigg has alleged that the morning before our visit I told him that generals were up there. I cannot remember that; but it is possible, because it may be that I put a telephone call through from Salzburg in the morning and was told of it.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: There is one more point to be supplemented. Schuschnigg said that you met him at the border. Perhaps you can clear up that point, too.
VON PAPEN: Well, Herr Schuschnigg and I had spent the night together in Salzburg, as I have said. The next morning I went ahead as far as the border, and waited for him at the German border.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did the Berchtesgaden agreement differ basically from the Agreement of 11 July 1936?
VON PAPEN: The result of the Berchtesgaden arrangements was certainly an enlargement compared with the Agreement of July. But there was no departing from the basis of the July Agreement—from its principles, that is, the maintenance of Austrian sovereignty. This is evident also from the two communiqués by the Governments which were issued on the occasion of the acceptance of the agreement.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to the official communiqué, Document Number 78, Page 174; and also to Document Number 79, Page 175, Hitler’s Reichstag speech of 20 February, with reference to this question.
On 26 February you paid an official farewell visit to Schuschnigg. The Prosecution have presented a file memorandum in this connection. Please tell us about this farewell visit.
VON PAPEN: This note from the files obviously contains the information I gave Herr Von Ribbentrop over the telephone regarding my farewell visit. In this note I drew the attention of the Foreign Office to the fact...
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of this note?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The file note is dated 26 February and was submitted by the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Document Book 11a, Page 1.
VON PAPEN: In this memorandum I mention the pressure brought to bear on Schuschnigg and under which he acted. The fact that I informed the Foreign Office should really indicate that I personally disapproved of this pressure; otherwise I would not have made a report on it. On 26 February my temporary activities, then, were also fully at an end.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On 9 March 1938 Schuschnigg proclaimed the plebiscite. Kindly comment on this.
VON PAPEN: The plebiscite announced by Herr Schuschnigg was, of course, a complete surprise. In my view it was contrary to the spirit of the arrangements agreed upon at Berchtesgaden and contrary to the tendency of a peaceful settlement of the tension.
The plebiscite was a violation of the Austrian Constitution, too. It was not a decision of the Austrian Government but was a spontaneous measure of the Austrian Chancellor, and in my opinion it was quite evident that those elements in Austria who were in favor of a union of the two States were most displeased with this plebiscite.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness Rainer has said in his testimony, and in the speech which was quoted, that on the evening of 9 March he was at your apartment. Was this a prearranged conference, a conference at all, or an exchange of views?
VON PAPEN: Not at all. I was absent from Vienna from the evening of the 26th, as far as I remember, until about 9 March. On that day I returned to Vienna, and it is naturally possible that these gentlemen came to my Embassy and talked to me there. There was no question of anything prearranged on my part.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Were you in Berlin on 11 March?
VON PAPEN: On the evening of 10 March a telephone call from the Reich Chancellery reached me at the Embassy with the order from Hitler to go to Berlin immediately that very night. I flew to Berlin the following morning and approximately between 9 and 10 in the morning I arrived at the Reich Chancellery. Why Hitler sent for me I do not know; I assumed that as this crisis developed he might want my advice; perhaps, too, he may have thought that my presence in Vienna would interfere with his plans. At any rate, on this fateful day, 11 March, I was in Berlin and at the Reich Chancellery. I met Hitler surrounded by numerous ministers, Herr Göring, Dr. Goebbels, Von Neurath, state secretaries, and also military people. He greeted me with the words: “The situation in Austria has become intolerable; Herr Schuschnigg is betraying the German idea and we cannot admit this forced plebiscite.”
And when I saw how aroused he was, I reminded him again of his promise to me at Bayreuth and warned him urgently against over-hasty decisions. But on this morning he told me, “Either the plebiscite must be canceled or the Government must resign.”
Today we know from the letter, which he sent to Dr. Seyss by special courier, of this ultimatum to the Austrian Government. At that time he did not inform me of this active intervention on his part. Then during the day I, along with most of the persons present, remained in the large hall while Göring telephoned from Hitler’s private office. What was telephoned is something we, who were waiting in the large hall, could only gather fragmentarily; but of course today we know it from the documents here.
There is only one incident which I want to mention. Toward 5 o’clock in the afternoon, the report came from Vienna that Schuschnigg’s Government was prepared to resign. Thereupon I pressed Hitler to cancel his military orders. Herr Hitler did that. Between 5 and 6 o’clock in the afternoon the order to the military forces standing by was withdrawn. On that occasion I congratulated General Keitel and General Von Brauchitsch, who were present, on our being spared this issue. But 1 hour later the situation was once more entirely different. When a telephone call came through from Vienna stating that the Federal President refused to nominate a Seyss-Inquart Government, Hitler again issued the orders to the troops. Following that, late in the evening, it was learned that the Austrian Government had requested the entry of German troops, since otherwise they could not control the situation. I can still see Herr Von Neurath standing next to me telling me, “This is such an important report from Vienna that we absolutely have to have it in writing.”
Thus we were under the impression that this call for assistance came to us from Vienna. The further events of the evening are known, and I can only say that I personally was deeply shaken by this turn of events because it was perfectly clear that marching in with the Army could lead to incidents and to bloodshed, and new bloodshed between our two nations would not only have badly compromised the German problem again, but would also leave the worst possible impression of the conduct of German policy.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I draw your attention here to Document Number 97, Page 241, of the third document book. I beg your pardon, it is not yet contained in the book, it is just being presented—Document 97, Page 241. It is an affidavit by Thass, a friend of the witness Papen, who talked to him on the evening of 11 March. I quote approximately from the middle of the document:
“On 11 March 1938, the beginning of the march of German troops into Austria, Herr Von Papen appeared at the Union Club late in the evening where he very excitedly and despairingly declared:
“‘I have just come from the Reich Chancellery. I tried to talk Hitler out of marching into Austria and strongly advised against it, but he has carried through with the madness and has just given the order to march into Austria.’”
Did you, Witness, know anything about the military plan “Case Otto”?
VON PAPEN: I have heard about this Case Otto for the first time during this Trial. The Case Otto was, it was stated, a theoretical preparation for a military attack in the event that, as a consequence of the restoration of the Hapsburgs, the Czechs and Hungarians should march into Austria.
THE PRESIDENT: This is exactly what the defendant was doing just now when I interrupted you. He said he did not know anything about the document and he is now trying to explain it. This is argument, not evidence.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, quite, Mr. President.
[Turning to the defendant.] Let us pass on to the next question. A little while ago you mentioned that you had decided that the files which were documentary proof for your activity in Vienna should be taken to Switzerland. Was this actually carried out later on?
VON PAPEN: Yes, that was done. My secretary, Herr Von Ketteler, took the files to Switzerland at the beginning of March 1938.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Describe briefly the circumstances of the assassination of your assistant, Baron von Ketteler, after the entry of German troops into Austria. In particular, what did you do to have that case cleared up?
VON PAPEN: During the days of the march into Vienna my secretary and friend, Herr Von Ketteler, had suddenly disappeared. I informed the Viennese police at once, as well as Herr Himmler, Herr Heydrich, and Dr. Kaltenbrunner. They promised investigation. The investigation was for a long time without success. Originally I had assumed that Herr Von Ketteler had fled, since his relations with the Austrian Party had been very bad. But then a few weeks later it transpired that Von Ketteler’s body was found in the Danube below Vienna. I filed a charge of murder by an unknown person with the public prosecutor. I requested a post-mortem examination of the body. The post-mortem examination took place with the result that no signs of death by force were found.
Nevertheless, I am perfectly certain that this new act was an act of revenge by the Gestapo against me and my policies and my friends. I addressed myself to Göring, who was in command of the Gestapo, and asked for his assistance. Göring demanded the files from the Gestapo and told me that there was proof that Herr Von Ketteler had prepared an attempt on Hitler’s life. I stated that that was quite out of the question. But then it was ascertained by Göring, through the Gestapo, that I had taken my files to Switzerland and that Herr Von Ketteler had assisted in this. Herr Göring promised me to negotiate with Hitler and to demand the punishment of the Gestapo people who had taken part in this case. I believe that he did that, but this intervention met with no success.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: After your departure from Vienna you retired to private life. Did you have new offers for posts abroad?
VON PAPEN: I retired to private life, since my experiences after the 30th of June and later in Austria were not such as to make me desire a new post. I can only say that, during the period following, Herr Von Ribbentrop asked me twice to go to Ankara as Ambassador and that I refused it twice.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: As a last question with reference to the Austrian complex, I want to ask whether Hitler awarded you the Golden Party Badge after the march into Vienna? Please make a statement on that.
VON PAPEN: That is correct. As we know, Hitler was accustomed to make sudden dismissals; and he had dismissed me abruptly on 4 February and solved the Austrian question without me. For public consumption he used to camouflage such acts with cordial letters and decorations. Perhaps I should have turned down this Golden Party Badge at that time, because I was no longer in any official position and there was no reason for my accepting it. However my position in those days was so difficult that I did not want to make it any worse. My assistant Ketteler had disappeared, and I had to expect that I might be involved in a State trial because I had removed my files to Switzerland. Thus I accepted the badge. But I deny that doing this established my Party membership. I believe that no one who knows me—even among the gentlemen sitting in this dock with me—will maintain that I was ever in my life a National Socialist.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I now come to the discussion of a relatively brief period, that is, your time in Turkey. May I start on that now?
THE PRESIDENT: Why is it necessary to go into the affairs after the Anschluss in March 1938, in view of what the Prosecution has stated? I mean, does it throw any light upon the past? As I understand it...
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, I have finished then with the entire Austrian complex. I now have to deal only with a brief subject, the defendant’s activities during his time as Ambassador to Ankara. I am only asking whether this would be a suitable moment to begin with this, or whether the Court wishes to recess. I shall have completely finished in about an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: We will in a moment, but what I was asking you was why is it necessary to go into the history of the defendant in Ankara in view of what the Prosecution have said with reference to their charges against the defendant? As I understand it, the Prosecution have said that they make no charges against the defendant in connection with his work at Ankara. Unless the history of that time throws light upon the past, upon the time up to March 1938, it does not appear to be relevant to this Trial.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In discussing his activities in Turkey, I shall confine myself to a few points, for the sole purpose, as the Tribunal have observed, of throwing light on the previous activities of the Defendant Von Papen. The evidence will, therefore, refer to the fact that through his activities the defendant made it quite clear that he was a definite opponent of the war in every phase, and that in every phase of the war he merely tried to achieve peace. This material from the period in Turkey is, therefore, to furnish the counterevidence against the charge that previously the defendant had been in any way an active participant in the war policy. We must also get a complete picture of a man who is under the indictment of conspiracy. If he was in an official position directly before the outbreak of the war and during the war, then certainly we must investigate whether his attitude during that time does not supply precise counterevidence against his having been previously in any way in agreement with the plans which, it is true, were first executed during his early days in office. The questions are brief, and we shall...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Under what circumstances were you appointed Ambassador to Ankara in April 1939? Why did you accept this post?
VON PAPEN: I accepted the post, after I had refused it twice, under quite extraordinary circumstances. On the day of Italy’s occupation of Albania, Herr Von Ribbentrop called me up and urgently asked me to come to Berlin. There he explained to me that the post in Ankara, which had been vacant for 6 months, would have to be filled immediately because of the complications which might arise in the southeast from the occupation of Albania. Before I accepted this post I carefully considered whether I could do and had to do anything more for the Hitler Government. After 15 March, the entry into Prague, we knew that we were sitting on a powder keg. In this European problem there were two possibilities of conflict; one was the Polish problem, where I could do nothing; the other was the southeast problem which had become acute through the occupation of Albania. I felt that I could do something here and could contribute to the maintenance of peace in Europe. For that reason I offered to go to Ankara at this moment.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: First you went to Ankara to obtain information; you obtained a picture of the situation there, and then in an oral and a written report you explained your opinion. Please comment on this.
VON PAPEN: In Ankara I immediately obtained a picture of the whole situation because I knew all the leading personalities there.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, you aren’t proposing to take the defendant through all the intricacies of Turkish politics, are you?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, that is not my intention. The problem is dealt with in a report which the defendant made in Berlin not only to Hitler but also to other offices. The making of this report and its contents show a positive activity for the maintenance of peace. That is why I have gone into this affair briefly. And, Witness, I ask you to outline...
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the report?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, this report is also in the files of the Foreign Office to which I do not have access.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, you had better deal with the subject, but deal with it shortly.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, please continue.
VON PAPEN: I will be very brief, My Lord. I came back from Turkey, and told Hitler in a report what had to be done in order to maintain European peace. I sent this memorandum also to Keitel and Brauchitsch. I stated in this report that it was necessary, in order to keep the situation in the southeast under control, for Italy immediately to give positive promises indicating that her military forces would be withdrawn from Albania and her relations with Turkey would be adjusted, in order to remove there any doubt in the sincerity of Italian policy. A very heated discussion on this advice followed between Count Ciano and myself. Count Ciano was in Berlin on that day to sign the German-Italian Alliance. When I made my suggestions to him, he was most indignant at these demands and complained about me to Herr Von Ribbentrop. A very heated discussion then took place with Herr Von Ribbentrop who told me that he was in charge of German foreign policy and not I, and that it was after all not my task to make suggestions for keeping the peace. Then I offered my resignation to Herr Von Ribbentrop and told him it was useless under the circumstances to send me to Ankara; but Herr Von Ribbentrop withdrew his statement, and I returned.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In this report, did you warn in general against a war adventure and what reasons did you give for this warning?
VON PAPEN: The memorandum which I gave also to General Keitel and General Brauchitsch also contained a military presentation of the situation, in which I stated that to begin a war over the Polish Corridor would of necessity lead to a world war. If such a world war were to break out, Germany’s position would be hopeless, for there was no doubt that England would keep its promise to Poland and that England and France would come to Poland’s aid.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was your reaction to the news about the outbreak of war on 1 September 1939?
VON PAPEN: When the news of the outbreak of the Polish war reached me in Ankara, I was profoundly shocked. I had, of course, hoped that Hitler would avoid this step which must plunge us into the greatest misfortune.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Document 14, Page 62, an affidavit of the lady who was for long years private secretary of the witness Von Papen. I will quote a brief passage from Page 64, the second paragraph from the end:
“I heard the radio announcement of the outbreak of war in the Embassy at Ankara with the Ambassador and the entire staff. Afterwards I walked in the Embassy park with the Ambassador. The Ambassador was extraordinarily excited and shaken. I had never seen him like this, not even after the darkest days of June 1934 and not even after the murder of his friend Ketteler.
“That is why I can recall exactly every word which the Ambassador said to me on that occasion: ‘Remember my words: To have provoked this war is the greatest crime and the greatest madness which Hitler and his people could have committed. Germany cannot win this war. All will be buried under the ruins.’”
Witness, what were your decisions for the future?
VON PAPEN: What could I do? I could either protest—then, in order not to be shot as a traitor in Germany, I would have to remain abroad. I could emigrate. I would never have done that, for I have always believed that one can work better in one’s own country than as an emigrant. I could resign; then I would return to Germany and become a soldier. The best thing, it seemed to me, was to remain where I was and where I could best help my fatherland.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Now I come to discuss your various efforts toward peace. Please describe first your negotiations with the Dutch Minister, Dr. Visser.
VON PAPEN: Immediately after the Polish campaign I had negotiations with the Dutch Minister in Ankara, at that time Dr. Visser, who declared himself willing to have his Foreign Minister mediate in London. The condition for a peace would, of course, have been the restoration of Poland with a corresponding adjustment of the Corridor problem, the problem of the German sections.
I reported this possibility for peace negotiations to Herr Von Ribbentrop, but it seemed to me that it was not followed up in Berlin; and therefore in November 1939 I went to Berlin myself. Herr Von Ribbentrop told me, “The Führer does not want to hear anything of peace negotiations; please do not undertake any further steps.”
Nevertheless I went to Hitler, reported the Dutch offer to him, and expressed the wish of the Dutch Minister, Dr. Visser, to come to Berlin personally. Unfortunately Hitler rejected all my arguments.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I wish to point out that with the approval of the Court an interrogatory on this subject was sent to Minister Dr. Visser, but the interrogatory has not yet been received.
Did you make further suggestions as to ending the war in 1939? I am thinking in this connection of a report on the restoration of legal life in Germany.
VON PAPEN: Yes. In December of 1939 I sent a detailed report for Hitler to Herr Von Ribbentrop, and in this report I said that the first condition for any conclusion of peace and for any readiness abroad to conclude a peace would be the renunciation of the present government methods in Germany; that is, a return to constitutional conditions in Germany. Then I told Hitler, “If you do this, you will have more credit abroad; and it might be possible to prepare the way for peace negotiations.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was the instruction which you received from Berlin in regard to peace efforts, and what did you do nevertheless?
VON PAPEN: The Reich Foreign Minister repeatedly issued strict orders to the chiefs of missions under no circumstances to extend any peace feelers. In the opinion of the Foreign Office, such attempts would be a sign of weakness.
I did not observe this ruling because I was determined on my own initiative to do everything to shorten the war. For that reason, in the spring of 1941 before the Balkan crisis, I addressed myself to His Majesty the King of Sweden with the request to begin a peace mediation. I also asked the President of Turkey, Ismet Inönü, to consider the possibilities of mediating. President Inönü agreed to do so, while His Majesty the King of Sweden refused, saying that the situation did not seem to him suited to such efforts. The Turkish President asked only that he be officially requested to mediate. That, of course, was not done.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What did you think about the events of 10 May 1940, the entry of German troops into Holland and Belgium; and what statement, did you make in this connection?
VON PAPEN: On 10 May 1940 I visualized the impression which had dominated the whole first World War, the question of why Germany had violated Belgian neutrality. It was completely incomprehensible to me that this psychological error should be repeated a second time and I expressed this opinion of mine in a letter which I sent to the Dutch Minister, Dr. Visser, on 10 May.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What did you do in order to check the spread of the war to the Balkans?
VON PAPEN: When the Yugoslav crisis broke out and our troops marched through Bulgaria, I had Hitler send a personal letter to the Turkish President. In this letter he assured the Turkish President that under no circumstances did he intend to fight Turkey, and for that reason he had ordered German troops to keep at 40 kilometers distance from the Turkish border.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In June 1941 you concluded a treaty of friendship with. Turkey. Will you state briefly the reasons for that?
VON PAPEN: The reasons were very simple: To limit the war. Turkey was to know that in spite of our alliance with Italy, in spite of the war in the Balkans, in spite of the war with Greece, we would never threaten Turkey. Turkey was also to know that we would not attempt to advance through Turkey to the Suez Canal. The negotiations were very long and difficult, because Herr Von Ribbentrop did not want in this treaty any mention of Turkey’s contractual obligations to the Allies. I then pointed out to Herr Von Ribbentrop by cable that the Turks were faithful to their treaties.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you know of Hitler’s intentions against Russia? What did you think about this war?
VON PAPEN: The beginning of the war with Russia was, of course, a complete surprise to us. We had heard of the massing of troops on both sides, but of course I assumed and hoped that Hitler would keep his pact with Russia and that he would not begin this war. I considered the beginning of the war against Russia a crime, from the point of view of German as well as European interests.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you, after you returned from a visit to Germany in the fall of 1943, continue your efforts toward peace?
VON PAPEN: In the fall of 1943, after Stalingrad, it had become clear that no peace could be established with the Hitler Government. Regarding this, there was much discussion between me and my friends, including my military friends. In the fall of 1943 I was initiated into the so-called Beck Plan, which has been mentioned here by the witness Gisevius. At that time this plan did not intend to eliminate Hitler through an attack on his life, but the intention was to have his headquarters surrounded by troops and then to put Hitler on trial. The reasons for this were obvious. Even if many generals were of the opinion that this war had to be stopped, they were afraid of taking action against Hitler because they were of the opinion that Hitler still enjoyed very great prestige. Moreover, there was the further difficulty that if Hitler were removed, no one knew what the Allies would do with us.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks this should be taken more shortly, Dr. Kubuschok.
VON PAPEN: As a result of all these considerations, I attempted to learn what the Allies would do with Germany in such a case; and for this purpose I turned to the American Minister, at that time Mr. Earle, who reported on the matter in the press, too.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Document Number 93, Page 214. This is the interrogatory of Freiherr von Lersner, whom I wanted to call as a witness but who could not come here because of transportation difficulties. On Page 214, the answer to Question 7 is:
“My activities for the mediation of peace negotiations were always based on my own initiative and extended to the attempt to mediate general world peace between all belligerent states. Prior to all peace measures, I engaged in detailed discussions with Ambassador Von Papen and was always warmly supported by him to the utmost, although every peace measure was forbidden him and was at least as perilous for him as for me.
“He also made me acquainted with a number of foreigners, above all with the Apostolic Delegate to Istanbul, Archbishop Roncalli.
“When in 1942 I resolved to go to the Vatican, not only did Ambassador Von Papen urgently advise me to make the trip; but he also personally procured for me all the necessary papers and passports for Rome, where in spite of the express prohibition of the Reich Government I suggested to Cardinal Maglione and the diplomatic director of the Curia, Bishop Montini, a world peace drive by Pope Pius XII with all belligerent powers.
“When in April 1944 I had the opportunity to establish contact with Mr. George Earle, the former American Minister to Vienna and Sofia, the friend of President Roosevelt, with whom I had long been personally acquainted, Papen again helped me in every way. He even took it upon himself....”
THE PRESIDENT: These are details. Is it not sufficient to say that the defendant said that he endeavored in every way to make peace? Then you can refer, if you like, to any interrogatories or affidavits which confirm what the defendant says.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Very well. I will dispense with any further reading of this answer to Question Number 7, and I refer then to Document 94, Page 217, a letter of the witness Lersner to Mr. Kirkpatrick. He makes reference in the letter to the fact that as early as 1939 the Defendant Von Papen intended to bring Lersner to Turkey, so that on the basis of his international connections he could work for peace. He describes the difficulties in connection with this plan, which, however, was carried out by Papen. The letter also mentions further peace efforts with Admiral Von Horthy and with King Boris of Bulgaria. I should like briefly to give documentary corroboration to the questions raised by the witness Gisevius. I wish to present evidence that Von Papen was by no means unfavorably received in the circle of the conspirators of 20 July, but that on the contrary he was scheduled for the office of Foreign Minister. I refer to the affidavit of Count Bismarck, Document Number 90, Page 201. Count Bismarck, in the course of the events following 20 July, was sent to a concentration camp. This indicates the character of the witness. In Document Number 90 Bismarck points out that in case of a change of government Papen would have placed himself at their disposal. There was an agreement to send communications through Herr Von Trott, who worked in the Foreign Office. Trott was condemned to death following the events of 20 July.
Finally I refer to Document Number 89, Page 199, a letter from Pfeil to the son of the witness Papen. Pfeil points out that Colonel Count von Stauffenberg, the would-be murderer of 20 July, had proposed to the defendant that he serve as Foreign Minister later. The Court has already admitted this letter.
Witness, what was your position as regards the Party during your period in Turkey?
VON PAPEN: My position as regards the Party was exceptionally bad. For years I waged a battle with the Landesgruppenleiter of the Party in Turkey. This man told my Embassy officials, “Herr Von Papen belongs in a concentration camp, or he must be shot.” I had to struggle a long time to have this man removed.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What did you do during this time regarding Church matters?
VON PAPEN: During the war I did everything in my power to counteract an intensification of the fight against the Church. That means that I took all such institutions in Turkey under my personal protection.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer here to Document Number 53, Page 141, and Document Number 51, Page 138.
What did you do with respect to the Jewish problem during your period in Turkey?
VON PAPEN: I opposed all measures of the German Government against German Jews. A long Party trial took place because German members of my Embassy had consulted a Jewish doctor. I defended these officials of mine against this charge, and I refused to take away the passports of the German Jews in Turkey and to deprive them of their citizenship.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Document Number 95, Page 227, the interrogatory of Professor Marchionini. In Questions 4, 5, and 6 he discusses this problem. In the answer to Question 6, the last paragraph is very noteworthy, and as the witness Von Papen has not yet mentioned it I should like to quote it. Page 229, the last paragraph of the answer to Question 6:
“I remember particularly clearly an incident in the spring of 1944, when I called upon Herr Von Papen at the request of Mr. Barlas, the Refugee Commissioner of the Jewish Agency, in order to request his assistance in saving 10,000 Jews in France from deportation to Poland for extermination. These Jews had formerly held Turkish nationality but they had later given it up. Herr Von Papen complied with my wish and through his intervention the lives of these Jews were saved, as I learned later from Mr. Barlas himself.”
I continue to quote:
“Details of this incident, on which Mr. Steinhardt, then United States Ambassador in Ankara, and Numan Menemencioglu, then Foreign Minister of Turkey, were also informed, can be obtained by questioning Mr. Barlas.”
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to point out to you again, Dr. Kubuschok, that you have taken very much longer than you said you were going to take.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In a very short time, in a few minutes, I will be through.
I ask the last question of the witness: When, on 2 August 1944 Turkey broke off relations with Germany, you returned to Germany, why did you not remain in Turkey and separate finally from Germany?
VON PAPEN: I can state that on the day of the severance of relations between Turkey and Germany the British Prime Minister Mr. Churchill said the following in the House of Commons: “The breaking-off of relations between Turkey and Germany will have many consequences, including consequences for Herr Von Papen. On 30 June he escaped the blood bath. This time he will not succeed.”
As a result, I received requests from the Allies to remain in Turkey. I refused to do so. I said, “I shall return to Germany where I belong. I will not emigrate, for perhaps I might still do something for my fatherland.” Thus I returned to Germany. When I arrived there I observed that as a result of the terror methods which had been launched after 20 July there was no possibility at all of doing anything. For the rest of the time a Gestapo guard was placed before my door.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Document Number 95, Page 226, which has already been mentioned, the interrogatory of Professor Marchionini. I refer to the answer to Question 3 and I should like very briefly to read the last half of this answer in connection with the problem just mentioned by the witness:
“The last conversation on this subject took place on 2 August 1944, on the day before his final departure from Ankara after the breaking-off of diplomatic relations between Germany and Turkey.
“To my advice not to leave Turkey, but to address an appeal from here to the German people and the German Army to overthrow Hitler and discontinue the senseless war immediately, Von Papen answered in substance as follows:
“‘I have learned from history that dictatorships cannot be done away with from a foreign country; one must be in the country itself in order to fight the regime effectively. Therefore, I have determined to return to Germany and to conduct the fight against the Hitler regime there and thus hasten the end of the war.’”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have finished questioning the witness Von Papen.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of Defense Counsel want to ask any questions?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Herr Von Papen, I should like to ask you a few questions, with the permission of the Court.
How long have you known Herr Von Neurath?
VON PAPEN: Since 1932.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Is it true that it was the express wish of the then Reich President Von Hindenburg that Herr Von Neurath was to be taken into the Government which you formed in 1932, as Reich Foreign Minister?
VON PAPEN: Yes, that is entirely true.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Were you aware, or did you know from previous activities of Herr Von Neurath in his various positions as Ambassador but especially in his last post in London, that Herr Von Neurath was a faithful follower and an impassioned champion of a policy of peace?
VON PAPEN: That was known to me and to everyone in Germany.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: And you yourself approved of this also?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you are going a little too fast. Go on.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Did you yourself also approve of this peace policy?
VON PAPEN: Of course I approved of this policy. Otherwise we would not have found ourselves side by side in this Cabinet engaged in common work.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Did Herr Von Neurath, a few months later, take any part in the negotiations leading to the transfer of the Reich Chancellorship to Hitler?
VON PAPEN: In no way.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: But do you know that Reich President Von Hindenburg made the express condition that Herr Von Neurath was to remain as Reich Foreign Minister also in the new Hitler Government?
VON PAPEN: I have already mentioned here that this was an express condition of Hindenburg’s.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: And what was Hitler’s attitude to that in principle? Did he accept it only in order to be able to form the Government at all, or did he approve of Hindenburg’s choice?
VON PAPEN: I believe that Hitler approved completely of the choice of Neurath as Foreign Minister.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Did you yourself ever talk to Hitler about this?
VON PAPEN: Yes, frequently. And I learned from Hitler that he thought highly of Herr Von Neurath’s personality and capacity.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: And did you ever talk to Herr Von Neurath himself about it?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Did he make the decision to form this Cabinet readily?
VON PAPEN: I imagine that Herr Von Neurath also had the same inner reservations I had at that time.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Now, according to your knowledge, as far as you could learn from statements of Hitler’s, what were Hitler’s foreign political aims and efforts at that time?
VON PAPEN: Hitler’s foreign political aims at that time were quite limited: Abolition of discrimination by peaceful means and by strengthening Germany’s position in the world.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Until the end of 1937, did you ever hear any statements from Hitler indicating that he might be determined to use armed force if his peaceful efforts did not have the desired result?
VON PAPEN: I never heard from Hitler of any such intentions.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: And then it is always asserted that in leading Party circles he expressed such sanguinary intentions?
VON PAPEN: I never heard that in the Party, even among the most radical National Socialists, anyone ever spoke of the idea of a war.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Then to sum up, you agreed fully with the aims of a peaceful policy that were intended and advocated by Herr Von Neurath?
VON PAPEN: Absolutely.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Now the charge is made against Herr Von Neurath of having co-operated in the rearmament of Germany. What was Hitler’s reason and motive for this rearmament, which it may be supposed started before the actual taking over of the military sovereignty?
VON PAPEN: I stated yesterday that the actual rearmament began only after I had resigned from the Cabinet. But as far as I am informed, all of my former colleagues held the view that a rearmament was only to serve the purpose of giving Germany a defensive protection for her borders.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Now I come to the problem of Austria. Do you know the attitude of Herr Von Neurath concerning the Austria problem?
VON PAPEN: Herr Von Neurath’s attitude concerning the Austria problem was the same as mine. Like myself, he constantly protested in the Cabinet against the terror measures staged by the Party in 1933 and 1934.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Were you yourself, when Hitler sent you on an extraordinary mission to Vienna, under Herr Von Neurath? And did you receive your instructions from him or only from Hitler?
VON PAPEN: I was not subordinate to Herr Von Neurath but had asked that I might be directly subordinate to Hitler. But, of course, I reported all steps which I took to Herr Von Neurath and the Foreign Office, as is proved by the documents submitted here.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: What was Herr Von Neurath’s attitude toward the negotiations in the summer of 1936 which led to the Agreement of 11 July between Germany and Austria?
VON PAPEN: Herr Von Neurath had exactly the same opinion as I had, that this agreement was to serve and had to serve the cause, once and for all, of peace between these two peoples of the same race.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Did he influence Hitler in this direction, too?
VON PAPEN: I do not know, but I certainly assume he did.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: And that he was honest and sincere in this agreement? What is your opinion? I point out here that the Prosecution asserts and makes it a charge against Herr Von Neurath that this agreement was concluded with a treacherous intention.
VON PAPEN: I spoke in detail on that point yesterday, and protested against the Prosecution’s charging us with treacherous intentions. Herr Von Neurath had such intentions just as little as I did.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Now I have two more brief questions.
Do you know what attitude Herr Von Neurath took as to Germany’s leaving the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference in 1933?
VON PAPEN: Yes, I know that very well. Herr Von Neurath was of the opinion that it was advisable to leave the Disarmament Conference. But, like me, he was of the opinion that it was a mistake to leave the League of Nations. With his approval, as I told the Court yesterday, I followed Hitler to Munich at that time in order to persuade him not to leave the League of Nations.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I have no more questions, Mr. President.
DR. SEIDL: With the approval of the Court, substituting for my absent colleague, Dr. Stahmer, I should like to ask a question on behalf of the Defendant Göring.
Witness, this morning you said that in connection with the murder of your friend Ketteler in 1938 you turned to Göring because he was in charge of the Gestapo. Is it not a fact, and were you not aware of this fact, that from 1936 on, at the latest, the Gestapo was exclusively under Himmler and was formally under the Reich Minister of the Interior?
VON PAPEN: It is possible that through my 4 years’ absence from Germany in Austria I did not know that fact. It has been established here, of course. In any case, I had the feeling when I turned to Göring that he was in a position to defend me against the Gestapo; and after Hitler had refused to speak to me on this matter, it was only natural that I should turn to him as the second man in Germany.
DR. SEIDL: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
Sir David, would you prefer to start after the adjournment?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I was thinking that I might have the documents arranged then and it might be more convenient for the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We will sit again at 5 minutes to 2.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very much obliged, Your Lordship.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1355 hours.]
Afternoon Session
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, do you remember saying in your interrogation on 19 September of last year that your present view was that Hitler was the greatest crook that you had ever seen in your life?
VON PAPEN: That is quite true. That is the opinion which I arrived at after I learned here of all the crimes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that was on 19 September 1945. But I am more interested in your next answer. Was that not when you were asked when you made your mind up that Hitler was the greatest crook you had ever seen in your life, “only after I have known the facts after which he started to go to war”?
Do you remember saying that?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Was not that rather a long time for you to discover that somewhat obvious truth after your close co-operation with Hitler?
VON PAPEN: My opinion about Hitler and his inner political significance was completely clear after 30 June 1934. But, like all other human beings, I could assume that in the field of foreign politics at least he would be sensible and I was of this opinion until after the Munich Agreement.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, just let us see whether you had not had an opportunity of forming that view much earlier. When you were Reich Chancellor in 1932 it was necessary for you to acquaint yourself with the personalities and aims and methods of the Nazi Party, was it not?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you did so, did you not?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you remember—I do not want to delay by referring to the document, but you may take it as an exact quotation—that on 16 November 1932 Hitler wrote to you and said: “You must be aware of my attitude and the attitude of my Party.”
VON PAPEN: Of course, I knew the aims of his Party; but I may add, if a party forms a coalition with another party it has to eliminate a great deal from its program and form a coalition program. That was what Hitler did on 30 January.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, but before we come to 30 January I want to ask you—get your view in 1932. You had very little doubt in 1932, during the period of your Chancellorship, that if Hitler got into power Germany was in danger of being ruled by violent and unconstitutional methods, had you not, if Hitler got into power?
VON PAPEN: Doubtless the program of the National Socialists was revolutionary in this connection, but I explained in detail to the Court that when we came to this forced solution of 30 January we established a number of safeguards and drew up a joint coalition program which in our opinion eliminated the points of danger which you have mentioned.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It was very strongly the view of President Von Hindenburg in the middle of 1932 that it would be most dangerous to put power into Hitler’s hands, was it not?
VON PAPEN: Yes, that was indeed his opinion, that Hitler had to be controlled by restricting his power.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I just will give you one sentence from the affidavit of Herr Meissner, which the Tribunal will find in Document Book 11a on Page 43. This will be GB-495. The number is 3309-PS.
This was after, in August 1932. According to Meissner:
“Hindenburg stated that because of the tense situation he could not with a clear conscience risk transferring the power of government to a new party, such as the National Socialists, which did not command a majority and which was intolerant, noisy, and undisciplined.”
That is a very moderate statement of the Reich President’s views at that time, is it not?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you know, Defendant—I am not talking about a coalition, I am talking about if the National Socialists came into power themselves—it was obvious to you that they had few scruples and would make short work of their political opponents, is that not so?
VON PAPEN: One cannot say that. In political life it always happens that a radical party—any party, but particularly a radical party—if it comes to power and is made responsible, has to eliminate much of its program. For example, we have seen that in the case of the socialist parties of all countries.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, is it true, as the Defendant Göring stated under oath, that he told you in 1932 that whatever else the Nazis would do Hitler would not become a “Vice” or second man; that he would oppose any political set-up which did not give him the first place? Is that correct?
VON PAPEN: Yes, Hitler always told me that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And therefore you realized that Hitler and his accomplices wanted a full opportunity to put their program and intentions into effect, did you not?
VON PAPEN: No, I did not know that. That is a statement which you make here which does not reflect the conditions at that time. You need only read the government program, our coalition of 1 February.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, do not be afraid that I am not coming to the period of your coalition of 30 January. For the moment I am just asking you one or two questions about your view of Hitler, and Hindenburg’s view of Hitler in 1932 because I want to take it by very quick but very clear stages.
I am still asking you about 1932. The question I put to you was: Did you realize that if Hitler and his accomplices came into power they wanted, and would be content only with, a full opportunity of putting their program and intentions into effect?
VON PAPEN: No, I did not know that; otherwise I would not have made the attempt in 1933 to bring them into a joint coalition program.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you have told us, I think, but I just want to get it quite clear, that your views as to what was necessary for Germany in the second half of 1932 was an easing of the political differences and strife internally, and an adjustment of relations with the Western Powers to ease the requirements of Versailles. I am trying to put it quite shortly as I understand it from you. That is right?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And were these aims—I think your first approach was to invite Hitler to be Vice Chancellor in your Government in August 1932, was it not?
VON PAPEN: That is quite right.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Hitler refused that and he refused a repetition of your offer in November 1932, is that not right?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, in order to save time I just want to see if Herr Meissner puts the position correctly in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of his affidavit. I will summarize it for you, and believe me, I will be most pleased to read anything of which you have any doubt. He puts it in this way: That in November 1932 you thought that the general situation and the Nazi Party, in particular, could be controlled if the President gave you the power to make decrees under Article 48 and you had the support of the Reichswehr and the Police, and at that time General Von Schleicher disagreed because he thought that the Reichswehr was not capable of keeping order in Germany. Is that right?
VON PAPEN: It is incorrect insofar as this process cannot be covered by any paragraph of the Constitution, but constitutes a breach of the Constitution. Otherwise it is correct.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That he might have had to use ultra-constitutional methods to keep control, is that what you mean?
VON PAPEN: Yes. As I have said here he gave me this assignment on 1 December.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, but originally, is Meissner right in saying that you desired, after you had failed to get Hitler into your Government, to rule by decree and by keeping control with the Reichswehr, and General Von Schleicher said that it could not be done?
VON PAPEN: Now, that is not true. After President Von Hindenburg had decided that he did not want to break the Constitution he appointed General Von Schleicher Reich Chancellor, as is well known. At that time Herr Von Schleicher wanted to create a majority by splitting the Party and, of course, I supported this attempt of Herr Von Schleicher’s.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just in case it is any mistake of mine may I just give you Meissner’s own words. It is Paragraph 5, Page 44 of Document Book 11a. I think, Defendant, it would be convenient for you to follow it, if you do not mind, so that there is no possibility of mistake.
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is Paragraph 5 of Herr Meissner’s statement:
“Papen’s reappointment as Chancellor by President Hindenburg would probably have taken place if he had been prepared to take up an open fight against the National Socialists, which would have involved the threat or use of force. Almost up to the time of his resignation Papen and some of the other ministers agreed on the necessity for pressing the fight against the Nazis by employing all means at the disposal of the State and taking recourse to Article 48 of the Constitution, even if this might lead to armed conflict. But the other ministers believed that such a course would lead to civil war.
“The decision was provided by Schleicher who earlier had recommended energetic action against the National Socialists even if this meant the use of the Police and the Army. Then in the decisive Cabinet meeting he abandoned this idea and declared himself ready for an understanding with Hitler.”
Is that correct?
VON PAPEN: In part it is correct, and in part it is not correct.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now tell us as shortly as you can the part which is not correct.
VON PAPEN: My reappointment as Chancellor by Hindenburg, as Herr Meissner puts it, would have been possible if I had been ready to wage an open battle against the Nazis. That is completely false historically. On 1 December I suggested to Hindenburg that he violate the Constitution and thereby wage open battle against the Nazi Party. Herr Von Schleicher contradicted that. That is the historical truth.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just so that we will have it in sequence, if you will look at Paragraph 6 of the same document, about the second sentence, it begins:
“When it became clear that Hitler was not willing to enter Schleicher’s Cabinet, and that Schleicher on his part was unable to split the National Socialist Party as he had hoped to do with the help of Gregor Strasser, the policy for which Schleicher had been appointed Chancellor was shipwrecked. Schleicher was aware that Hitler was particularly embittered against him and would never agree to co-operate with him. Therefore he changed his mind and decided to fight against the Nazis, which meant that he now wanted to pursue the policy which he had sharply opposed a few weeks before, when Papen had suggested it.”
Is that right?
VON PAPEN: That is quite right.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you see—I want to get the position quite clear. You told us that you had approached Hitler first in August; before you approached Hitler you had already legalized the position of the SA and the SS, which had been made illegal by Chancellor Brüning. You did that on 14 June, did you not?
VON PAPEN: I had lifted the prohibition, yes, but only for 4 weeks.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you think it was a good thing to lift the prohibition against the SA, the terror of the streets?
VON PAPEN: I stated expressly to the Court how the lifting of this prohibition came about. The intention was to bring Hitler and his Party to tolerate my Cabinet. The second reason was that the prohibition of these formations was one-sided, if the socialist and communist fighting formations were not also prohibited.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And on 20 July you had forcefully got rid of the Braun-Severing Government and got control of Prussia and the Prussian police under your own hand?
VON PAPEN: It cannot be expressed in that way, no.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, you had got rid of the Braun-Severing Government and got power over Prussia and the Prussian police under your own hands, had you not?
VON PAPEN: I did not have the Prussian police in my hands. The Reich Commissioner for Prussia, whom I had appointed—a very moderate man—now had charge of the Prussian police.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And under the Weimar Constitution you, as Chancellor, had the right to dictate all lines of broad policy, and the Commissioner for Prussia and every other minister had to take his broad policy from you; was that not right?
VON PAPEN: After I had appointed a commissioner, I had the right to determine the general lines of policy for Prussia.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I would just like you to look at a speech of yours which you made at Essen in November 1933, where you speak about this time.
It is Document Book 11, Page 54, and it is Page 47 of the German document book.
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, you see the introductory words:
“Ever since Providence called upon me to become the pioneer of the national resurrection and the rebirth of our homeland, I have tried to support with all my strength the work of the National Socialist movement and its leader.”
Is that true?
VON PAPEN: Absolutely, yes, that refers to...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I just asked you if it is true. I may come back to it again.
“Just as I, when I took over the Chancellorship”—that refers to you, your taking over the Chancellorship—“advocated paving the way to power for the young fighting liberation movement.”
Was your work in paving the way to power for the young fighting liberation movement to legalize the SA and to turn out the moderate Government in Prussia and centralize the control of the police?
VON PAPEN: No, that would have been a very bad comparison.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just pause there and tell me if that was not what you had done. Tell the Tribunal how you had paved the way to power for the young fighting liberation movement, if it was not by doing that.
VON PAPEN: Yes, I will say that very exactly. The program of the National Socialist Party provided for the liberation of Germany from the discrimination to which we were subjected by the Versailles Treaty. I have spoken here in detail about this. I have explained what efforts I made to obtain the co-operation of the big powers in this connection. We wanted to become a big power again, after being a second-rate nation. That was the meaning of it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I do not want to stop you, and the Tribunal will give you every opportunity of repeating what you said on that point, but I do want you to answer my question. If I am wrong in what I have put to you as the two things you have done to pave the way, just tell us quite shortly: What else had you done to pave the way for this fighting liberation movement? That is the question. What had you done?
VON PAPEN: I had asked Hitler twice to join my own Government, and, when at the end of January 1933 there was no other way out, I formed a coalition at Hindenburg’s request with the National Socialist Party.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, did you believe at that time that Hitler was absolutely necessary for Germany?
VON PAPEN: I was of the opinion that a man who in March 1932, before I was in the Government, had 36.8 percent of all German votes in the presidential election, that that man and his party had to be included in responsible government work.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But beyond his electoral success, did you think that Hitler, from his personality, aims, and program, was essential for Germany at that time?
VON PAPEN: I do not know how a party which controlled 36.8 percent of all German votes could be dealt with by means of the police.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Look at your own words in the next paragraph of that letter. You do not seem to refer to merely electoral success:
“The dear Lord has blessed Germany by giving it in times of deep distress a leader who will lead it through all crises and moments of danger, with the assured instinct of the statesman, into a happy future.”
That was, shall we say—we will not say extravagant—but rather strong language for an ex-cavalry officer to use of a political figure if he did not think, or if he did not want other people to think, that he firmly believed in him. Did you really mean what you are saying there?
VON PAPEN: May I say the following in answer? After I had formed the coalition with Hitler, I was convinced that he would keep this pact of coalition, and repeatedly—not only in this speech—I professed my allegiance to Hitler and to our joint program, and I have already told the Court why I took his part precisely in this speech. This was a question of stating before the whole world that Hitler’s solemn promise to keep peace was a serious promise to which we all subscribed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, I am not going to delay. You understand that what I am putting to you, Defendant, is this: That during the early months of your Chancellorship you took action and tried to get Hitler to come in with you. When he refused you for the second time, you then, according to Meissner, were prepared to use force against him. When that was refused to you through Schleicher, you resigned. When Schleicher took over and got into difficulties, you turned around to Hitler again. That is what I am putting to you; and it was at your request, was it not, that you and Hitler had the meeting at the house of Kurt von Schröder on 4 January 1933?
VON PAPEN: No, that is a completely false idea. Unfortunately, the Court did not permit me to go into detail about this meeting on 4 January.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, do you disagree with Von Schröder that it was at your request that the meeting took place?
VON PAPEN: Yes, I am of an entirely different opinion. This meeting took place at Hitler’s wish.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you ask him to tell us about that meeting on 4 January?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, certainly; I am going to deal with it.
Well, now, do you say that Hitler asked for the meeting? I am suggesting to you, you see, that Von Schröder, who was the intermediary, says that you asked for the meeting. Do you disagree with that?
VON PAPEN: Yes, I am of an entirely different opinion. What Herr Von Schröder says does not correspond to the facts. Herr Von Schröder...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, you tell the Tribunal who arranged it.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I object to the use of the Schröder affidavit. The document was to be submitted when the Prosecution presented its evidence. I asked that the witness be called since he is located nearby. The Court asked the Prosecution to bring the witness. The Prosecution chose not to call the witness. Now, in cross-examination, the affidavit is to be used. I do not believe that that is permissible, since the decision of the Court would be crossed. The Court decided on the use of the affidavit in conjunction with the witness. Now it would be used without the witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is quite true. I should submit that it is a different matter using it in cross-examination when Dr. Kubuschok has put in as part of his own evidence—evidence from Schulthess’ Calendar of European History—an account of this very meeting, which you will find in Volume I, Page 27, of his document book, and then, surely, if evidence of this kind has been put in a document book, I am entitled to challenge that evidence in cross-examination by the affidavit of Von Schröder.
My Lord, I am sorry, I should have gone further. My friend has put in an actual statement from Baron von Schröder, which appears on Page 26. He says that at the same time Baron von Schröder handed the following declaration to the County Bureau to correct the false press news.
“The initiative for bringing about a discussion between former Reich Chancellor Von Papen, as the representative of the widest National Conservative circles, and Herr Hitler, as the sole leader of the National Socialist movement, emanated solely from me personally.”
I should have thought that, inasmuch as a statement from Von Schröder has been put in, I am entitled to challenge that with another statement of Von Schröder.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I say something, Mr. President?
There are two entirely different things here. Sir David is referring to a document which I produced from Schulthess’ Calendar of History. That is a joint communiqué by Papen and Schröder, which was published in the papers at the time. I object, however, to an affidavit of the witness Schröder, and I pointed it out at the time. The Prosecution agreed with me at that time that Schröder was a person open to suspicion under the Indictment and that he himself was involved in the matter to such an extent that producing an affidavit is possible only if we have an opportunity to put the appropriate question to Von Schröder. At any rate, what is here is nothing but a copy of contemporary documents from the historical calendar by Schulthess. These documents, in agreement with the Prosecution, were accepted by the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, can you not put the facts without relying on the document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I can quite easily, My Lord; I will do that.
At this meeting, Defendant, did you not suggest—I am sorry, I apologize. I think we should have gotten the surroundings. First we will get where it was and who was there.
It was in Baron von Schröder’s house in Cologne, I think, or his flat in Cologne; is that not right?
VON PAPEN: Yes, but no friend of mine.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the people who were in the house—and I will come to who were present at the meeting: Hitler’s party, that is, himself, the Defendant Hess, Himmler, and Keppler, was it not?
VON PAPEN: That is possible, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Keppler is the gentleman of whom the Tribunal have heard as being in Vienna in March of 1938, is that not so?
VON PAPEN: He was a man who was always in Hitler’s entourage.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the actual discussion took place between you and Hitler, with Von Schröder present. Is that not so?
VON PAPEN: No. Perhaps I might give the Court a short account of the conference as the Court desired.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think it is easier to put the facts to you. I will take them quite shortly. I am in the hands of the Tribunal.
Do you say that Von Schröder was not present?
VON PAPEN: Schröder may have been present for parts of the conversation. I recall that in the main I talked to Hitler alone.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The meeting started at about 11:30 in the morning, did it not? The meeting between you and Hitler?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the first point that you raised was to explain to Hitler that although you had not been able to release the two Nazis who had been condemned for killing a Communist, that you had tried to get President Von Hindenburg to pardon them. Is that not right?
VON PAPEN: I recall that Hitler strongly reproached me because of the death sentence against these National Socialists.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the second point that you raised as an explanation to Hitler was that it was not through any intrigue or machinations of yours that President Von Hindenburg had refused to discuss with Hitler the question of Hitler’s becoming Chancellor. Was that not the second point; it was not you who had caused Von Hindenburg to refuse the discussion?
VON PAPEN: Yes. I explained that my offer to him of 13 August 1932 had been meant absolutely honestly.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think that was an answer to your question.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you not explain to Hitler that it was not your fault that Von Hindenburg had refused to discuss the question of making Hitler Chancellor in August of 1932...
VON PAPEN: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: ...when Hitler had met Von Hindenburg?
VON PAPEN: No, that cannot be right, for according to the evidence of historical documents Hitler had a talk with Von Hindenburg on 13 August, and Hindenburg explained to him the reasons why he did not agree to Hitler’s Chancellorship.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I am putting to you is that you told Hitler on 4 January, when you had that talk with Von Hindenburg: “I want you to understand it was not my fault that Von Hindenburg was not ready to discuss the question of your being Chancellor.” Did you not tell him that, that it was not your fault, that you thought Von Hindenburg would have been ready?
VON PAPEN: No, Mr. Prosecutor, that is what Herr Von Schröder says; but that is not right.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, what do you say was said on the point of Von Hindenburg and Hitler? If you do not accept what I suggest to you, what do you say?
VON PAPEN: What Hindenburg told Hitler can be read in all the books; that is a well-known matter of history.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, no. What we want to know—if I may say so, with great respect to the Tribunal—is what you told Hitler on 4 January. What did you tell him, if you told him anything, about the position between President Von Hindenburg and himself?
VON PAPEN: If you had permitted me to make an explanation about the course of the conference, I would already have explained that.
In the course of this talk I did nothing but call Hitler’s attention to the fact of how necessary it was to reach an agreement with Herr Von Schleicher, how necessary it was to enter his Government. In other words, I continued those efforts which I had made in 1932 to induce the Nazi Party to co-operate.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you seriously telling the Tribunal that you told Hitler that he should go into a Schleicher Cabinet?
VON PAPEN: I told him he should enter a Schleicher Cabinet.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is what I put to you. I am suggesting that is entirely wrong. What you suggested to Hitler was that it would be a sound thing for the conservatives and nationalists, whose political views coincided with yours, to join with Hitler in forming a government, that you put to him what actually happened on 30 January, you suggested it to him at this meeting. Do you say that is untrue?
VON PAPEN: Not one word is true; that is absolutely false. As proof of this, I state the following:
Immediately after the conversation I wrote a letter to Schleicher, on 4 January, in the afternoon. He probably received this letter on the morning of the 5th. However, even before Herr Von Schleicher received this letter of mine on the actual substance of the talk, the morning papers of 5 January started a tremendous campaign against me, asserting that this talk with Schröder showed disloyalty to Schleicher. Returning to Berlin, I went to see Herr Von Schleicher immediately, and I explained to him what the substance of our talk had actually been. Herr Von Schleicher then published a communiqué on this subject. This communiqué...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But he was not the only person, you know, that published a communiqué. You and Hitler published a communiqué.
I want you to remember, Defendant, I put to you that the suggestion from you was that you and Hitler would form a coalition with the conservative forces behind you, and the National Socialist forces behind Hitler. Now just look at the communiqué that you and Hitler issued.
Will you give the defendant Document Number D-637. My Lord, this is a new document, which will become GB-496.
Look at the foot of it, Defendant, the end of the document:
“Adolf Hitler and Herr Von Papen publish the following joint declaration:
“In answer to false deductions which have in many cases been circulated in the press regarding Adolf Hitler’s meeting with the former Reich Chancellor Von Papen, the undersigned declare that the conversation dealt exclusively with the question of the possibility of a great national political united front and that in particular the opinions of both parties on the present Reich Cabinet were not touched on at all in this general discussion.”
Now, Defendant, when you have been reminded of what you published yourself, is it not correct what I have put to you, that you suggested to Hitler that you should form this coalition of conservatives and nationalists who agreed with you, and the Nazi Party under Hitler?
VON PAPEN: No, Mr. Prosecutor, this communiqué states two things: In the first place, I point out that we did not speak at all about overthrowing the Schleicher Cabinet or replacing it by another government, as the press generally assumed. Then I state that it is necessary to create “a great national, political united front.” Herr Von Schleicher headed the same Cabinet that I had headed, with the same political forces. So if I called on Hitler to enter this Cabinet, then that is exactly the same political combination as if I had asked him to join my Cabinet.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I am not going to argue with you. If you say that that communiqué is your way of expressing that you had asked Hitler to take the Nazis into Von Schleicher’s Government, and that you had not discussed forming the coalition, if you say that that is what that communiqué expresses, I have no further questions, and I will pass on to another point. I have made my suggestion, and I suggest the communiqué bears it out.
But now, let us come to the next action of yours. Do you deny that during January you were active in making contact with Hitler, and on Hitler’s behalf with President Von Hindenburg, in order to bring Hitler into the Government? Or do you agree with that?
VON PAPEN: That is true, and I will say in what respect. I had two official talks with Hindenburg. On 9 January, when I returned to Berlin, I went from Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher to Reich President Von Hindenburg. Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher, being of the opinion that in the Schröder talk I had been disloyal to him, had asked Von Hindenburg not to receive me any more. I informed Von Hindenburg of the actual contents of the Schröder talk and, after I had reached an agreement with Von Schleicher, Hindenburg was also convinced that the whole thing had been a big misunderstanding.
Then, to the best of my memory, I did not talk officially to Herr Von Hindenburg about these governmental matters again until 22 January.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, just let us see what the Chief of the Presidential Chancellery says about it, and see whether he can reinforce your memory. Would you look at Herr Meissner’s affidavit, at the second part of Paragraph 6?
[A document was handed to the defendant.]
My Lord, it is 11a, Page 45, about 7 lines from the foot of the page.
[Turning to the defendant.] You see, just after the first section of Paragraph 6, Defendant, the second part, it begins:
“Schleicher first made these suggestions to Hindenburg in the middle of January....”
Then the next sentence is:
“In the meantime Papen had returned to Berlin and, through arrangements with Hindenburg’s son, had several talks with the President. When Schleicher renewed his demand for emergency powers, Hindenburg declared that he was unable to give him such blank authority and must reserve for himself decisions in every individual case. Schleicher, for his part, said that under these circumstances he was unable to stay in the Government and tendered his resignation on 28 January 1933.”
Then, Paragraph 7:
“In the middle of January, when Schleicher first asked for exceptional powers, Hindenburg was not aware of the meetings between Papen and Hitler, particularly the meeting which had taken place in the house of the Cologne banker, Kurt von Schröder. In the second part of January Papen played an increasingly important role in the house of the Reich President, but in spite of Papen’s persuasions Hindenburg was extremely hesitant, until the end of January, to appoint Hitler Chancellor. He wanted to have Papen as Chancellor once more. Papen finally won him to Hitler with the argument that the representatives of the other right-wing parties which would belong to the government would restrict Hitler’s freedom of action. In addition Papen expressed his misgivings that, if the present opportunity were once again neglected, a revolt of the National Socialists and civil war would be likely.”
Is that right?
VON PAPEN: No.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I make a comment on the use of the Meissner affidavit? The case is similar to but not quite the same as the Schröder case. The Meissner affidavit was not offered to the Court during the proceedings. But during the Prosecution’s case it came to my knowledge that a Meissner affidavit was to be used. I talked to the Prosecution and pointed out that I would not under any circumstances be satisfied with the submitting of the Meissner affidavit, but would insist on calling Meissner as a witness. The reason is the same. The personality of the witness Meissner, who was very involved in these affairs, makes extreme caution advisable. The Prosecution told me that they would not use the affidavit, and finally told me that they would not call Schröder as a witness. I had no reason to call the witness myself. Now I am in a position where the affidavit is being submitted in cross-examination, and I am unable to question or expose the suspect witness Meissner before the Court.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, concerning the position with regard to this affidavit, Major Barrington tells me that he did not have it when he presented the individual case against Von Papen. I am using it now. If the Tribunal thinks there is sufficient divergence between what the witness accepts and the affidavit to justify it, I have not the slightest objection to Dr. Kubuschok’s making application for Meissner to be cross-examined.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about the allegation of Dr. Kubuschok that the Prosecution says they were not going to use the affidavit?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did not say that. Major Barrington, who was with me, had no recollection of my saying that at all. Major Barrington certainly never said that. It was never our intention, because it clearly was a most important document for us to use.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The 28th of November. We gave a copy to Dr. Kubuschok.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
Mr. President, may I explain? The British Prosecution did not make a binding statement that they would not submit the affidavit and not call the witness. I always said that if an affidavit were to be used, I would call the witness. I asked the Prosecution repeatedly, “Are you going to call the witness or not?” They said, “No.” Then I said, “Then I am not interested in it. We will drop this whole subject, and I will not call the witness.”
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit seems to have been made a long time ago.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, it was almost as soon as the Tribunal began. I think that perhaps you ought to use the facts and not use the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am perfectly prepared to do whatever the Tribunal wants. If there is any question, and Dr. Kubuschok wants Meissner for cross-examination, as far as I am concerned, he can have him. I mean, I am in a slightly different position from that with respect to Von Schröder. As far as fairness is concerned, I want Your Lordship to understand that certainly none of my staff thought for a moment that the Defense understood we were not going to use it, because we always intended to use it. We gave a copy of this affidavit to the Defense so that there would be ample notice of this affidavit.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, that was done, and I gratefully acknowledged it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am really anxious not to occupy too much of the Tribunal’s time. I would rather go on and put the facts in and save any discussion about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, do that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think you said, Defendant—you put it that you had two meetings with President Von Hindenburg and then, I think, after 18 January you had meetings with Hitler, and after 22 January you had meetings with the Defendant Göring, as he said in his evidence, is that not so?
VON PAPEN: No, I did not meet with Hitler from 4 January until 22 January.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will call it about 4 days, the dates of the Nazi Party say that you began negotiations on the 18th, but we will not quarrel about a day or two. The crucial meeting was the meeting which was arranged with Oskar von Hindenburg at the Defendant Von Ribbentrop’s house, was it not?
VON PAPEN: It was a preliminary talk; it was at any rate the first contact with the National Socialists, with Hitler, and with Göring.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And Oskar von Hindenburg had private conversations with Hitler which lasted for about an hour, at that meeting at Von Ribbentrop’s house; is that not so?
VON PAPEN: That is possible. I do not recall it any more.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And thereafter, the decision was come to that Hitler would become Chancellor in the new Government and that he would bring into the Government the Defendant Frick as Minister of the Interior, and the Defendant Göring as Minister without Portfolio, and he himself would head the Government as Chancellor?
VON PAPEN: No; on the 22d, we did not reach any agreement as to this; rather we limited ourselves to...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I said only within a few days that had been agreed between you, had it not?
VON PAPEN: Yes, but it is very important to establish—forgive me if I add this—that we did not begin these talks until after it was certain that Herr Von Schleicher could not form a government, after the attempt to split the Nazi Party had failed. That is very important.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, are you telling the Tribunal that at this time you did what you have agreed you have done to bring Hitler into power, simply because he was head of the biggest party in the Reichstag, or because you thought he was the most suitable man to be Chancellor of Germany at that date; which was your motive?
VON PAPEN: My motive, Mr. Prosecutor, was very simple. In the situation existing after 23 January, there were only two possibilities, either to violate the Constitution, which would result in civil war, or to form a government headed by Hitler. I believe I explained that in great detail to the Court.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I really want to know, Defendant, is that at this time you had had these contacts with Hitler. You have been Chancellor of Germany yourself. At this time did you think that Hitler personally, and Hitler’s aims and intentions and personality, were a good thing for Germany to have as Chancellor? It is a perfectly simple question. I want a straight answer. Did you think it was a good thing to have Hitler, as you knew him then, as Chancellor of Germany?
VON PAPEN: To that I can say only that the coalition which I formed on behalf of the Reich President was a forced solution. There was no question of whether it was better or worse. We had to accept it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, just let us see. I think you said that you were not certain that Hitler would eliminate opposition before he came into power. How long did it take you, after Hitler became Chancellor, to find out that his desire was to eliminate all opposition?
VON PAPEN: I realized that finally when I made the last attempt in my Marburg speech to hold him to the joint program, and when this attempt failed...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was 18 months later, on 17 June 1934. Are you telling the Tribunal that it took you 17 months to realize that Hitler wanted to break down the opposition?
VON PAPEN: No, I told the Court...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let me remind you of one or two things. Do you remember Herr Ernst Heilmann, who had been the leader of the Social Democrats in the Prussian Diet?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He was, I think, for 10 years a member of the Prussian Diet with you. He went into a concentration camp at once and was treated with the most terrible cruelty, was he not?
VON PAPEN: I learned of that later, here, for the first time. I did not know it at that time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you telling the Tribunal that you did not know in 1933 that Ernst Heilmann went into a concentration camp?
VON PAPEN: I knew only that a number of political opponents, Communists and Socialists, had been sent to concentration camps by the Gestapo. That I knew.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, answer my question. Here was the leader of the Social Democrats in the Prussian Diet, a man who sat in Parliament with you for 10 years. Do you say that you did not know that he had gone to a concentration camp?
VON PAPEN: I do not recall, no. I believe I learned of it only here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, let me give you a famous name, Karl von Ossietzki, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, the author and journalist. Did you not know that he had gone into a concentration camp?
VON PAPEN: I remember Herr Ossietzki only as the publisher of a periodical; otherwise I know nothing about him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You did not know that he was the 1936 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, did you?
VON PAPEN: I could not possibly have known that in 1933.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, but you did not know he won it later on? Did you not know that he was put in prison?
VON PAPEN: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought I might have connected his name with you. Let me take somebody else. Take Dr. Ernst Eckstein, who had been a Reichstag Deputy, who was a well-known lawyer from Breslau. Did you not know that he was put in a concentration camp?
VON PAPEN: No, I did not know Dr. Eckstein, unfortunately.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Or Dr. Joachim, the Social Democrat lawyer from Berlin. Did you know he was put in a concentration camp?
VON PAPEN: No, I did not know him and I did not know this either.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, apart from individuals, did you not know that within a few months of Hitler’s becoming Chancellor, hundreds, if not thousands, of Social Democrats and Communists went into a concentration camp?
VON PAPEN: Thousands?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, let us say hundreds, if you like. That is the figure Defendant Göring agreed to, so let us take, as the inside figure, hundreds of Social Democrats and Communists. Minister Severing put it at 1,500 of each; did you not know that?
VON PAPEN: I recall very exactly that the Defendant Göring came to the Cabinet one day after he had had the headquarters of the Communist Party, the Liebknecht Haus, taken over by the Police. He told the Cabinet that he had found a great number of documents which showed to what extent the Communists and other elements were trying to disturb public order and overthrow the new Government.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now will you answer my questions. Did you not know that hundreds of Social Democrats and Communists had been put in concentration camps?
VON PAPEN: No, I did not know there were hundreds. I knew that individual leaders had been thrown into concentration camps.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you mentioned, in giving your evidence to the Court, that the Amnesty Decree of 21 March was only the sort of thing that had happened before; that was a concretely one-sided amnesty, was it not? It was an amnesty to those who had fought in the national revolution, that is, an amnesty for Nazis. It was not an amnesty for Communists or Social Democrats or anyone who had been on the other side, was it?
VON PAPEN: Quite true, yes. It was an amnesty for the people who had worked against the formation of the Government.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you knew these things. Well, in your speech at Essen, let us just look at it again; your own account of what you have done. It is Page 54 of Document Book 11. You just told me that it was true what you said in that speech—this was in November—that you had tried to support with all your strength the work of the National Socialist movement and its leader and, if you will notice, you say later on that you were “selected by a gracious fate to put the hand of our Chancellor and Führer into the hand of our beloved Field Marshal.” By November 1933 you must have had a very good idea about the way that Hitler, your Chancellor and Führer, was dealing with those who were politically opposed to him. Why were you—you told us your point of view—why were you saying how proud you were to have supported with all your strength the work of the National Socialist Party unless you agreed with it?
VON PAPEN: Hitler’s and the Party’s acts in violation of the coalition policy we opposed to the best of our power within the Cabinet. Certainly, we knew of these violations. I, personally, in many speeches which have not been submitted to the Court, referred to these violations, but as long as this coalition pact was in existence I had to hope that we would put our views through, and only for this reason did I therefore assure Hitler of my loyalty so that he, on his part, would be loyal to the others of us.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I just give you the last words. Here you are appealing in a careful and special appeal to your Catholic fellow citizens, and you say:
“Let us in this hour say to the Führer and the new Germany that we believe in him and his work.”
Why did you talk like that when you must have known, in November 1933, that his program was to smash opposition, smash his political opponents, smash the trade unions and put himself in complete control of Germany? Why were you making speeches like that unless you believed and agreed with everything Hitler wanted to do?
VON PAPEN: I will tell you that very precisely. You know that in July of that year I concluded the Concordat, and that I received Hitler’s assurance that he would make religious peace the basis of his policy. The more conservative elements could be brought to back the Government, so much the better it would be for the fulfillment of my program.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If that is your answer, we will pass to another point. I think you said today, or you said a few moments ago, that you began to realize what sort of team you were running with when you made the Marburg speech on 17 June. Now, please do not think I am being offensive...
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I request of the Tribunal that tomorrow and the day after tomorrow my client, Herr Von Neurath, be absent from the session so that he may prepare and complete his own defense?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, you have told the Tribunal a considerable amount about your Marburg speech. Was one of your associates a gentleman called Jung?
VON PAPEN: Yes, that is quite correct.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And—believe me I do not mean it in any offensive way—Herr Jung had helped you considerably with the composition of the Marburg speech, had he not?
VON PAPEN: Herr Jung quite frequently drafted outlines for speeches of mine, and the same applies to the Marburg speech.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. He was shot after the 30th of June, was he not?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He was a man for whom you had not only great affection, but for whose political views—I think you would call him a progressive conservative—you had great respect and agreement, is that not so?
VON PAPEN: Perfectly right, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have told us about Herr Von Bose. He was shot. Herr Von Tschirschsky was arrested by two different lots of people, was he not, after this occasion?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Was Herr Von Savigny arrested?
VON PAPEN: I cannot remember. I do not think so.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, in all—it does not matter about the names—there were two members of your staff who were shot, and three were arrested, were they not?
VON PAPEN: One member of my staff was shot, and two were arrested. Herr Jung was not a member of my staff.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Herr Jung was not a member of your staff, but he was a close associate of yours. Now...
VON PAPEN: He was an associate who, as I said, quite often assisted me, when I was very busy, by drafting outlines for speeches, and with whom I exchanged conservative ideas.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And, of course, it is common knowledge that General Von Schleicher and his wife were also shot, and—I think my recollection is right—that General Von Bredow was shot too, was he not?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you were placed under arrest, as you have told us, for 3 days, and I think your files were taken, were they not?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did this performance shake your faith in the regime?
VON PAPEN: My faith in what? I beg your pardon.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did this performance shake your faith in the regime and in Hitler?
VON PAPEN: Quite. I explained to the Tribunal yesterday that by this action the Pact of 30 January had been broken.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you offered your resignation on 2 July, I think.
VON PAPEN: No, I offered it even earlier.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You had already offered it on 18 or 19 June, and you reaffirmed your offer on 2 July.
VON PAPEN: Quite right.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Quite right; my mistake. Now, do you tell the Tribunal that you reaffirmed your offer of resignation because you had lost your faith in the regime, or because of the insult to your own pride, because of your being arrested and having your files taken and your secretaries shot?
VON PAPEN: I offered my resignation, first, because of the unbearable affront to my own person and my staff and, secondly, because by this action the Pact of 30 January had been broken by Hitler and because any political co-operation with him in domestic matters had become impossible for me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Well, just look at Document Number D-714, will you. My Lord, this will be GB-497.
This is a letter from you to Hitler written on 4 July, and you say:
“Yesterday at 10 in the morning I had the honor of informing you orally of my attitude towards the events of the last days, after my term in police custody had been suspended on 2 July at 9 o’clock in the evening. At this time I pointed out to you that I could not possibly take my seat in the Cabinet until my honor and that of my officials has been restored.
“On 30 June five of my co-workers were arrested; one of them was shot. My files have been confiscated, my office sealed, and my private secretary also arrested. This is still the position at the moment.
“A procedure of this kind against the second highest official of the State could be justified only if he and his officials were guilty of complicity in the plot against Führer and nation.
“It is in the interest not only of protecting my personal honor but even more so of protecting the authority and decency of the State that either the guilt in this case be proved at once or honor restored.”
Then you say:
“The events have become known abroad, in part in distorted form....”
And that for that reason not a single hour should be lost. You appeal to his soldierly sense of honor, and you ask that the case should be put in the hands of the Prosecutor General, or a communiqué published stating:
“....that the investigations had established no evidence of any complicity in the plot, in order that my honor and that of my officials thus be restored.
“If you do not wish to undertake these steps, my remaining in the Cabinet any longer would be an impossibility.”
Now look at the rest of the letter.
“I had placed my office at your disposal, Chancellor, as early as 18 and 19 June. I can ask for my dismissal with a much lighter heart today since the work jointly commenced by us on 30 January 1933 now appears to have been made secure against further revolts. At the same time I request to be relieved of my position as Commissioner for the Saar.
“I assume that you will make your decision regarding the restoration of my honor, for which I am asking you, within the next few hours.
“I remain loyally devoted to you and to your work for our Germany.”
Was it true that it lightened your heart that the work of Hitler now appeared to be secured against further revolts?
VON PAPEN: I did not understand the question.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Is it true what you say there, that it lightened your heart that the work of Hitler now appeared to be secured against further revolt?
VON PAPEN: Yes, I was under the impression that there had been a revolution which he had suppressed. This letter was written one day after I was released from custody, and I had the feeling there had been a revolution and now it was settled.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you know that General Von Schleicher and his wife had been killed?
VON PAPEN: I do not think I knew that at this moment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You just knew that Herr Von Bose had been shot?
VON PAPEN: Yes, that is mentioned in the letter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you knew there was not the slightest reason on earth for General Von Schleicher, Jung, and Bose being shot, did you not?
VON PAPEN: No, I did not know the reason. As far as I remember...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, you knew that there was no reason, did you not?
VON PAPEN: No, to my question regarding the reason Hitler replied that Herr Von Bose had been involved in a matter of giving information to the foreign press.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. So that we may take it that you were speaking with your head and your heart, and with complete confidence and sincerity when you said: “I remain loyally devoted to you and to your work for our Germany,” on 4 July 1934, is that right?
VON PAPEN: Yes, because I had to hope that his further work would not lead to any disadvantages for Germany, even though he might separate himself from me as far as matters of domestic policy were concerned.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You need not go on with the letters. You may take it that I shall deal with them in time, so do not read the others in advance.
As a result of that, you saw Hitler on that day, did you not?
Would you mind just answering my questions. I assure you I will take you through these letters.
You saw Hitler on that day?
VON PAPEN: I saw him earlier.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But you also saw him after.
VON PAPEN: I saw him the day before. In the letter it says...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, but you saw him after this letter, and did you not agree with Hitler to remain Vice Chancellor until September, and that you would then take employment under the Foreign Office?
VON PAPEN: I do not believe so, no.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you do not believe that, look at the next letter which is D-715, which becomes Exhibit GB-498.
This is a letter of 10 July, and it begins:
“Our agreement of 4 July”—that is the date of the last letter—“to the effect that I am to retain my position as Vice Chancellor until September and then be employed in the Foreign Service was based between us on the following condition: The immediate and complete restoration of my authority and honor, which will enable me to remain in the service of the Reich, in whatever capacity.”
Now, do you tell the Tribunal that on 10 July you did not know that General Von Schleicher and his wife had been killed and General Von Bredow had been killed and that Jung as well as Bose had been murdered? You say you did not know on 10 July?
VON PAPEN: I am not denying by any means that I knew that, but as I have already told the Tribunal I demanded that an investigation regarding all these matters be conducted so that we might know the precise reasons for them.
It was stated to the public that Schleicher was shot in self-defense, so that all these matters at the time were not at all clear.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But it is correct, of course, as you write here, that you had agreed with Hitler to carry on as Vice Chancellor until September and then to be employed in the Foreign Service on this condition, is that right?
VON PAPEN: No, that is not correct, for I have already explained...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is your letter, Defendant, it is your own letter.
VON PAPEN: Yes, but this letter was written because Hitler had promised me a clarification, an investigation which would enable me, after my honor had been restored and all these crimes cleared up, to remain in the service of the Reich. But that was never done.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Von Bose and Jung had been working with you in close co-operation and if anyone knew whether they were innocent men or not it was you. Why did you, with that knowledge, agree with Hitler to carry on as Vice Chancellor and then to enter the Foreign Service?
VON PAPEN: I have stated that I had resigned. The sentence dealing with my possibly remaining in office is only a supposition.
De facto I had resigned and de facto I did not exercise any governmental activity from 4 July on.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just look at the next words in this letter:
“To this end I submitted to you on 5 July my proposal for a statement to be issued officially, explaining why the arrest of a number of officials of my staff had taken place and how Von Bose had lost his life, and averring the nonparticipation of all the members of my staff in the SA revolt. This statement requested by me was approved and published by you only in part, inasmuch as the release and innocence of Herr Von Tschirschsky, Herr Von Savigny, and of my private secretary, Stotzingen, were announced.”
You had put before Hitler your own version and asked him to pass it and he would not pass it. He would not clear the people who were working closely with you and yet you had agreed with him. You had agreed with him to continue as Vice Chancellor and to go into the Foreign Service.
You see what I am putting to you? I am putting to you quite clearly that all you cared about was your own personal position, your dignity being restored. You were prepared to serve these murderers so long as your own dignity was put right.
VON PAPEN: Mr. Prosecutor, I cannot give better proof for my intentions to separate myself from the regime than lies in the fact of my actual resignation. If everything had been clarified, if the fact that my employees and officials had been innocent when they were arrested and murdered had been made clear, then perhaps it might have been possible for me to remain in the service of the Reich, but not as Vice Chancellor, from which position I had resigned. But you can see from this letter that Hitler made no attempt to give such a declaration.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And as a result of his making no such attempts you wrote an even more fulsome statement of your admiration for his actions. Look at Document Number D-716, which will become Exhibit GB-499.
“Most honored Reich Chancellor:
“I reflected a long time on our conversation of yesterday, and the statements made to me, in particular what you told me about your intentions regarding your Reichstag speech, have occupied me constantly in view of the enormous importance of the speech and its special effect on Germany’s position in the sphere of foreign politics as well. I therefore feel impelled, in fact I feel it my duty, to let you know my opinion, as I have frequently done on previous occasions.
“You explained to me yesterday that you intend publicly to accept responsibility for everything that happened in connection with the crushing of the SA revolt. Allow me to tell you how manly and humanly great I consider this intention. The crushing of the revolt and your courageous and firm personal intervention have met with nothing but recognition throughout the entire world.
“What are, however, at the moment a burden on Germany are solely those events that took place outside the bounds of your own initiative and without any immediate connection with the revolt, such as the examples you yourself gave me. This has been given expression particularly in the British and American press.”
Then, leaving out three paragraphs, you say:
“Allow me to assure you once again that my person or my position, except for the restoration of my personal honor, do not matter at all and are at issue only insofar as the events in the Vice Chancellery on 30 June are being regarded by the public as the consequence of a breach between you and me.”
Then, after some more of the same you finish up:
“With unchanged admiration and loyalty....”
Did it not come to this, Defendant, that so long as you could get your dignity cleared it did not matter whether your collaborators were shot or the Government of which you had been a member had adopted murder as an instrument of policy? These things did not matter to you so long as you kept your own dignity and the chance of a future job in the Foreign Service.
VON PAPEN: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, why did you write stuff like that to the head of a gang of murderers who had murdered your collaborators? Why did you write to him:
“The crushing of the revolt, your courageous and firm personal intervention have met with nothing but recognition throughout the entire world.”
Why did you write it?
VON PAPEN: Because at that time it was my opinion that there actually had been a revolution and that Hitler had crushed it. That on the other hand numerous people had been murdered, members of my own office staff, that was something about which Hitler was to ascertain the truth.
When he told me that he himself would assume responsibility, I considered this an excellent act on his part, though not, as it was actually done afterwards by Hitler, when he stated to the Reichstag that these events were proper. I understood it to mean that if he himself assumed responsibility for these events he would clarify them to the world and not state to the world in a law without any investigation that they were proper.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you tell the Tribunal that on 12 July you thought there was any doubt or any possibility that your friend Jung could be guilty of treason against the Reich or of a plot against Hitler? Did you believe that for an instant?
VON PAPEN: Herr Hitler explained to me at that time that the shooting of Bose was first of all only a...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I asked first of all about yourself. I asked, did you believe for a moment that Jung had been guilty of treason against the Reich or of a plot against Hitler?
VON PAPEN: No, certainly not.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, you knew very well that Hitler was worried from the point of view of foreign opinion as to publicity being given to the effect of a break between you and him, did you not?
You knew that the support, after the blood purge, of an ex-Chancellor of the German Reich and, as you have told us, a Catholic of old family with great position amongst the German population—the support of someone of that kind would be of great value to him after this blood purge, which had caused foreign opinion to be very disturbed, did you not? You knew that?
VON PAPEN: No, it seems clear from this letter that I constantly asked Herr Hitler to ascertain why and for what reasons action had been taken in this manner against my associates and me. He was to explain this to the world.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Herr Von Papen, if you, as an ex-Chancellor of the Reich and, as you said yourself, one of the leading Catholic laymen of Germany, an ex-officer of the Imperial Army, had said at that time “I am not going to be associated with murder, cold-blooded murder as an instrument of policy,” you might at some risk to yourself have brought down the whole of this rotten regime, might you not?
VON PAPEN: That is possible, but had I said it publicly, then quite probably I would have disappeared somewhere just as my associates did. And, apart from that, the world knew from my resignation that I did not identify myself with this affair.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let us see what you were writing. If you look at Document Number D-717, which will become Exhibit GB-500, that emphasizes the importance that Hitler was attaching to your adherence. If you will look at the second paragraph—I will read it, it is quite short. You say:
“I hope you have received my letter of yesterday and that you received it in the spirit in which it was intended.
“Today I ask you, for personal reasons, to excuse me from participating in the session of the Reichstag. Yesterday you were, indeed, of the opinion that my staying away might create the impression that there was disagreement between us. But this impression can surely not arise if in your statements you refer to the case of the Vice Chancellery in the way in which you promised me you would.
“During all these days I have behaved with the greatest possible reserve towards the outside world and have shown myself as little as possible, and you will surely understand my not wanting to appear in public again until every shadow has been removed from me.
“I have also asked the Party Chairman to excuse my absence.”
Who is the Party Chairman? Is that the Chairman of the Nazi Party?
VON PAPEN: No, I believe the Chairman of the Party was Dr. Frick.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It was the Government Party, was it?
VON PAPEN: Yes. The letter shows that I requested Hitler to give an account of the actions undertaken against me and my associates before the Reichstag.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You wanted a statement saying that you had never swerved from your loyalty towards him; that is what you wanted, was it not?
VON PAPEN: No, I wanted...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you disagree with that, look at Document Number D-718, which will become Exhibit GB-501, and see what you say the next day:
“Most honored Chancellor:
“After you have given the nation and the world last night your great account of the internal developments which led up to 30 June, I feel the need to shake your hand, as I did on 30 January 1933, and to thank you for all you have given anew to the German nation by crushing the intended second revolution and by announcing irrevocable and statesmanlike principles.
“Painful, tragic circumstances have prevented me for the first time since 30 January from appearing at your side. You yourself excused me and showed understanding for the fact that a Vice Chancellor cannot take his seat on the ministerial bench as long as he finds himself subjected to special treatment. (My confiscated files have still not been returned to me, in spite of Göring’s and your own orders.)
“Your statements clearly show to history that any suspicion of a connection between my person and these treasonable practices was an intentional defamation and calumniation. I thank you for stating this.”
Then, after saying that people are still believing it, in the penultimate paragraph you say:
“I should, therefore, be grateful if you could soon find the occasion to point out positively that up to today”—that was 14 July—“I have loyally stood by and fought for you, your leadership, and your work for Germany.”
Now, Defendant, do you deny what I put to you a moment ago, that all you wanted was your loyalty to the regime to be made clear to the world? It was not worrying you at all that Von Schleicher and his wife, and Von Bose, and Jung, and all these other people had been murdered by the Government of the Reich; otherwise, why did you write a letter like that?
VON PAPEN: I wrote this letter, as the letter itself shows, because I was still being accused of having agreed to the attempts on the lives of Goebbels and Göring and of various other conspiracies. That is the reason why it was important to me to have Chancellor Hitler state that I was not involved in any conspiracies against him in connection with the various actions of this revolt. Of course, first of all I dealt in this letter with my position and the position of my associates. The restoration of General Von Schleicher’s honor was the task of the Army, and not my task.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I will come to that when we deal with the Army, but at the moment, you see, what I am putting to you is this: That even after you knew that your own friends had been murdered, to say nothing of your old colleagues, your own friends had been murdered, you again and again protest your loyalty and the fact that you had always worked and co-operated with Hitler in all his work. Was that honest? Is what is contained in these letters honest, or do you say they were just lies in order to protect yourself?
VON PAPEN: No, I wrote that because, in fact, the entire action against me, Himmler’s attempt to murder me, the fact that I was arrested, were all based on the supposition that I had participated in a conspiracy against Hitler’s Government. It had therefore to be clarified that as long as I was a member of this Government, I had acted toward it with absolute loyalty. That is the reason why I was asking for this clarification.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you remember your learned counsel, on your instructions, putting an interrogatory to Baron von Lersner? It is Number 2(a) on Page 212 of Defense Document Book 3, Question 2(a):
“Did the Defendant Von Papen continue to hope to change Hitler’s policy to his own way of thinking by impregnating it with conservative ideas, until the murders taking place on 30 June 1934 and Hitler’s justification of them had convinced him that his efforts and his hope had been in vain?”
And Baron von Lersner, not unnaturally, answers “yes” to that question.
Does that correctly express your point of view “....until the murders taking place on 30 June 1934 and Hitler’s approval of them had convinced him....”—that is you—“that your efforts and your hopes had been in vain”? Do you agree with that? It is an interrogatory put by your own learned counsel.
VON PAPEN: Yes, I agree with that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If that is your view, why did you write these letters expressing this fulsome admiration of Hitler?
VON PAPEN: What I wished to express in the interrogatory, or rather what I wanted Herr Von Lersner to be asked was the following: Is it correct...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The answers the witness expects are in his question. It is one of the best examples of a leading question I have ever seen. You say that your interrogatory expresses your view, do you not?
VON PAPEN: I might say that if I were of this opinion that with the 30th of June it became apparent that further co-operation with Hitler was no longer possible and that, therefore, the coalition program which had been agreed upon between us had collapsed...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say again that you have an unchanged loyalty and admiration and that you have co-operated?
“I remain loyally devoted to you for your work, for our Germany.”
If your view is put in that interrogatory, that the foundations of your faith had been shaken, why do you write that you remain loyally devoted to Hitler’s work for Germany?
VON PAPEN: I have already told you and the Tribunal that I hoped that, in spite of the collapse of the domestic situation, Hitler would at least in the field of foreign policy pursue a reasonable course. He was there; we could not remove him. We had to reckon with Hitler and his Government. All the gentlemen continued to co-operate; I was the only one who stepped out. All these letters with which you are trying to prove I am insincere or that I am not truthful, or, as you call it, that I am a liar or a deceiver, cannot deny to the world the fact that I resigned at that time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you took another job within 11 days. Eleven days after the last letter you had taken the job of representing this—well, I will not say a gang of murderers—this Government which had adopted murder as an instrument of policy, as Plenipotentiary to Austria, within 11 days of your last letter.
Let us just see whether the murder motif did not come into that. Did you think that Hitler had been behind the July Putsch in Austria, which had resulted in the murder of Chancellor Dollfuss?
VON PAPEN: I know that Herr Habicht, who had been appointed by him to lead the Austrian Party, at any rate had some connection with this affair. That Herr Hitler himself had approved this act, that was not known to me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, did you think that the German Foreign Office had been behind the July Putsch?
VON PAPEN: The German Foreign Office, in my opinion, had nothing at all to do with the July Putsch.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you think that Dr. Rieth—if I have his name, yes, Rieth, the German Minister in Vienna—did you think that he had been behind the Putsch?
VON PAPEN: No. I knew only that Dr. Rieth had negotiated with the Austrian Government.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You did not know that Hitler had been behind it. You deny that the German Foreign Office had been behind it. You did not know that Dr. Rieth had been behind it. Just look at Page 96 of Document Book 11a. It is Pages 79 and 80 of the German book.
This is a report, your report a year later. I am taking it slightly out of time because of this sentence where you recapitulate the facts, and if you will look at paragraph—I think it is the last paragraph on Page 79 in the German text.
My Lord, it is the second last paragraph on Page 96 in the Document Book 11a.
“The hope that the personal conversation between the Führer and Reich Chancellor and the head of the Italian State at Stresa would lead to a settlement of German-Italian differences has been changed into the exact opposite by the threatening attitude taken up by Mussolini because of the assassination of his friend Dollfuss, and by the partial mobilization of Italian corps on the Brenner. It became apparent that the attempt to ‘re-establish normal and friendly relations’ by sending me to Vienna was not immediately possible after what had just happened. Mistrust of the forcible methods of the Austrian NSDAP”—now look at the next words—“influenced, as became more and more apparent from the trials which were held, by leading Reich-German persons, was too strong. The impression caused by the terrorist methods and the death of the Federal Chancellor was too lasting in the widest circles.”
Now, Defendant, tell the Tribunal who the leading German personalities were to whom you were referring as supporting the Putsch in July 1934 and the murder of Dollfuss? Who were they?
VON PAPEN: By no means the former German Minister to Vienna, Herr Rieth, but only Herr Habicht and the persons subordinate to him who at the time were running the Austrian Nazi policy at Hitler’s order.
But I might point out that it says in this sentence that mistrust of the methods of force employed by the Austrian Nazis had become more and more apparent from the trials held, and that is something which we discovered a year later and not at the time when I was given the task.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I want to know is this. My question was: Who were the leading German personalities? You are not going to tell the Tribunal that Habicht, who was a liaison man with the NSDAP in Austria, was a leading Reich-German personality. Who were they? You are not going to say that Austrian Nazis were leading Reich-German personalities. Who were they? Who were the leading Reich-German personalities that you were talking about?
VON PAPEN: The leading personality was, no doubt, Herr Habicht. But this letter was written to tell Hitler: “Here, look what you have done.”
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you seriously want the Tribunal to understand this as a statement on which they will judge your veracity, that by a leading Reich-German personality you mean Herr Habicht, and you have no one else in mind although you use the plural? Is that what you want the Tribunal to understand? I do not know if you remember, Defendant—just think of it before you answer—but General Glaise-Horstenau could not even remember Habicht’s name when he was giving his evidence.
You cannot seriously mean that you meant a liaison agent with the Austrian NSDAP when you referred to prominent Reich-German personalities. Surely you can do better than that.
Think again and tell the Tribunal whom you had in mind.
VON PAPEN: Mr. Prosecutor, Herr Habicht was not an agent. Herr Habicht had been appointed by Hitler as the leader of the Party in Austria, so I am surely justified in calling him a leading personality. If Herr Hitler himself had knowledge of these matters at that time, then when reading my letter he would know what I was hinting at.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Even if I were to allow you Herr Habicht, which I certainly never would, he is only one man. Who were the others? You referred to Reich-German personalities. Who were the other people who had been behind this Putsch and this murder?
VON PAPEN: Quite candidly I must tell you that after the 12 or 15 years which have passed since then I can no longer remember which people I might have had in mind when I wrote that. At any rate, the purpose of the letter was—and you will appreciate this—to tell Hitler that the methods which had been employed were doing more damage and were much more incredible than we had known at the time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I will accept it. We will go on from the point that you knew there were some unspecified prominent Reich-German personalities who had been behind the murder of Dollfuss.
Now, let us just, advancing from that, let us consider what you say with regard to Mr. Messersmith. As I understand it, you deny—if I may say so, with some vigor—what Mr. Messersmith says regarding you. Therefore, let us just look at what he says and see how much of it you can seriously suggest is not true.
I think I gave Your Lordship the references yesterday. The reference to the affidavit 1760-PS is Document Book 11, and Page 22 is the relevant part; and the other affidavit, Document 2385-PS, is 11a, Page 24. This is rather shorter.
I think the one that I would like you to look at, Defendant, is 1760-PS, and I think it begins on Page 3. I want you to come to the bit in the affidavit—and I am afraid I cannot give you the exact German place—where he deals with yourself.
It is Page 22, My Lord.
The paragraph begins:
“That the policy of Anschluss remained wholly unchanged was confirmed to me by Franz Von Papen when he arrived in Vienna as German Minister.”
Have you got the passage, Defendant?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, if you look down a few lines in Mr. Messersmith’s statement, he says:
“When I did call on Von Papen in the German Legation he greeted me with: ‘Now you are in my Legation and I can control the conversation.’ In the baldest and most cynical manner he then proceeded to tell me that all of southwestern Europe, to the borders of Turkey, was Germany’s natural hinterland, and that he had been charged with the mission of facilitating German economic and political control over all this region for Germany. He blandly and directly said that getting control of Austria was to be the first step. He definitely stated that he was in Austria to undermine and weaken the Austrian Government, and from Vienna to work towards the weakening of the governments in the other states to the south and southeast. He said that he intended to use his reputation as a good Catholic to gain influence with certain Austrians, such as Cardinal Innitzer, toward that end. He said that he was telling me this because the German Government was bound on this objective of getting this control of southwestern Europe and there was nothing which could stop it, and that our own policy and that of France and England was not realistic.”
Then Mr. Messersmith says that he told you that he was shocked, and that you merely smiled and said that, of course, this conversation was between you and Mr. Messersmith, and you would not talk so clearly to other people. Then he says:
“I have gone into this detail with regard to this conversation as it is characteristic of the absolute frankness and directness with which high Nazi officials spoke of their objectives.”
Now, you have told the Tribunal that you said nothing like that to Mr. Messersmith. Apart from whether you said it to Mr. Messersmith or not, do you deny that these were your aims and intentions?
VON PAPEN: Yes; I absolutely deny that my purposes and aims were those which Mr. Messersmith is describing in his affidavit here. I told the Court yesterday...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now I just want to take these quickly. Would you just refer back to the document you were looking at a short time ago, which is Document 2248-PS?
That is Page 96, My Lord. It starts there, in 1la, and I want to pass on to Page 97. That is Page 81 of the German book.
Now, Defendant, this was your view in 1935, if you will look at the beginning of Page 81 of the German text.
My Lord, it is the first break in Page 97.
“The great historical speech of the Führer’s on 21 May of this year, and later the naval treaty, caused a strong détente in the field of foreign policy as regards England. But the clear and final definition of the attitude of National Socialism to the Soviet doctrine of state naturally doubled Franco-Russian attempts to cripple us in the east and southeast, without at the same time achieving a détente in the other direction by clearly renouncing the annexation, or Anschluss, of Austria.
“Any attempt at an economic and, even more so, at a political offensive by the newly-formed Third Reich in the direction of southeastern Europe must inevitably come up against a front formed by the whole of Europe.”
Who put into your mind the question of a commercial or a political offensive in the direction of southeastern Europe? Had you discussed that with the Defendant Von Neurath?
VON PAPEN: No, not at all.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you think you spoke for yourself?
VON PAPEN: Certainly. I am making a negative assertion, Sir David, namely, that an advance into the southeastern area would come up against a front formed by all of Europe. I am thus warning of that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You appreciate, Herr Von Papen, that I cannot make any comments at the moment. I can merely draw your attention to matters. All that I am asking you is whether you had got that idea from, say, the Foreign Minister, or whether it was your own idea. You say it is your own idea.
Just look on Page 82.
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Page 82. There is a paragraph—My Lord, it is the same page, 97, in the English version—where you go on to say:
“This realistic political survey of the European constellation shows immediately that the German-Austrian problem cannot, at least in the near future, be successfully approached from the direction of foreign politics. We must for the time being be content with not allowing Austria’s international status to deteriorate in view of a later solution. In this connection the danger of a nonintervention pact with bilateral treaties of assurance seems to be successfully prevented. The maturing of a solution was and still remains dependent on nothing but the shape of German-Austrian relations.”
Why were you so afraid of a nonintervention pact, if your idea was that there should only be an evolutionary solution of Austria based on Austria’s will? Why were you afraid of a nonintervention pact which would bind the Reich to not interfering in Austria?
VON PAPEN: For a very simple reason. All political combinations which our opponents were making at the time had only one end, that Austria should be pushed into such a situation, whether it was a Danube pact or a pact with Italy and France, which would make it impossible to advance the thought of the Anschluss. For that reason it had to be and remain our natural political aim that the international status of Austria should not be allowed to deteriorate, as I have expressed it here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. That is the answer which I thought you would have to give. Now, just look at Page 83, which is in the very next paragraph:
“The German nation has for centuries had to pursue a veritable path of suffering in order to secure its unity. With the dawn of National Socialism and the founding of the Third Reich by means of the final overthrow of all particulars, an opportunity, unique and never to be repeated, seemed to present itself to complete Bismarck’s work and to bring relations between Germany and Austria nearer to a solution, as a dynamic result of internal events in Germany.”
I will see if I can put quite shortly what you mean by the completion of this man’s work, because I hope we shall not disagree about ancient history, whatever we do about the other. As I understand, your view is that this, Bismarck’s setting up the German Empire in 1871, was merely an attempt at a solution which left the Hapsburg Empire separated from Germany, and the final completion of his work was that the old Hapsburg dominions should be brought back with the states which had been in the Holy Roman Empire. Is that roughly the truth?
VON PAPEN: Quite right; not all the Hapsburg states, but Austria, the German part.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The original Hapsburg domains?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Quite right. I hope I am putting it objectively enough.
VON PAPEN: Oh, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to that, what did you mean by saying that the solution of the relations between Germany and Austria should be brought about by “dynamic consequences of internal events in Germany”? What did you mean by that?
VON PAPEN: By that I mean the following: Never in Germany’s history had it happened that a large party whose aim was Germany’s unity existed in both nations. That was a unique historical event. And I wished to state that the dynamic force of this movement in the two countries, which was urging unity, gave promise of a solution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see, Defendant, the difficulty that I want you to explain is: How do you square an approval of centralization in Germany with a Nazi Government whose unscrupulous message you then knew after the affairs since 30 June 1934—how do you square an unscrupulous centralized Germany with an evolutionary solution of the Austrian problem?
That is what that paragraph is saying, you know. What I am suggesting is that it means a much simpler thing than you have told us. It means that you were out to get an annexation of Austria at the earliest opportunity under the National Socialist Reich.
VON PAPEN: Of course, I had to reckon with existing conditions, and I did reckon with them, as any realistic politician would. I wanted to attempt, with the help of the factors present in the National Socialist Party in both countries, to come to a solution. But I see no contradiction, Sir David. You are saying, how could I achieve my aim by centralization. But if you would be good enough to look at the end of this report of mine, then you will find that I am proposing decentralization to Hitler.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: At the moment, you see, I was really asking you for an explanation of what you meant by the expression, “dynamic result of internal events in Germany.” In short, I want you to realize, Defendant—I am not going to argue with you, because I ought not to—that the first point of Mr. Messersmith was a question of this action in southeastern Europe; the second point, that Austria was the first line, the first thing to be dealt with. Now, I wonder if you will be good enough to take the same bundle and turn over to Page 102 which is a report of your own dated 8 October 1935. I want you to deal with Mr. Messersmith’s third suggestion against you, which you deny, that you were going to work in Austria by a weakening of the regime.
Now I will just read the first sentence so that you will get the point into your mind. The report that I am dealing with is of 18 October 1935. You are dealing with the Austrian Government reshuffle, and you are saying—My Lord, this is a new document. It is GB-502, Document Number D-718. It is in 11a, Page 106. It begins:
“Yesterday’s Cabinet reshuffle resembles a bloodless insurrection led by Prince Starhemberg and the Heimwehr (Austrian Home Defense Organization). It is clear that Minister Fey heard early of his intended dismissal and that as early as yesterday afternoon he had the public buildings in Vienna occupied by the Viennese Heimwehr, which is loyal to him. The Government countered this measure by simultaneously reinforcing the occupation by Police forces.”
Now you go on to discuss the matter. That is at the beginning of the report. Then, if you turn to the next page, at 102, and refer about halfway down the page, you say this:
“In spite of the Vice Chancellor’s clear victory and of the strenuous efforts of the Austrian press to make it appear plausible that the Cabinet reshuffle was carried out for reasons of internal consolidation, the feeling of moving towards a completely uncertain development prevails in the Austrian public, as also in the Heimwehr circles.
“From our point of view the change of affairs is only too welcome. Every new weakening of the system is of advantage, even if it at first seems in fact to be directed against us. The fronts are starting to move and it will have to be our task to keep them moving.”
Now, Defendant, by that it is quite clear, is it not, that you meant that so long as there is political uncertainty or political trouble in the Austrian State, it does not matter whether the move may be an anti-German one, so long as the struggle grows with distrust spreading? That was an advantage to Germany, and that is what you want. That is what the lines mean, is it not?
VON PAPEN: No, not quite.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Not quite?
VON PAPEN: I should like to make the following remarks about your explanation, Sir David. Here in this report we are concerned with a change in the Austrian Government, with Prince Starhemberg and the Heimwehr involved. You know that Starhemberg and the Heimwehr had allied themselves with Mussolini against the German Reich. A loosening-up of this inner political front which was working against the interests of a union could be only advantageous, in the light of my policy.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But what I do not understand is this. You see, you have said, “In spite of the Vice Chancellor’s clear victory and of the diligent efforts of the Austrian press....” and you go on to say, “....every new weakening of the system is of advantage.” You see, Prince Starhemberg and the Italian party, according to you, had won, because you say, “In spite of....” this “....clear victory.”
Then you say, “every new weakening of the system.” That could not be Starhemberg’s alliance, because that had been successful. By “the system” you mean the Government of Austria, do you not? You cannot mean anything else.
My Lord, perhaps I should not continue the argument. But it is a somewhat complicated subject.
VON PAPEN: Yes, it is.
THE PRESIDENT: I was thinking that you should perhaps draw attention to the few remaining sentences.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, certainly I will read on:
“The continuation of negotiations for a settlement which I had recommended since the Geneva declaration, seems to be entirely superfluous for the time being. It will be a good thing to continue the increasingly excited public feeling against the Italian trend by clever and tactful handling via the press without, however, giving the Government justifiable cause for having recourse to the desperate measure of starting a new propaganda campaign against us. I would be very grateful if the Reich Minister for Propaganda were to put a few experienced journalists to work in this connection.
“For the rest, we can confidently leave further developments to the near future. I am convinced that the shifting of powers on the European chess board will permit us in the not too distant future to take up actively the question of influencing the southeastern area.”
Extraordinary—if I may so—extraordinary how Mr. Messersmith had got your ideas if you had never had this conversation with him, was it not?
My Lord, perhaps this will be a convenient time to adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn at this time.
VON PAPEN: But may I come back to that question tomorrow?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 19 June 1946 at 1000 hours.]
ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-EIGHTH DAY Wednesday, 19 June 1946
Morning Session
MARSHAL: If it please the Tribunal, the report is made that Defendant Von Neurath is absent.
[The Defendant Von Papen resumed the stand.]
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just before we leave Mr. Messersmith, Defendant, I want to ask you three questions about the other countries in southeastern Europe that Mr. Messersmith mentioned. Did you know that the German Foreign Office financed and directed the Henlein movement among the Sudetendeutschen?
VON PAPEN: I do not believe that I learned of that at that time. In 1935, when this report was written, the Sudeten-German question was not acute.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: When did you learn about it?
VON PAPEN: Mainly here in this room.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Did you know that the Reich was supporting Mr. Codreanu and the Iron Guard in Romania?
VON PAPEN: I believe that that was also much later.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You learned that sometime later than 1935, did you? When did you learn that?
VON PAPEN: I cannot say; but I believe that events in connection with the Iron Guard in Romania took place about 1937. I may be wrong; but I do not think so.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I think perhaps you have the microphone a little too near you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please, I am sorry.
[Turning to the defendant.] Did you know that in 1944 you were discussed in a Reich state paper edited by the Defendant Kaltenbrunner as being a possible person to do the same thing in Hungary, to arrange for Hungary’s acquisition by the Reich, doing the internal work inside Hungary in order that Hungary should be acquired? Did you know that?
VON PAPEN: No. In the first place, I did not know that; and in the second place I may say that the idea is impossible, because I was a close friend of the Regent of Hungary, Admiral Horthy. In my interrogatory to Admiral Horthy I asked him a question which he unfortunately failed to answer because he did not remember. It says that in the autumn of 1943 the Hungarian Minister of the Interior, Keresctes-Fischer, handed me a document showing that German or German and Hungarian forces wanted to bring about the incorporation of Hungary into the Reich through a revolt. At Regent Horthy’s desire, I at once handed this document over to Herr Von Ribbentrop and asked him to take the appropriate measures to prevent it. That is all set down in the files, and the Hungarian Minister of the Interior will be able to confirm it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see my point. I do not mind whether you would have taken it or not. The point that I am putting is that you were the choice. Don’t you know that? You know the document I am referring to, D-679, with many comments by Kaltenbrunner, in which you were discussed as being the possible person to do the internal work in Hungary.
My Lord, it is Page 78 of Document Book 11, and Page 46 of the German Document Book 11.
VON PAPEN: Sir David, I went over this note the day before yesterday after you submitted it here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will not trouble you with it if you only learned it here. The only point I want to know is this. Did you know in 1944 that you were being suggested in a German state document as being the person who might do the internal work in Hungary in order that Hungary might be acquired by the Reich? If you say you do not know, I shall not trouble you with it any further. You say you only knew that since the day before yesterday?
VON PAPEN: Yes, and in the second place, it is a historical fact that I repeatedly opposed these efforts in Hungary which aimed in one way or another, ultimately by occupation, at making Hungary a part of the German Reich. I considered that the most mistaken and most impossible policy imaginable.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will not trouble you about the documents since you have not known; we will come to another point.
You remember Gauleiter Rainer, the gentleman with whom you had the fortuitous and I am sure very interesting talk on the eve of the Anschluss; Dr. Rainer, the witness? I would just like you to look at Dr. Rainer’s view of the position when you took over, and tell the Tribunal whether you agree with that.
My Lord, it is Page 6 of Document Book 11; the document is 812-PS. It starts on Page 6 and the passage which I am going to refer to is on Page 8.
Have you got the passage that begins:
“Thus began the first phase of battle, which ended with the July uprising of 1934. The decision for the July uprising was right; but many mistakes were made in carrying it out. The result was the complete destruction of the organization, the loss of entire groups of fighters through imprisonment or flight into the ‘Altreich,’ and, with regard to the political relationship between Germany and Austria, a formal acknowledgement of the existence of the Austrian State by the German Government. With the telegram to Papen, instructing him to reinstitute normal relationships between the two States, the Führer liquidated the first stage of the battle and began a new method of political penetration.”
Would you agree that that is a correct description of your work, “a new method of political penetration”?
VON PAPEN: No, Sir David. That is a very inaccurate description of my activity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you don’t agree with Dr. Rainer, tell me—you know, you must know very well, the witness Dr. Paul Schmidt. You know him?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very well. Now I think you will agree with me that he is one of the personalities against whom nobody had said a word during this Trial. Do you agree? I haven’t heard a word of criticism of Paul Schmidt. Don’t you agree with me?
VON PAPEN: Do you mean the witness—the interpreter Schmidt or the Foreign Minister Schmidt?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Paul Schmidt, the interpreter.
VON PAPEN: Paul Schmidt, the interpreter. I will give you my opinion on that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, do you agree that he is a trustworthy person or not? Do you say that he is not a trustworthy person?
VON PAPEN: I have nothing to say against the human qualities of Herr Schmidt, but I have a very strong objection to the fact that Herr Schmidt takes the liberty of criticizing my political activities in Austria.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, before you explain it, just have a look at it. You will find Dr. Paul Schmidt’s affidavit on Page 41 of Document Book 11, that is Page 37 of the German document book, Document 3308-PS. Now just listen to Dr. Paul Schmidt’s view, Paragraph 8:
“Plans for the annexation of Austria were a part of the Nazi program from the beginning. Italian opposition after the murder of Dollfuss necessitated a more cautious approach to this problem for a time; but the application of sanctions against Italy by the League of Nations plus the rapid increase of German military strength, made the resumption of the Austrian program safer. When Göring visited Rome early in 1937, he declared that the union of Austria and Germany was inevitable and must be expected sooner or later. Mussolini, hearing these words in German, remained silent and uttered only a mild protest when I translated them into French. The consummation of the Anschluss was essentially a Party matter, in which Von Papen’s role was to preserve smooth diplomatic relations on the surface while the Party used more devious ways of preparing conditions for the expected move.”
Then, Defendant, so that we are being quite clear, he makes a mistake, and it is a speech of Hitler’s on 18 February to which, unfortunately, the translator has put your name. I am not relying on that. But what I do want to know whether you agree with is that it was your role, “....to preserve smooth diplomatic relations on the surface while the Party used more devious ways....” Do you agree with that as a correct description of your program, your mission in Austria?
VON PAPEN: On the contrary, Sir David, the exact opposite is the case. I explained my task in Austria very clearly and distinctly to the Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see.
VON PAPEN: It was a task of pacification and normalization and a continuation of the policy of the grafting together of the two States in an evolutionary way. And now may I say a few words more concerning this affidavit of Dr. Schmidt? At the time when the witness sat here in this chair we established the fact that this affidavit was placed before him when he was still in bed in the hospital after a severe illness, and this document was given to him for his signature...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, with respect to that, the Tribunal will deal with it. We have heard all about it and Dr. Schmidt has been cross-examined and I think you may take it that the Tribunal know everything about the circumstances of the affidavit. If you have anything to comment on the contents of it, I am sure the Tribunal would willingly let you, but you need not comment on the circumstances. That is all before the Tribunal.
VON PAPEN: I will comment on the contents, I will state that Minister Schmidt, who later played a highly influential role with Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop, in the years which are under discussion here had a very subordinate position in the Foreign Office which did not afford him insight—any exact insight—into conditions in Austria and into my policy and my reports.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if that is so...
VON PAPEN: Sir David, Herr Von Neurath will be able to confirm that for you tomorrow or the day after.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, we won’t argue that any further. The Tribunal have the whole of Dr. Schmidt’s record before them and the affidavit. Now you said you told the Tribunal about your conception of your mission in Austria. If that was your conception of your mission in Austria, why was it necessary for you to get hold of the position of the explosive chambers in Austrian strategic roads? That was rather going back to the development of the “top hat” idea to which you objected so strongly, wasn’t it?—Well, if you don’t remember, let me remind you. It is Document D-689, Page 101.
The Tribunal will find the passage actually on Page 102, and it is 90 and 91 in the German version of Document Book 11, becoming GB-504.
This is the opening of the Grossglockner Road, which, as you know, is a road of some strategic importance going from Salzburg to Carinthia. Do you remember that, after your description about the people being in Salzburg and singing everything except the Horst-Wessel song, and then the German drivers competing, in the third and next paragraph you say:
“The building of this road is undoubtedly a first-class work of culture, in which Reich-German construction firms took the main and decisive part. The chief engineer of the Reich-German firm which built the tunnel at the highest point offered to inform me of the position of the explosive chambers in this tunnel. I sent him to the military attaché.”
That was your combining culture and showing the excellence of German road constructions with obtaining the position of the explosives of the tunnel at the important strategic portion of the road. Why did you consider that of sufficient importance to send it to Hitler with three copies to the Foreign Office?
VON PAPEN: Sir David, I am giving an exact account of what happened at the inauguration of this road.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don’t want that. The Tribunal can get that. What I am asking you is why you were sending to Hitler the fact that the Reich-German engineer was disclosing to you the explosive chambers on the important part of this road where this road could be blocked? Why were you sending that to Hitler? That is what I want you to tell the Tribunal.
VON PAPEN: Because it seemed interesting to me that this man approached me voluntarily and told me, “At this and this point, the tunnel can be blown up.” You know that at that time our relations with Italy were very strained and that Italy mobilized on the Brenner border. For that reason it seemed of interest to me that this new connection between Italy and Germany could be broken again at any suitable time. Moreover, I referred the matter to my military attaché because it did not interest me personally.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, you had then moved out of the class of doing that sort of thing yourself. You were the head of the mission and it was a matter for the military attaché.
But was that your plan, Defendant, that, when you introduced German Kultur as showing the road making, at the same time you were getting the strategic information which you could pass on to your Government, undermining the Austrian Government’s strategic plans to use the road?
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant said, did he not, that it was a road which joined Germany to Italy?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord. The road actually goes from Salzburg, which is practically on the German border, to Carinthia in south Austria, so it was a new highway, taking traffic north and south in Austria.
THE PRESIDENT: Did it actually connect Germany with Italy, or did it connect Austria with Italy?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Austria.
[Turning to the defendant.] Well, let’s take something else in which you were interested. You were also reporting as to where the Austrian supply of munitions and manufacture of munitions were going to be situated, were you not?
VON PAPEN: I do not remember.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: All right, if you don’t recall it, look at it yourself. It is Document D-694. You will find it a few pages on.
It is Page 110, My Lord, in the English book; Page 108 of the German book. It will become Exhibit GB-505. Its date is 26 November 1935. It is Page 110 and the passage that I am going to read is Page 111.
Defendant, you ought to find it just at the top of Page 112 of the German version. You are dealing with the influence of Herr Mandel, whose Jewish extraction you referred to, and then you go on to Prince Starhemberg. It reads:
“After the manufacture of munitions for Italy in Hirtenberg had to be stopped because of Italian protests, he, Mandel, loaded the entire factory on to the railway, in order to continue work in Italy.”
Then, note the next words in brackets:
“Incidentally, an interesting situation for Austria’s supply of munitions....”
Was that one of your conceptions of restoring normal relations, that you should report on the movements in the Austrian munition manufacture?
VON PAPEN: No, that was not my task proper, but this report shows, Sir David, that I was repeating a talk with the Polish Minister Gavronski, who told me that this munitions factory, the only one which existed in Austria, was being moved to Italy. I wrote, with regard to this, that it is a remarkable circumstance if a country has to get its munitions supplies from a foreign country. You must surely admit that that is a peculiar situation and one that deserves inclusion in a report.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is your explanation. I won’t waste time on it.
Now, I want to pass—and again I want to deal with it very quickly—to your own personal experiences in Austria.
You remember when you went to the Salzburg Festival in 1935, when you had been there about a year; do you remember? I don’t know because you probably went every year.
The point that I want to remind you of is this. Do you remember when you went there that 500 National Socialists greeted you with music and made such a demonstration that some other guests in the hotel wanted to telephone or telegraph to the Federal Chancellery to say that the German Ambassador had caused a great Nazi demonstration? Do you remember that?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the reference to that is at Page 102, Document D-689, which I have already referred to, Page 102 of Document Book 11.
Well now, let me take another example. Do you remember the meeting of the comrades of the first World War at Wels?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was, if my recollection is right, in 1937, was it not?
VON PAPEN: Quite right, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And all the preparations had been made for a nonpolitical meeting, a reunion of the Austrian regiments and old comrades from the German regiments, and after the meeting they were to have a sort of dinner or lunch together, and the evening was to finish in jollity and song. That was the program, wasn’t it?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That meeting was addressed by General Glaise-Horstenau and yourself?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: General Glaise-Horstenau—without any disrespect to him—I think you will agree made a not very powerful speech. That was your impression, wasn’t it, a not very powerful speech? Interesting but not dynamic? Believe me, I am not being offensive to the general. I am merely trying to get the point.
VON PAPEN: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You made a speech which lasted for quite a short time, didn’t you? Do you remember?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: After your speech, there was beating and shooting through the streets of Wels, wasn’t there? There was a riot there, wasn’t there?
VON PAPEN: May I give you a more exact description?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you can. I wanted to establish the fact. You are perfectly entitled now to give your explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a document on this?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no document on this.
VON PAPEN: A meeting had been arranged in Wels between organizations of the old German Army from the first World War, the so-called Warriors’ Society, (Kriegerverein) and the veterans’ associations of Austria. It was perfectly legitimate and in the spirit of our joint policy that the mutual experiences during the first World War should be renewed between these formations. At this meeting, which according to my wish and that of the Austrian Government was to be completely nonpolitical in character, the following events took place: When I arrived, the place where this meeting of veterans’ associations was held, was surrounded by between 5,000 and 10,000 people. The Austrian Government, to receive their German guests, brought an honor company of the Army, and when the Austrian band played the Austrian national anthem on my arrival, these 10,000 people who surrounded the place sang the German national anthem, for the tune is the same, as you know.
When in the course of the celebration I made a brief speech I found myself constantly interrupted by thousands of people, in a demonstrative manner. Of course, I immediately realized that the Austrian National Socialists had planned a big political demonstration here; so I broke off my speech, and shortly afterwards I left the place, and left Wels also.
It is quite true, as Sir David said, that when the celebration broke up and the Austrian police wanted to proceed against the thousands of persons who were demonstrating, very unfortunate incidents occurred.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, if that is your explanation, I have put the facts of the incident. Now I want to pass to another point, because I can only give examples of your activities in Austria.
Before you heard the evidence of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, do you remember the phrase “the Trojan Horse technique” being referred to with regard to Austria?
VON PAPEN: Yes. Seyss-Inquart did not want to lead the Trojan Horse.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, but before that, you know, you had referred to the Trojan Horse technique.
My Lord, it is Document Book 11, Page 133. The passage I am referring to is from Page 134. The document is D-706, which will become GB-506. It is Page 163, Sergeant Major.
That is your report of 21 August 1936, where you quote an instruction of the Prague Secret Service to its Vienna branch, which says:
“Unfortunately it must be noted that the wild National Socialist excesses of 29 July of this year have not had the result we expected. Austria’s approach to the Third Reich in the field of foreign politics is making further progress, as well as the process of cultural collaboration between the two sister nations. One can also assume from your most recent reports that the Trojan Horse of National Socialism is bringing greater confusion into the ranks of the Fatherland Front and particularly into the ranks bf the Heimatschutz (Home Guard). Opposition to the normalizing of German-Austrian relations, which is extremely dangerous to Austrian independence, appears nevertheless to be relatively very great; it obviously lacks only good organization.”
Now, does that Czech report describe correctly what was going on, the superficial normalization of relations and the Trojan Horse movement working inside the country?
VON PAPEN: Sir David, that is the opinion of the Czech Secret Service and perhaps of the Czech Government.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I remind you, Defendant, that it is the opinion quoted by you in your report to the Führer, and not contradicted. There is not a word in your report suggesting that it is not the truth. In fact you say you introduce it, “To illustrate the present position in Austria...”
You are introducing it as correct information for the Führer, so you cannot, I suggest, write it off by saying it is merely a Czech report.
VON PAPEN: Yes, I do. Let me point out that this report was written on 21 August 1936. That is 1 month after the conclusion of our July Agreement, which you asserted was a deceitful maneuver, but which we and the Austrian Foreign Minister established as a very seriously intended agreement. We were now on a completely different basis with Austria and for that reason I quoted this peculiar Czech report as an interesting document to show how, in spite of our efforts for normalization, the Czechs regarded matters in Austria.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you leaving that document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: What about the last paragraph?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, I will certainly deal with that.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 134.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
It goes on:
“Besides, it appears hopeless and also impracticable for us to strive to influence Austrian legitimism or the Heimwehr movement. There are, on the other hand, comparatively strong elements in Austrian Catholicism which could, with certain reservations, be called democratic. These elements, which are gradually grouping themselves round the Freiheitsbund (Freedom League) and which are inclined on principle to work for an agreement with the Social Democrats, represent, in our opinion, that group which would in certain circumstances be inclined to bring about a revolution in internal politics in Austria.”
Did you put that forward as also representing your view?
VON PAPEN: Sir David, I gave the Court a most exact explanation of the aims and character of the Freiheitsbund yesterday; and the Court knows from the report that the Czech Government endeavored to exert a certain amount of political influence on this Freiheitsbund. That is quite clear from the connection. This is all in the Czech report.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then you were putting it forward, were you not, as your view to Hitler that, to speak loosely, the Catholic Left might be used as a means of approach by you. That is really what you are saying.
VON PAPEN: Sir David, surely you do not want to impute that I submitted a Czech report to Hitler in order to identify myself with this report.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that is what I am accusing you of. If you write to the head of the State, “To illustrate the present position in Austria, I append an extract from a report....” then what I am suggesting is that that means this report accurately represents the position, as I see it. That is what I am putting to you.
VON PAPEN: No, for another report which you also submitted to the Court shows that I asked Hitler to work against these efforts made by the Czech Government to exert influence on the Freiheitsbund by binding it to ourselves. I am of quite different opinion.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, you asked Hitler to give 100,000 Reichsmarks to the Freiheitsbund. That is exactly what you are following out in what you have suggested here, that they might be a body who would be a useful point d’appui for you in order to gain an influence with another section of Austrian opinion. I am suggesting to you that the two things are quite consistent. You tell Hitler that they are useful.
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you support them with 100,000 Reichsmarks. That is what I am putting to you.
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That you were all the time burrowing under one section of Austrian opinion after another in order to work towards the suppression of the freedom of Austria—that is what I am putting to you. I do not think there is any doubt about it.
VON PAPEN: Sir David, if this report shows anything clearly, it is the fact that, apart from the National Socialists in Austria, there were other groups, namely, the Christian Trade Unions and the Freiheitsbund, who worked politically towards the union of the two countries. And you cannot say I am committing a crime if, as a diplomat who wants to bring about such an aim in an evolutionary way, I co-operate with the interests of these groups.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There was not anything very evolutionary about the Trojan Horse, was there? However, that may be comment. Let us go on to another point.
Did you know Baron Gudenus?
VON PAPEN: No, I did not know him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know that he was the closest confidant of the Archduke Otto. Do you remember?
VON PAPEN: Yes, that is shown in my report.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well now, let us just look and see what Baron Gudenus had to say.
Your Lordship will find that on Page 93, and it is 72 to 75 of the German version, Document D-687 which will become GB-507. It is Paragraph 2 (b) and it appears on Page 74, Defendant.
“Baron Gudenus, the closest confidant of the Archduke Otto, writes to....”
There is a mistake there, my Lord. The “me” should be “one.”
“....one of my acquaintances on 30 March:
“....I brought back many gratifying impressions of the progress of our Movement with me from Austria; but I cannot deny that in some respects the Government’s policy worries me greatly. Of what use is it that the ringleaders of February and July 1934—or those of them who were caught—are sentenced, if the Government is too weak, too slovenly, or intentionally too tolerant, to prevent ‘brown’ and ‘red’ propaganda being carried on privately unhindered in the cinema, in the press, and on the radio, and mainly by State officials or organs of the Fatherland Front, supported and paid by financial and other means which are pouring in bountifully from Germany. What is that learned idealist Schuschnigg actually doing? Does he not notice that Papen and the other ‘brown’ agents in his own country continually spit into the hand so persistently held out to them? He must not imagine that he can thus maintain and save Austria, as long as Hitler rules in a Germany which is painted brown inside and out. The methods over there have, it is true, become more clever and more careful, but this makes them all the more dangerous.”
That was about 7 months after your arrival.
“Sinister also are the continual differences between Schuschnigg and Starhemberg....” and so on.
Now, isn’t it correct, Defendant, that anyone, that everyone, even a visiting monarchist agent, knew that these activities were going on with you on the top and the Austrian National Socialist Party working underneath?
Before you answer, it is only fair to look at your own comment on that.
“The difficulties of the internal Austrian situation could hardly be described more graphically than in this letter.”
Why did you not say to Hitler, if these were the facts: “Baron Gudenus is talking nonsense. I am carrying out a perfectly honest moral assignment for the normalizing of relations with Austria.” Why did you not deny it, if it was not true?
VON PAPEN: It seems to me that this report shows, in the first place, that I passed on to Hitler with complete frankness all the reports which I received, even that of an adherent of the Hapsburg restoration. Obviously to 100 percent...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am suggesting, Defendant, that you passed them on because they were true; you adopted them and passed them on to Hitler because they were true reports; that that was a true picture of the situation. That is what I am suggesting to you. You just tell the Tribunal, were they true or were they not? If they were not true, why did you pass them on without saying they were not true? That is what I am asking you.
VON PAPEN: If you read this report by Baron Gudenus, you will see that he speaks of internal conditions in Austria and of the sinister differences existing between Schuschnigg and Starhemberg, the rivalry between their guards, and the constant underground Republican sentiment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that is 3 lines out of 20. There is a lot more before you come to that part. That is what I am asking you about; the other 17 lines of the report.
VON PAPEN: Sir David, the points which I have just mentioned are proof of the internal weaknesses of the Austrian Government, on which I am reporting. If you mean that I should have explained to Hitler that I was not a “brown” agent, well surely on 26 July we came to a very clear agreement as to under what conditions my work in Austria was to be done. There was no necessity for me to explain that to Hitler in a report. I sent this report for his information only.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If that is your explanation, just look at the next paragraph of your letter. It shows in another way how you were working. Paragraph 3:
“The film ‘The Old and the Young King’ ...”—the Tribunal may not remember, but you correct my recollection. That is a film, if I remember rightly, dealing with Friedrich—the relations of Friedrich Wilhelm I and Friedrich the Great. Am I right?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “The film ‘The Old and the Young King’ was shown here for the first time a few days ago in the presence of Herr Jannings.”—That is Emil Jannings, the actor.—“It provoked enthusiastic demonstrations. The scene where the king stresses the fact that ‘French trash and Roman books do not mean anything to Prussia’ led to particularly vociferous applause. The police wanted to ban it. Together with Herr Jannings, we explained to them that, should this film be banned, we would take steps to prohibit the showing of all Austrian films in Germany. This had the desired effect. The film—except for the above-mentioned scene, which was expunged—is being shown now and will be shown on the screen at Klagenfurt and Graz within the next few days.
“Yesterday I received Jannings and a number of actors from the Burgtheater as my guests. He said he was very satisfied with his success, and we discussed in detail plans for a Bismarck picture for the production of which I recommended Beumelburg to write the script.”
That is, you were forcing a film which contained Prussian propaganda to be shown in Austria on the threat of excluding Fräulein Wessely and “Maskerade” and the other Austrian films of that time from the German market; you were forcing your propaganda on the threat of excluding Austrian films; is that right?
VON PAPEN: Yes, and I will also tell you the reason. I must enlarge your historical knowledge of these things, Sir David. Frederick the Great played a very important part in the relations between Germany and Austria, as you know; and at that time we were trying, in the relationship between our two countries, to clear up the historical inaccuracies which originated in the time of Frederick the Great. For this purpose the famous Austrian historian, Professor Srbik, wrote a big work. The film which we are discussing served the purpose of showing that a great German history is common to both peoples alike. To help the cultural rapprochement of the two countries I insisted that this film should be shown, and this was done.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not the slightest doubt about your motives in wanting the film to be shown, Defendant, but what I am asking you is, why you pressed it against the wish of the Austrian authorities by threat of excluding Austrian film production from the German market? Why did you threaten the Austrian authorities in that way?
VON PAPEN: It frequently happened that the Austrian police were afraid that certain films might be made a basis for demonstrations. But after we had talked matters over with the police, and had agreed that certain parts of the film should be cut, they were quite ready to admit it; and of course, I also told them that if we did not reach an agreement, the consequences would be that Germany would send no more films to Austria.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, again I put the point. Do you remember telling the Tribunal that you did not keep up contacts with the NSDAP in Austria? Is that Correct?
VON PAPEN: No, it is not correct.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You did keep up contacts?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Close contacts?
VON PAPEN: I did not understand.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Intimate contacts? Were your contacts close?
VON PAPEN: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if they were not, will you just turn a page back. It is probably Page 72 of your report. It is the same report.
My Lord, it is Page 93 of Your Lordship’s book.
You began that report by saying:
“I have first to report on the development of the local NSDAP:
“On 23 March complete agreement was reached in Krems between Captain Leopold, (Retd.) and Generaldirektor Neubacher. In accordance therewith, Neubacher subordinated himself to Leopold in every way and recognized him as Führer for Austria. As soon as Schattenfroh is released from the concentration camp, he will become deputy leader, while Neubacher, as the closest confidant of Leopold, will be consulted on every important question.”
Furthermore, Leopold has nominated somebody else and asked him to be deputy, while:
“Major General Klupp, (Retd.) will be taken into consultation in strict confidence,” and I want to read the last lines:
“Furthermore, Leopold expressed the desire that at long last, the continual intrigues against him on the part of émigrés living in the Reich—of the type of Frauenfeld and his friends—be stopped.”
That is a pretty complete picture of the set-up of the Party in Austria, wasn’t it?
VON PAPEN: Well, Sir David, may I call to your attention the fact that this report is dated 4 April 1935, a date previous to the July Agreement, when my interest in these Party affairs can still be readily understood.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you attach importance to the date, just look at the report of 1 September 1936, which is on Page 33 of Document Book 11, Page 26 of the German book. You remember this is the report which you referred to, and you said:
“For the method to be employed (Marschroute) I recommend on the tactical side continued and patient psychological treatment, with slowly intensified pressure directed at changing the regime.”
You told the Tribunal that that meant you wanted a change in the officials of the Ministry of the Interior. I am not going to trouble about a statement like that, but just go on for a moment:
“The conference on economic relations proposed for the end of October will be a very useful tool for the realization of some of our projects.
“In discussion both with Government officials and with leaders of the illegal Party (Leopold and Schattenfroh) who take their stand entirely on the Agreement of 11 July, I am trying to direct the next developments so as to aim at corporative representation of the Movement in the Fatherland Front.”
Now, it is quite clear, is it not, that you were on 1 September 1936, after the agreement, having discussions with the leaders of the illegal Party, Leopold and Schattenfroh, so may we take it—I don’t want to spend time on it—that throughout your time in Austria you were in close and constant touch with the leaders of the Austrian National Socialist Party?
VON PAPEN: No, Sir David, the conference which you just mentioned refers to and is justified by the July Agreement; I have already explained that to the Court yesterday. In the July Agreement Federal Chancellor Schuschnigg promised that members of the National Opposition would be called upon for co-operation. Consequently it was, of course, my duty to be interested in whether and to what extent the co-operation of such forces was actually sought by Schuschnigg. That was the subject of this talk with the leaders, and I can state expressly that my contact with the Austrian Party, after the July Agreement, was only in this connection.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Well, I am not going to go into that further. I have referred the Tribunal to two documents, and there are other references which I need not worry about.
I want you to come now to November 1937. Could you fix as carefully and closely as you can the date of your meeting with the Defendant Seyss-Inquart at Garmisch?
VON PAPEN: Yes, I met the Defendant Seyss-Inquart by accident—that is, not by appointment—at the Olympic Winter Games at Garmisch-Partenkirchen in January 1938.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: January 1938. I just want to collate these dates. You had become very friendly with the Foreign Minister Guido Schmidt, who gave evidence here, had you not?
VON PAPEN: I was on very friendly terms with the Foreign Minister, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, you gave him the “Du,” although you were 20 years his senior; you had given him the “Du” for some time? You had been on intimate relations? Is that right?
VON PAPEN: I do not think that a friendship can be measured by 20 years’ difference in age. I regarded Herr Schmidt, as I have said, as an upright man.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think you will agree with me that it is unusual for an Ambassador to be on terms with a Foreign Minister, especially one 20 years his junior—not his contemporary—on such terms that he used the familiar “Du” to him. Won’t you agree with me that it is a quite unusual form of intimacy between an Ambassador and a Foreign Minister?
VON PAPEN: Sir David, if you had ever been in Austria in your life, you would know that in Austria almost everyone says “Du” to everyone else, and to clear up this incident, may I add the following: On the day of our separation, when I left Austria, I said to Foreign Minister Schmidt, of whom I am very fond, “Dear friend, we have worked together so much, now we can say ‘Du’ to each other.”
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, what I am interested in is this: It was in November 1937 that you and Dr. Guido Schmidt first began to discuss the question of Herr Schuschnigg meeting Hitler, was it not?
VON PAPEN: I believe that I discussed this matter not only with Foreign Minister Schmidt but also with Herr Von Schuschnigg himself at that time. After a discussion between them...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just a moment; will you answer my question? You discussed with Schmidt—you heard Dr. Schmidt give his evidence that the Defendant Göring had told him with great frankness, as the Defendant Göring said he told everyone else and has told this Court, that he was out for the union of Germany and Austria by any means and at all costs. You heard Dr. Schmidt say that Göring had told him that that was his view, and I say, in all fairness, it is perfectly consistent. It is the view he has expressed here and apparently to a lot of other people. Do you remember that Dr. Schmidt said that? You can take that from me.
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have heard that the Defendant Göring said that, not only to Dr. Schmidt, but to Mussolini and to the High Tribunal, and I think to several other people. Had he never said it to you?
VON PAPEN: No, Sir David. With regard to the Austrian...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you know that it was his view?
VON PAPEN: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You didn’t know that was Göring’s view?
VON PAPEN: Please let me say something. Of course, I knew that Göring’s wish was to bring about a union of the two States, and I myself was present at the talk with Mussolini.
Please consider, however, that at that time Herr Göring was not competent to decide foreign policy. The question of what our policy in Austria should be had been agreed upon between Hitler and myself exclusively and I do not remember discussing it with Marshal Göring in the years between 1936 and 1938.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am dealing with November 1937, at the moment, and 3 months later the Defendant Göring was very competent in foreign politics in the Austrian question, as you, who listened to the accounts of his telephone conversations, must know.
I just want you to take the dates as we have got them now. Göring had told Schmidt his views; you and Schmidt were discussing this meeting between Schuschnigg and Hitler. In January you had a political discussion with Dr. Seyss-Inquart at Garmisch.
I am one date out of order. On 11 November, as Mr. Dodd put to Dr. Seyss-Inquart, he had written a letter to Dr. Jury saying, “I don’t think anything will happen this year, but the developments will take place in the spring.” Then, after that letter, he sees you at Garmisch in January, and in February you finally arrange this meeting between Schuschnigg and Hitler.
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Didn’t you know very well that the whole object of the meeting was to get Herr Schuschnigg to agree to the Reich’s wishes, the appointment of Seyss-Inquart, a general political amnesty which would release all the members of the Nazi Party in Austria and put them at the disposal of their leaders, and a declaration of equal rights for the Party? Didn’t you know that the whole object of the meeting was to get Herr Schuschnigg to agree to these terms so that you would have the Austrian National Socialist Party unfettered and free to work for Germany’s interests in Austria?
VON PAPEN: In my talk with Dr. Seyss-Inquart in Garmisch-Partenkirchen we discussed the necessity of making the Austrian Nazi Party independent, that is, under all circumstances removing it from the influence of the Reich, in the form agreed upon in the July Agreement, and with the aim that the way should be paved for a union of our two countries, and that that aim should be pursued from the Austrian side in terms of foreign policy, and not by the Reich.
When I met Seyss-Inquart in Garmisch no mention was ever made of this meeting between Hitler and Schuschnigg. I was at that time not in a position to know whether such a talk would ever take place. That was not decided until 5 February, as you will recall. In other words, we discussed only the perfectly general question of how we could get nearer to our goal.
May I further recall to your memory that Dr. Seyss-Inquart had received an official commission from the Federal Chancellor to investigate all existing possibilities of incorporating the National Opposition, that is, the Austrian National Socialist Party, into Schuschnigg’s political program. That was his official mission, so that after all I had a right to discuss these things with him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Wasn’t Dr. Rainer—the witness that the Tribunal has seen—wasn’t he present at the Garmisch meeting too?
VON PAPEN: That seems to have been the case, Sir David; I do not remember it any more. Seyss-Inquart has told me that it is possible that Dr. Rainer joined us on a walk. I personally do not remember. I did not carry on any political discussion with Rainer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, you have given your explanation as of the turn of the year. I just want to remind you of one other point. You were very well aware of the Von Blomberg and Von Fritsch crisis in the Army, were you not? I don’t want to go into disagreeable details again, because it is not at present before the Tribunal, but you knew that that crisis had arisen?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure you will see the importance of this. General Von Fritsch had been at the War Academy with you, had he not?
VON PAPEN: Yes, quite right.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He was an old friend, and you knew, as I think everyone who has mentioned his name in this Court has said, that General Von Fritsch was a man of the highest character and that the sort of charge that was brought against him was one which anyone who knew him would regard with ridicule if it wasn’t so tragic, and they would regard it with contempt? That was your view?
VON PAPEN: Absolutely.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you had a pretty good idea, had you not, apart from the treatment of Field Marshal Von Blomberg, that Von Fritsch had been the subject of a trumped-up charge in order to prevent him becoming head of the Armed Forces? You knew that, didn’t you?
VON PAPEN: In any case, that became clear to me later, when I learned of the circumstances.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, no, that is not the important thing, Defendant, your state of mind on 5 February 1938. You knew by then that the Nazi clique in the Government had brought a framed-up charge against a man whom you regarded as the soul of honor, did you not?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now with that knowledge, on 5 February, after you see Hitler, you tell him about the fact that Schuschnigg may come, and he jumps to it at once. He says, “Go and get Schuschnigg,” doesn’t he? He was quite bored, if I may put it that way, with what you had to say up to that point. As soon as you say there is a chance of a meeting with Schuschnigg, Hitler seizes it like a trout to a May fly, doesn’t he, or rather, like a lion to the kill; that is right, isn’t it?
VON PAPEN: Yes, Sir David. I described to the Court the impression made on me by events in Berlin and by my own dismissal on 4 February. Do you think it is surprising that I now tried, just because I was afraid another course would be adopted, to bring about this long-desired discussion between the two chiefs of state which I hoped would clear up the differences and prevent the adoption of a radical course? I told Foreign Minister Schmidt and Chancellor Schuschnigg that, when I asked them both to take part in a discussion to clear up matters if they could possibly do so.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Defendant, I am not going to go through the circumstances of the meeting of 12 February, because I went through them with the Defendant Von Ribbentrop and the Court is well aware of them.
I want to ask you this one question, and I do ask you to consider it carefully because the question of your own veracity may depend on it.
Are you now saying that there was no pressure put on Herr Schuschnigg at that interview?
VON PAPEN: Sir David, I never made such a statement—you know that yourself, because it is in my reports; I myself said that pressure was exerted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I am asking you is this, and please let me make it quite clear because the Court have heard the evidence of your friend Dr. Schmidt and a lot of other evidence. I only want to ask you the one question, and please get it clear.
Do you now, on this day, say that pressure was not put on Chancellor Schuschnigg to make him agree to the terms of 12 February? That is the one question I want to ask you, and I give you the chance of answering. What do you say today? Was or was not pressure put on Herr Schuschnigg?
VON PAPEN: Yes; I never denied it. I do not understand why you ask me. I never denied it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Herr Von Ribbentrop denied it quite strongly, but we won’t go into that.
Now, one other question and then I am finished with Austria.
Did you arrange a meeting between Hitler and Cardinal Innitzer?
VON PAPEN: Yes, I did; and that was...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you arrange that the leaders of the Church and the diplomatic corps, apart from the French and British representatives, should be present at Hitler’s entry into Vienna?
VON PAPEN: As for the leaders of the Church, it is not customary for them to be present at parades, and I certainly did not suggest it. As to the diplomats...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you arrange for the diplomatic corps to be present?
VON PAPEN: It is possible that some of my diplomatic colleagues asked me if they could attend this ceremony, and I said that of course they could attend; why should they not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I am not going to argue about the way you put it.
My Lord, I have now finished with Austria. I have three very minor matters which I hope will take a short time, but this might be a convenient period in which to recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
[A recess was taken.]
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, are the Tribunal to take it that broadly you were against the anti-Semitic movement and propaganda?
VON PAPEN: On the contrary, it was my aim and my desire, and it constituted the entire program of my work, to contribute as far as possible to a union between the two countries, because that was the great wish of the German nation.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not think you can have understood my question. Let me repeat it. I am now coming to the Jews.
VON PAPEN: Oh, the Jews?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Now, let me repeat it again. Are the Tribunal to take it that broadly you were against anti-Semitic action and propaganda?
VON PAPEN: Yes; I have already told the High Tribunal just what my attitude in principle was toward the racial question and toward the question of the elimination of foreign influence in certain cultural aspects of public life. These are two entirely different questions, however.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I appreciate that. Now, will you look at Document 3319-PS, which is Exhibit GB-287?
My Lord, it begins at Page 48 of Document Book 11a. It is on Pages 44 and 45 of the German book.
The part I want you to refer to is on Pages 58 and 59. This, Defendant, is from a confidential report of the work session of the consultants on Jewish questions of the German missions in Europe, on 3 and 4 April 1944. I want you just to look at Page 44, I think, of the German version, Page 58 of the English, at the contribution to this discussion of a certain Herr Posemann, from Turkey. Was he from your staff? If you would not mind, just say “yes” or “no,” because it must go to a short end...
VON PAPEN: May I tell you just who Herr Posemann was?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I said, if you would tell me, was he a member of the Embassy staff, and if not, what was he; that is what I want to know.
VON PAPEN: No; certainly not. Herr Posemann was a German bookseller who had settled in Ankara. He was certainly not a member of my Embassy.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Well, at any rate, he was a consultant of the German Foreign Office for this discussion. Now, just listen to what he says:
“Early last year the Turkish Government struck a blow at Jewry in connection with an attempt to solve the minorities problem. Very drastic measures were taken to carry out this action. Suspicions on the part of Allied circles that purely anti-Jewish measures were concerned were countered by Turkey with references to simultaneous measures taken against the minorities. At any rate, Turkey abandoned further measures to find a solution of the minorities problem and therewith of the Jewish problem. For this reason it is impossible to continue to practice anti-Jewish propaganda under our direction at the present moment, as it is undesirable and would be a burden on Turkey’s present foreign policy. There are no anti-Jewish publications in Turkey, apart from caricatures and comic books about Jews. The first signs of realization of the extent of international Jewish domination are evident in the translation of the Protocol of the Elders of Zion and of Ford’s book, The International Jew. The sale and distribution of these brochures have been promoted by the Embassy. For the time being, work is possible only within this narrow range since, as was already emphasized, an anti-Jewish propaganda obviously inspired by Germany might cause us unfavorable political complications.”
Now, do you believe in the Protocol of the Elders of Zion? Do you believe it is a correct and authentic work?
VON PAPEN: Not at all, no.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then why was the marketing of these brochures being promoted by the Embassy?
VON PAPEN: Perhaps I may give the Tribunal a very brief explanation on the whole connection of this meeting. The meeting had been called by the Foreign Office, and was to be attended by experts from the embassies and legations who had been specifically employed to deal with the Jewish problem. In my Embassy there was no such expert, as I always refused to have one. For this reason the Party had of its own accord instructed the bookseller Herr Posemann to deal with this problem, and had delegated him to attend this conference.
If Herr Posemann here sets forth that the Embassy circulated the propaganda brochures which are mentioned here, then he is gravely mistaken. Firstly, the Turkish Government would never have tolerated the circulation of such material, and secondly, you, Sir David, can convince yourself today that all these brochures are still lying in the basement of my Embassy at Ankara.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that this statement made at the Foreign Office meeting, you say, is wrong?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say that you had nothing to do with that; that is your answer? I want to ask you one or two things about the Catholic Church. You remember the Fulda Declaration of the Bishops?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is right, is it not? That was made and based on an assurance which Hitler gave to the Church of his good intentions, on 23 March 1933? Do you remember Hitler’s making a statement like that?
VON PAPEN: Not only on the 23d, but also in the Government declaration Hitler expressly stated his view that every policy must be based on both the Christian denominations.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, that in turn was the result, at least in part, of a statement of yours at a Cabinet meeting on 15 March 1933, when you stressed the importance of incorporating political Catholicism into the new State; that is a correct and factual statement, is it not? That is the way the thing works out?
VON PAPEN: Completely, Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
VON PAPEN: I made every effort to induce Hitler to establish this Christian basis of his policy firmly by means of solemn engagements; and I think I have already explained to the High Tribunal that I really made every effort to carry through this program.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now let me ask you to look once again at Document 11, Page 96; Page 78 of the German version, which is Document 2248-PS. It is your report to Hitler of 27 July 1935. Now in that report you use these words: “....the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundations of Germany....”
My Lord, it is on Page 99 of the English text and it is Page 86 of the German text. My Lord, it is the first paragraph, Page 99:
“Cultural problems have a special significance. The way in which Germany deals with her political and religious difficulties, the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without weakening the Christian foundations of Germany will not only have a decisive reaction on England or Catholic Poland. We may rather say that the solution of the German-Austrian question stands or falls with it.”
Now, what I want you to bear in mind: This is your account to Hitler in July 1935, over 2 years after the Concordat: “....the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundations of Germany....” Now your counsel quoted one passage of His Holiness the Pope’s allocution, and I would just like you to look and tell the Tribunal whether you agree with the next passage, which occurs after the bit quoted by Dr. Kubuschok.
My Lord, this is a new document—no, My Lord, I am sorry. It is an old exhibit. It is Document 3268-PS, which is Exhibit USA-356. Your Lordship remembers that Dr. Kubuschok quoted a portion, in his document book, of the Pope’s allocution. My Lord, I have some extra copies.
Now after the bit which Dr. Kubuschok quoted as to the Concordat having prevented worse evils, His Holiness goes on to say:
“The struggle against the Church did, in fact, become more and more embittered: the disbanding of Catholic organizations; the progressive suppression of the flourishing Catholic schools, both public and private; the enforced weaning of youth from family and Church; the pressure brought to bear on the conscience of the citizens, and especially of civil servants; the systematic defamation, by means of clever, closely organized propaganda, of the Church, the clergy, the faithful, and of the Church’s institutions, teaching, and history; the closing, disbanding, and confiscation of religious houses and other ecclesiastical institutions; the complete suppression of the Catholic press and publishing houses.”
Do you agree with His Holiness that that is a correct description of the action of the German Reich against the Catholic Church?
VON PAPEN: Completely.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, I would just like you also to look at the “Mit Brennender Sorge,” which is Document 3280-PS.
Your Lordship will find it at Page 40 of Document Book 11—I am sorry, My Lord, it is Page 47. I said 40. It is 40 of the German text.
Now, if you notice, that is quite early, on 14 March 1937, 4 years after the Concordat, and he says in the second sentence at the beginning:
“It discloses intrigues which from the first had no other aim than a war of extermination. In the furrows in which we had labored to sow the seeds of true peace, others—like the enemy in Holy Scripture—sowed the tares of suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny, of secret and open basic hostility to Christ and His Church, fed from a thousand different sources and employing every available means. They, and they only, along with their silent or vocal protectors are responsible for the fact that on the horizon of Germany there is now to be seen, not the rainbow of peace, but the threatening stormcloud of destructive religious wars.”
Now, Defendant, what I want you to tell the Tribunal—do you agree with that?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you agree with these statements of the head of the Church, how could you possibly write to Hitler, 2 years after the Concordat, in July 1935, that he had “eliminated political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundations of Germany”? It was absolutely wrong, wasn’t it, that Hitler and the Nazis had not touched the Christian foundations of Germany? They had uprooted them and were in process of destroying them?
VON PAPEN: Sir David, you are confusing two completely different things, political Catholicism...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I don’t want to interrupt you, but I have made that point quite clear. The point I am putting to you is not the elimination of political Catholicism. I am not, for the moment, dealing with the relation between you and Monsignor Kaas. What I am dealing with is your other statement, that it had been done without touching the Christian foundations of Germany. What I am putting to you is what His Holiness is saying, that the Christian foundations of Germany were being destroyed. I don’t mind, for the moment, about the views that Monsignor Kaas had of you or you had of Monsignor Kaas. I know what they are.
VON PAPEN: Let me explain these things to you. The struggle against the Church and its institutions, against which His Holiness the Pope inveighs in his encyclicals in the years 1937 and 1945, and in which he recognized the intensification of the situation obtaining during the war—all of these things were an attack on the Christian foundations of Germany, an attack which I always condemned most strongly. But this has no connection at all with the elimination of so-called political Catholicism for which I hoped and which I demanded. These are two completely different things. Perhaps it is hard for you to understand, since you are not familiar with circumstances in Germany.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Please believe, Defendant, that I have spent a great deal of time in pursuing the troubles between you and Monsignor Kaas. I am not going to bring them out before the Tribunal because they are not important. I appreciate and agree—not as well as you do, but I appreciate the position of political Catholicism and I am not asking you about that. I am asking you about your statement. Why did you say to Hitler that he had not touched the Christian foundations of Germany? That is what I want to know. You must have known in 1935 that that wasn’t true?
VON PAPEN: But, Sir David, that is a complete distortion of the contents of this report. I am telling Hitler that the Christian foundations of Germany must not be weakened and that may still be read in the report today: “Political Catholicism must be eliminated without weakening the Christian foundations of Germany.”
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, you appreciate how it begins. You say “....that a clever hand which eliminates it without touching....” Just let me remind you: Didn’t you say, in your interrogation, that your trouble—part of your trouble in the summer of 1934, before you made the Marburg speech, was due to the nonfulfillment of the Concordat, that after it had been signed, with the consent of Hitler, “....he treated it just as a scrap of paper and I couldn’t do anything”? Then there was the persecution of the Churches and the Jews at the same time. That was late in 1933 and in 1934. Is that your view in 1934, “....that there had not only been treating of the Concordat as a scrap of paper but persecution of both the Churches and the Jews”?
VON PAPEN: I do not know which document you are quoting from, Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is your interrogation on the morning of 19 September 1945.
VON PAPEN: Yes, of course. When I delivered the Marburg speech, I believed that the State was violating all these things; otherwise, I would not have made the speech. But in this speech, Sir David, I again expressly emphasized the fact that no European occidental state can exist without a Christian foundation, and that by disregarding our Christian basis we would cut ourselves off from the group of Christian peoples and from our mission in Europe. I could scarcely say it more clearly than that. And perhaps I can tell you something else on the subject of political Catholicism. You have...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do as you want to. I especially want to avoid burdening the Tribunal with the exchanges between you and Monsignor Kaas, because both of you used harsh language and it might not sound very good if I repeated it now. If you want to go into it, do, but don’t open it up unless you must.
VON PAPEN: I regard this accusation which you are making against me as one of the most tremendous for it violates my whole conception.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, you remember you told the Tribunal just before the adjournment that you had introduced Cardinal Innitzer to Hitler when you went into Austria. You remember that after the statement to which Dr. Kubuschok has referred, that Cardinal Innitzer in a broadcast from Rome made it clear that he was only accepting the Nazi rule of Austria on certain conditions. Do you remember that?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I would just like to see what happened to Cardinal Innitzer.
This is a new document, My Lord, D-903, which becomes GB-508. My Lord, this is a statement in the form of an affidavit from a priest, Dr. Weihbacher, which I only got from Vienna on 7 June.
You will see that this priest—well, at any rate I take it he is a priest; he is the archbishop’s secretary in the cathedral chapter. Let’s just look at it.
“On 8 October 1938”—that is a little over 6 months after you had arranged for Cardinal Innitzer to meet Hitler—“a serious attack was made by youthful demonstrators on the archbishop’s palace in Vienna. I was present during the attack and can therefore describe it from my own experience.”
Then he describes how they smashed window panes, broke in the gate. The priests took the archbishop into an inner room and hid him there. They took the cardinal to safety in the personalia archive and locked the iron door behind him, and:
“....then we two priests, seeing ourselves opposed by a crowd of invaders, personally took up a stand at the entrance to the cardinal’s house chapel in order to prevent any destruction from being wrought there at least.”
My Lord, this is about 10 lines from the foot of the page.
“Shortly after we had reached the chapel, the invaders stormed into the cardinal’s rooms adjoining the chapel. As soon as they reached the door we warded them off. Pieces of wood came flying into the chapel; I received a push that knocked me over; but we managed to prevent them from entering the chapel. The demonstrators were youths aged from 14 to 25 and numbering about a hundred. After we had warded off the first troop, we opened up the Tabernacle and consumed the consecrated wafers so as to prevent the Most Holy from being desecrated. But new invaders were already storming in; and we warded them off. In the meantime an indescribable orgy of destruction was going on in the remaining rooms among all the fittings. With the brass rods holding the carpet in place on the staircase, the youths destroyed tables and chairs, candelabras and valuable paintings, and in particular all the crucifixes.”
Then it describes the plate-glass doors and so on, and there was an alarm when the cardinal was discovered. This priest himself was dragged from the chapel by about six people and dragged across the anteroom to the window with shouts of “We’ll throw the dog out of the window.”
And then, eventually, the police came, and you will notice their idea of what was proper reparation.
“Then a lieutenant colonel of police arrived and apologized. He was followed by a representative of the Gestapo who expressed his regret that the police had not been very active in their intervention.
“Meanwhile other demonstrators attacked the cathedral rector’s house at 3 Stephansplatz where they threw the cathedral curate Krawarik out of the window into the yard. This priest lay in hospital until February with both thighs fractured.”
Now I ask you to look at the penultimate paragraph:
“That the demonstration was not the result of youthful wantonness or embitterment, but a well-laid plan known to official quarters, is obvious from the speech of Gauleiter Bürckel who, on 13 October on the Heldenplatz, in the basest possible manner represented the cardinal as guilty.”
Now, Herr Von Papen, you had a great responsibility in relation to Cardinal Innitzer, had you not? You had introduced him to Hitler. You must have learned from the ramifications and communications of the Catholic Church of this attack on the cardinal’s house 6 months after the Anschluss, did you not? You must have learned of this.
VON PAPEN: I heard about it later, of course.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What protest did you make when you heard of this disgraceful attack on the principles of the Church, the throwing of the cathedral curate out of the window and breaking both his thighs, the desecration of the chapel, the breaking of crucifixes? What protest did you make about it?
VON PAPEN: I should like to remind you, Sir David, that I had resigned from office more than 6 months before and no longer had anything whatsoever to do with these matters. Naturally the details of the incident were in the highest degree regrettable and, indeed, amounted to criminal attacks; but the details did not appear in the German press, so that I am probably seeing them for the first time in this form here. But let me add...
THE PRESIDENT: But, Defendant, you haven’t answered the question. The question was: What complaint did you make about it?
VON PAPEN: I made no protest, for I was no longer in an official position at the time. I was a private citizen, and all I learned officially about these things was what the German papers were allowed to publish.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, Defendant, surely you have told us that you were one of the leading Catholic laymen in Germany. You are not going to tell the Tribunal that in the Catholic Church it wasn’t known to every bishop in Germany and probably to every parish priest that this abominable and sacrilegious insult had been offered to a prince of the Church in his own house in Vienna. Surely it would permeate through the Church in a few days.
VON PAPEN: That is quite possible, Sir David; but would you expect me, a private citizen, to do anything? What could I do? The Tribunal did not take notice of the discussion which I brought about between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler. You mentioned that for the first time here today.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is exactly why I am putting this incident to you, that you were responsible for bringing about the meeting between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler in March of 1938. When His Eminence is attacked in October, I should have thought—it is not for me to express my thoughts—that you might have taken the trouble to protest to Hitler, and all that you do is to take another job under Hitler within 6 months, in April 1936.
What I am asking you is why you didn’t make a protest. You could have written to Hitler. The Defendant Göring has expressed his great religious interests. A number of the other defendants have said that they had great religious sympathies. Why couldn’t you have got in touch with them?
VON PAPEN: Because in autumn 1938 I retired from political life; I was living in the country and was no longer taking any active interest in politics. But perhaps I may say just why I was responsible for promoting a meeting with Cardinal Innitzer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, that is not the point that I am interested in at the moment, the meeting on 15 March. I am interested in the fact that this took place, that you knew of it, and made no protest.
Now I am going to come to another point. Dr. Kubuschok can raise it later on, if he wants.
Defendant, you have heard a number of your codefendants giving evidence and saying that they didn’t know of the terrible repressive measures that were taking place in Germany. You knew very well about these repressive measures, did you not? You knew about the action of the Gestapo, the concentration camps, and later you knew about the elimination of the Jews, did you not?
VON PAPEN: I only knew this much, that in the years 1933 and 1934 political opponents were interned in the concentration camps. I very frequently protested against the methods used in concentration camps. In various cases I liberated people from these camps; but at that time I was quite unaware that murders had even been committed in them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, just let me take that up. It is good to get down to a concrete instance.
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You remember that at the beginning of 1935 your secretary, Herr Von Tschirschsky, was ordered to return from Vienna to Berlin for examination by the Gestapo. Do you remember that?
VON PAPEN: Yes, indeed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you remember that he refused to go and he sent you a detailed report of his reasons for not going? Do you remember that?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let us look at that together very shortly.
My Lord, that is Document D-685, which would become Exhibit GB-509; Your Lordship will find it at Page 87 of Document Book 11, and it is at Page 60 of the German version.
Now, at Page 87 there is Herr Von Tschirschsky’s own letter to you, in which he says, at the end of the second paragraph: “I am not in a position ... to comply with the Gestapo demand to report to Berlin for interrogation.”
And then he says that—to quote his own words—that he has been influenced only by the “human, understandable desire to live” and then he sends a report, he encloses a report, to you of what had happened to him on 30 June which got him into the bad books of the Gestapo.
Do you remember that?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And summarizing the beginning of it, which would be almost humorous if it did not show such a dreadful state of affairs, your secretary, Herr Von Tschirschsky, was arrested simultaneously by two competing groups of Reich policemen, I think the Criminal Police and the Gestapo, and there was a severe danger of Herr Von Tschirschsky and some of the police being shot before they could decide who was to take him into custody. But I want you to come to when he is taken into custody.
My Lord, it is at Page 89, and it is at the end of Page 65 of the German version, Defendant.
You see, this is after, I think, the Gestapo had won the internecine struggle and it got possession of the body of Herr Von Tschirschsky, and then he says, just toward the end—My Lord, it is the middle of Page 89.
He is told the other police are following the Gestapo and he says:
“....we went to the Gestapo building in the Prinz Albrecht-Strasse and through a courtyard to a back entrance. There was another exchange of words between the two groups of Criminal Police. I again joined in this debate and suggested as a way of clearing up the misunderstanding that a man from each of the groups should see some higher authority in the building and let him decide what should be done. There would still be three Criminal Police officials and four SS men available to guard me and the other two gentlemen. This course was adopted; and eventually they came back and explained that the misunderstanding was now cleared up and we could be taken away. Whereupon we were taken by three SS men, not accompanied by the Criminal Police officials, on a lengthy trip through the building into the basement. There we were handed over without comment and were ordered by the SS men on duty there to go and sit on a bench against the wall, in the passage. We were then forbidden to talk to each other. I spent a few hours like this sitting on the bench. It would make too long a story to give further details of the events which took place during this time. I will therefore restrict myself to the case of the shooting of a well-known personality who was publicly stated to have committed suicide.
“The person in question was brought in under the escort of three SS men and led past us into a cell running parallel to our corridor. The leader of the detachment was an SS Hauptsturmführer, short, dark, and carrying an Army pistol in his hand. I heard the command ‘Guard the door!’ The door leading from our corridor into the other one was shut. Five shots were fired and immediately after the shots the Hauptsturmführer came out of the door with the still smoking pistol in his hand, muttering under his breath, ‘That swine is settled.’ Feverish excitement reigned all around; cries and shrieks of terror were heard from the cells. One of the SS men on duty, a comparative youngster, was so excited that he apparently lost all consciousness of the entire situation and informed me, illustrating his remarks with his fingers, that the person concerned had been liquidated by means of three shots in the temple and two in the back of the head.”
You had a pretty good idea of SS and Gestapo methods after Herr Von Tschirschsky had given you that report, hadn’t you?
VON PAPEN: Yes, and you can also see that this report...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Tell us, before we leave that elevating extract which I have just read, who was the well-known person who was supposed to have committed suicide and who was shot with three shots in the temple and two in the back of the head. Who was it?
VON PAPEN: I cannot tell you. I do not know.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you mean to say that Herr Von Tschirschsky was on your staff for several months afterwards and he never told you who this was?
VON PAPEN: I do not recall, Sir David, that he discussed this matter with me; and in any case I may have forgotten it. In any event one of the personalities who died on 30 June.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just pause. You say you might have forgotten. Do you mean that dreadful occurrences like this were so familiar to you that you cannot remember the account of the actual shooting of a supposed suicide who was a prominent person?
Have another think. Cannot you tell the Tribunal who this unfortunate man was?
VON PAPEN: If I remembered that, I would willingly tell you. I have no reason to conceal the information.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, just let the Tribunal see how you passed this on to Hitler. You believed, did you not, that Herr Von Tschirschsky was telling the truth? You said so. You believed he was telling the truth, didn’t you?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, will you look at page...
My Lord, it is Page 86 of the English version; and, Defendant, it is 58 of the German book, Page 58.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, are you going to investigate the facts as to what happened to the man who made this report?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, yes, I will clear that up, I am so sorry.
Defendant, just before we come to what happened when he made the report, Herr Von Tschirschsky himself was—I think he went to a concentration camp and had his head shaved and then eventually after a certain period he was released and rejoined your service and was in your service up until February of 1935. Is not that so, Defendant?
VON PAPEN: Yes, that is quite correct.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord. That takes up the story until we come to February 1935. He is then asked to report to the Gestapo and then this correspondence takes place.
Now, you see that in your letter to Hitler of 5 February, which is Document D-684, Exhibit GB-510, you say:
“As already reported yesterday by telegram, I have passed on to Herr Von Tschirschsky the order of 2d instant, repeating the demand that he appear on the date fixed by the Gestapo, 5 February.
“He then announced to me officially that he would not comply with this order as he was convinced that he would be killed in one way or another. He will give all his reasons for this refusal in a report which I will submit as soon as I receive it.
“Yesterday I finally relieved Herr Von Tschirschsky, whom I had already suspended for the duration of the proceedings, of his post. It goes without saying that I shall break off all connections of an official nature as soon as the files and such have been handed over tomorrow.”
Then you say you telegraphed the Defendant Von Neurath and you had given Herr Von Tschirschsky sick leave. Then just look at the last paragraph.
“After I had repeatedly asked that Herr Von Tschirschsky be given a chance to clear himself before a regular judge of the charges laid against him, I am naturally exceedingly sorry that the affair is now ending thus. I left nothing undone to induce Herr Von Tschirschsky to take the course indicated to him of submitting to interrogation by the Gestapo.”
Defendant, is that right, that you left nothing undone to get this man in your staff sent to his death to be murdered by the Gestapo?
VON PAPEN: I think it would be fair, Sir David, to call the attention of the High Tribunal to the other letters which show that I asked Hitler not only once, but repeatedly, to have the matter of Tschirschsky investigated by means of a regular trial.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is quite true and it was referred to in that letter.
VON PAPEN: Yes, of course, but please let me finish...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Quite true.
VON PAPEN: When this proposal was turned down and the Führer would not agree to have a regular trial, he, Hitler, let me know that he would use his personal influence, and that he would assume personal responsibility that nothing would happen to Herr Von Tschirschsky if he was investigated by the Gestapo. You will also find that in these letters. The Führer promised him exceptional immunity if he would allow himself to be interrogated by the Gestapo. Therefore, after the suggestion for a regular trial had been turned down and Hitler had promised that nothing would happen to Herr Von Tschirschsky, I asked Herr Von Tschirschsky to submit to the investigation, as the charges made against him had to be cleared up somehow. But I believe...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you turn back to your letter of 31 January, which you will find...
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I think you should read the whole of this letter which you have just been on, 5 February, at some stage.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I will. My Lord, I am so sorry. My Lord, I do not want to omit anything; but I am, of course, trying to shorten the matter; but I will read anything Your Lordship wants.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal ought to be in possession of the whole letter. You stopped at the word “courier,” in the middle, with reference to reporting.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord. With reference to reporting his dismissal to the Austrian Government:
“With regard to reporting his dismissal to the Austrian Government, I am afraid that if I dismiss him abruptly tomorrow, the matter will become the theme of public discussion. I think this scandal should be avoided and I have therefore given Herr Von Tschirschsky sick leave in the meantime, as far as the public is concerned. I shall report his dismissal later.
“I shall return to the Tschirschsky affair and its connections with other current Gestapo questions in Vienna later, in a detailed report.”
My Lord, I am grateful.
THE PRESIDENT: You left off after the word “Gestapo” in the next paragraph.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I will read the whole thing again.
“After I had repeatedly asked....”
THE PRESIDENT: No, you read that down to “Gestapo,” but you did not go on with the rest.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “But if he persists in his resolve to avoid this interrogation, even though he knows that this means social and material ruin for himself and his family, and as he has given me his word that he will do nothing while an émigré which would be harmful to the Führer and to the country, I can only add my wish that everything should be avoided which could turn this affair into an open scandal.”
I am grateful, My Lord.
Now, Defendant, you had already said to Hitler on 31 January, which was 5 days before that—Page 84, My Lord, and the foot of Page 55 and the beginning of 56 of the German book:
“Herr Von Tschirschsky, whom I have, incidentally, for the time being relieved of his duties, has now learned from several sources which he—and I myself as well, unfortunately—regards as authentic, that some persons belonging to the Gestapo have for some considerable time been planning to liquidate him.”
My Lord, that will be Document D-683, Exhibit GB-511.
You believed that it was authentic on 31 January that the Gestapo wished to neutralize him. On 5 February, in the part that the Tribunal just asked me to read, you say it will be the ruin of his social and material position for himself and his family, but if the thing is kept quiet, your wish is that everything be done to avoid a scandal.
Now, Defendant...
VON PAPEN: My wish was first of all that everything possible should be done to have the matter cleared by means of a public trial.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was your first wish, but you very soon gave that up.
VON PAPEN: Just a moment, please. After Hitler had refused to agree to my wish, and after he had determined that Von Tschirschsky would enjoy the personal protection of Hitler during his investigation by the Gestapo—that is, if the head of the State says “I will be responsible for the fact that nothing will happen to Herr Von Tschirschsky!” then you will allow that naturally the only course of action open to me is to say to Herr Von Tschirschsky, “Take this course and let them interrogate you; for after all you have to clear yourself of the suspicion resting on you.”
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, let me remind you that there is not a word in your letter of 5 February about any promise from Hitler to give an indemnity to Herr Von Tschirschsky. All that you are saying is that he will disappear into disgrace. There is nothing in any other letter either.
VON PAPEN: Yes. It is in one of Tschirschsky’s reports. I cannot find it at the moment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you can find anything about an indemnity, I can only tell you that I have not been able to find it in any of your letters.
VON PAPEN: But it is there.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the defendant could look for this document at the recess, at 1 o’clock.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, very well. My Lord, if there is such a document, I am very sorry; I don’t know about it.
Yes, My Lord; I am sorry. I think I have got the reference. On Page 91, My Lord. It is not in the defendant’s letter, but there is a reference in Herr Von Tschirschsky’s report. On Page 91, My Lord. Page 69. It says:
“In conclusion—the reason why I feel myself under no obligation either to appear before the Gestapo or to return to the Reich at all, in spite of the extraordinary protection promised me by the Führer and Reich Chancellor—I make the following declaration:
“During the period of my activities in Berlin, information had already frequently reached me to the effect that there existed in the Reich a terror organization which had sworn the oath of mutual allegiance in life and death. It is expressly pointed out to men who are or who may be accepted into this brotherhood that they are under an obligation to submit to the secret court and that they are in duty bound when carrying out their tasks to feel that they belong in a high degree to the brotherhood and only in a smaller degree to Adolf Hitler. I could not have believed this monstrous thing, had I not been informed of it about 6 months previously by a man in the Reich—I wish to stress this particularly—who is not opposed to the Third Reich, but quite the opposite, a man who in his innermost convictions believes in Adolf Hitler’s mission, a Reich-German and a National Socialist of many years’ standing, who himself at one time was to be asked to join this brotherhood but who was able to withdraw from it cleverly. This man has assured me of his willingness publicly to announce the names which he mentioned to me of members of this brotherhood, or to swear an affidavit to this effect in case these people should be already dead. He must only be assured that this terrorist brotherhood is no longer active, especially as there are persons belonging to this brotherhood who are among those most trusted by the Führer and Reich Chancellor.”
I am sorry; I knew there was nothing in the letters from the defendant, but I had forgotten that there was this passage in the letter.
Now, that was Von Tschirschsky. You told us that Baron von Ketteler was murdered at the end of your time in Vienna. You remember Baron von Ketteler’s father was murdered, if my memory is right, and that caused the German expedition against the Boxers in China. That is the family the gentlemen belonged to, is it not?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the effect of this, the murder of Von Ketteler, on you after the experience with Von Tschirschsky was that you were ready to take new employment under the Nazi Government in Turkey.
There is just one other point that I want to put to you.
VON PAPEN: May I add just a few remarks on this point? I told the Court...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Herr Von Papen, I will finish on that because I think we have the other reference to Marchionini’s affidavit, and then you can make all the other remarks you like.
Why didn’t you after this series of murders which had gone on over a period of 4 years, why didn’t you break with these people and stand up like General Yorck or any other people that you may think of from history, stand up for your own views and oppose these murderers? Why didn’t you do it?
Now you can give your explanation.
VON PAPEN: Very well. You can see that I submitted Von Tschirschsky’s report on these murders to Hitler, in all its details, but what you do not know is the fact that I myself frequently told Hitler that such a regime could not possibly last; and if you ask me, Sir David, why despite everything I remained in the service of the Reich, then I can say only that on 30 June I personally broke off the relations into which we had entered on 30 January. From that day onward I did my duty—my duty to Germany, if you wish to know. I can understand very well, Sir David, that after all the things we know today, after the millions of murders which have taken place, you consider the German people a nation of criminals, and that you cannot understand that this nation has its patriots as well. I did these things in order to serve my country, and I should like to add, Sir David, that up to the time of the Munich Agreement, and even up to the time of the Polish campaign, even the major powers tried, although they knew everything that was going on in Germany, to work with this Germany.
Why do you wish to reproach a patriotic German with acting likewise, and with hoping likewise, for the same thing for which all the major powers hoped?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The major powers had not had their servants murdered, one after the other, and were not close to Hitler like you. What I am putting to you is that the only reason that could have kept you in the service of the Nazi Government when you knew of all these crimes was that you sympathized and wanted to carry on with the Nazis’ work. That is what I am putting to you—that you had this express knowledge; you had seen your own friends, your own servants, murdered around you. You had the detailed knowledge of it, and the only reason that could have led you on and made you take one job after another from the Nazis was that you sympathized with their work. That is what I am putting against you, Herr Von Papen.
VON PAPEN: That, Sir David, is perhaps your opinion; my opinion is that I am responsible only to my conscience and to the German people for my decision to work for my fatherland; and I shall accept their verdict.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have finished.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours.]
Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: Had you finished, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I had finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Did any of the other prosecutors wish to cross-examine?
Dr. Kubuschok?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the cross-examination yesterday it was pointed out to you that in your report to Hitler of 27 July 1935—British Document Book 11a, Page 79—you point out that, according to legal findings, leading Reich-German personalities applied the use of force in Austria in July 1934. In this connection you mentioned the name Habicht. I should like to receive some information about the personality of Habicht. Was Habicht a Reich-German?
VON PAPEN: Habicht was a Reich-German and had his headquarters in Munich. He was Provincial Inspector (Landesinspekteur) of the entire National Socialist Party in Austria. That means the following:
The Austrian Party had a Gauleiter in Austria, but it was directed from Munich from the Reich Party Directorate by a specially appointed Landesleiter, Provincial Inspector Habicht. Since this man had charge of the whole Austrian Party, his position in the Party was, of course, considered as a leading one. One could not call him a “liaison officer,” but a leading Reich-German personality.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In cross-examination yesterday various letters were submitted to you which you wrote to Hitler between 4 and 17 July 1934. These letters should be gone into more closely. What was the purpose of the letters?
VON PAPEN: I am glad to have an opportunity to go into this correspondence once more. One must consider the situation which existed at that time: Bose shot, three co-workers arrested, great excitement; and everyone who was in any way in opposition was under suspicion of being connected with this SA revolt. It was similar to the situation after 20 July 1944.
Therefore the first goal was to clear up the Bose case as well as the other cases through legal proceedings. I requested that in my first letter of 4 July. I also demanded this rehabilitation in further letters, but it was a prerequisite to establish first of all that we were not in any way connected with the SA conspirators.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the letters you assure Hitler of your faithfulness and loyalty. Is this not astonishing after the events of 30 June?
VON PAPEN: It may seem astonishing to an outsider, but not to a person who remembers the hysterical atmosphere of those days, for at that time everyone who had been in any opposition at all or who had criticized the system was branded as a co-conspirator. For that reason I thought it advisable to make it clear, by means of such a letter, that I and the Vice Chancellery had nothing to do with this conspiracy.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The representative of the Prosecution thinks your letters have only the purpose of rehabilitating your own person. What do you have to say about this?
VON PAPEN: I ask that the Tribunal study these letters. In them it can be seen that I repeatedly pointed out that my co-workers too must be absolutely rehabilitated. In the letter of 12 July, on Page 3, I say that the honor of my own officials is also my own honor; and I repeatedly demanded that the Bose case be cleared up.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What did you believe to be able to achieve through the legal proceedings which you suggested?
VON PAPEN: Legal proceedings would have had two effects: In the first place, nonparticipation in the Putsch would have been established; and that would necessarily have shown that the arrest of my co-workers and the killing of Bose had been an arbitrary act, an act for which those responsible were to be punished.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In a letter of 14 July you welcomed Hitler’s speech of justification before the Reichstag on 13 July. What comment do you have to make on this?
VON PAPEN: I may ask you to look at the text of this letter. I welcomed the suppression of the intended second revolution, but this must by no means be taken as recognition of the acts of violence carried out against persons not participating in the revolution; and furthermore, the following is to be considered: The events of 30 June were divided into two parts. In the first place, Hitler himself had turned against the revolting SA; the fact that such a revolt was actually planned seemed quite credible to all of us, for the rumors of a second revolution had been current in the country for weeks. In Marburg I had already made reference to it. The revolt of the SA leaders, who represented an effective power, could be considered a danger to the State; and the executions had been directed against SA leaders who were especially well-known and whose names were connected with the excesses of 1933.
The second part of the action had been directed against persons outside this circle. Slowly the news of the individual cases leaked out. The justification for taking steps against these persons was in part explained by saying that they had some sort of connection with SA leaders and that some of them had offered resistance. That had to be cleared up, for here an emergency law could be referred to; but it was not possible to deviate from an orderly legal procedure. Hence my letter to Hitler of 12 July, in which I asked him not to deviate from the orderly legal procedure. I warned him against identifying himself with these events, and I demanded from him—referring to the Bose case—the latter’s rehabilitation and legal proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: We have got the letters, Dr. Kubuschok.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, the purpose of this questioning is to clear up the matter and to explain the contents of the letters, but I believe the defendant has said enough and we can go on to another question now.
Your letter of 17 July is signed without a complimentary closing, and also deviates from other letters in its general form. How do you explain this?
VON PAPEN: On 17 July, I had to consider my efforts to achieve legal proceedings as having failed. I had not even received my files back. For that reason, I gave up further efforts and there was no longer any reason to announce my resignation publicly.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: You mean to put it off.
Now I come back to a document which the British Prosecution referred to today. It is 2248-PS in the British Document Book 11a, Page 99. The representative of the British Prosecution has tried to obtain an explanation from the defendant. I believe difficulties in the translation and the manner of expression in general have made it a bit hard to understand. I will read the sentence in question once more and ask the defendant to explain this sentence. I will quote on Page 99 of the English text, the second paragraph from the top.
“The way Germany....”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, we have had a very long explanation already.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, the explanation suffered from the fact that the defendant did not understand the translation correctly or that the British Prosecution did not understand the defendant. The form of the German text is not clear. The defendant will be able to explain it very easily. The explanation goes...
THE PRESIDENT: All right, go on then, go on.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: “The way in which Germany deals with politico-religious difficulties, the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundation of Germany, will not only have a decisive effect on England,” et cetera.
Please explain the sense of this sentence which I have just read.
VON PAPEN: I meant to say to Hitler, “You must eliminate political Catholicism with a clever hand, but the religious foundation must under no circumstances be touched.” It depended upon the clever solution of this question...
THE PRESIDENT: No question of translation arises. The passage was read to us verbatim as it is before us, and it was read by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe to the defendant, and the defendant has given the same answer over and over again in answer to Sir David.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, may I point out the following: The whole sentence was in the future tense, the whole sentence...
THE PRESIDENT: It was read to us just now by the interpreter verbatim in the words which are before us in the book and the words which were put by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe to the defendant. There is no question of difference of tense at all.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, there is a special language difficulty, because in the first part the first two verbs are in the present tense in connection with the auxiliary “wird” used later; and in accordance with German language usage the present is to be understood as meaning the future also. In the opinion of the British Prosecution, the first two verbs “deals” and “eliminates” are to be considered past tense, and that is the difference.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a matter of verbal argument on the words of the document.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes. Now one last question to the witness.
A while ago Cardinal Innitzer’s talk to Hitler in Vienna was discussed. What occasioned you to arrange this meeting of Hitler with Cardinal Innitzer?
VON PAPEN: With our march into Austria and the Anschluss of Austria to the Reich, Hitler had joined a Catholic country to Germany; and the problem, which was to be solved, was winning this country from the interior as well. That was possible only if Hitler recognized the religious basis, recognized what rights Catholicism had in this country; for this reason I arranged a talk between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler in order to make sure that Hitler in the future would follow a policy which stood on a Christian basis in Austria.
By arranging this interview, I thought I would be able to do one last service for Austria; that was the reason.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is the end of the examination.
THE PRESIDENT: I have just two or three questions I should like to ask you.
When did you first hear about the murder of Jews?
VON PAPEN: I believe, My Lord, that that was during the war.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the war lasted 6 years. When during the war?
VON PAPEN: I cannot say with certainty, My Lord. I cannot say on my oath when it was.
THE PRESIDENT: You cannot say with more certainty than that?
VON PAPEN: No; our general knowledge was that the Jews were sent to camps in Poland. But we knew nothing of a systematic extermination of Jews such as we have heard of here.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness whose affidavit your counsel has put in evidence, Marchionini, what do you know about him?
VON PAPEN: Marchionini, My Lord, is a very well-known professor who was employed by the Model Hospital in Ankara and who was also my family doctor.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got your volumes of exhibits before you?
VON PAPEN: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Could the defendant have Volume III?
[The documents were handed to the defendant.]
Volume III; it’s in the affidavit from Marchionini, the last paragraph of the answer to Question 6.
VON PAPEN: One moment, My Lord. I have not found it yet.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no hurry.
VON PAPEN: I have the affidavit now.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have Question 6, or rather the answer to Question 6?
VON PAPEN: The questions are not numbered here.
THE PRESIDENT: It is the last question but one.
VON PAPEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In the answer to that question, he says this:
“I clearly remember an incident in spring 1944 when I called upon Von Papen at the request of Herr Barlas, the Refugee Commissioner of the Jewish Agency, to request his assistance in saving 10,000 Jews in France from deportation to Poland for extermination. These Jews had formerly held Turkish nationality which they later renounced.”
Then, he says, through your intervention “....the lives of these Jews were saved.” Is that statement true?
VON PAPEN: Yes, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: So at any rate by the spring of 1944 you knew that 10,000 Jews in France were about to be deported for extermination?
VON PAPEN: I believe they were to be deported to Poland, My Lord. But we did not know in 1944 that they were to be exterminated. We wanted to protect them from deportation.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said the statement was true.
VON PAPEN: For the purpose of exterminating—I believe that was not said to us at the time. The question was only whether I was willing to help keep 10,000 Jews who were in France from being deported to Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. You may return to the dock.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I had three witnesses approved by the Tribunal. The witness Freiherr von Lersner could not come here at the time because of transportation difficulties. He cannot be here before the end of July. After the questioning of the defendant and considering the fact that Lersner has answered an interrogatory, I believe I can dispense with the witness. I regret this, because he is a man who was a companion of the defendant during his whole political career, a witness who would have been especially valuable because of his objectivity in these questions. He was president of the German Peace Delegation at Versailles.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have the affidavit or the interrogatory, you can put it in. We do not need any further statements about it.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
The second witness was Count Kageneck. Since the questions which were to be asked of Kageneck have been covered in the questioning of the defendant and the cross-examination did not touch upon them, I can also dispense with this witness.
There remains only the witness Dr. Kroll, whom I now call to the stand.
[The witness Kroll took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
HANS KROLL (Witness): Hans Kroll.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath, after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.
[The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, what was your occupation in Ankara?
KROLL: I was the First Counsellor of the Embassy, and later Minister. I was in Ankara from the fall of 1936 until April 1943; from April 1939 until April 1943 I worked together with Ambassador Von Papen as his principal collaborator. Daily, mostly in the morning and in the afternoon, we conferred together for several hours, so that I believe I am well informed about the various phases of his activity during this period in Turkey; that is, about his activity during the war.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: For explanatory purposes I would like to say that these questions will refer mostly to the peace policy of the defendant.
Did you know Herr Von Papen before he became Ambassador in Ankara?
KROLL: No. We met in Ankara.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Were you a member of the NSDAP?
KROLL: No.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: After taking over the position as Ambassador, Herr Von Papen came to Ankara for a short stay. What was the purpose of this visit?
KROLL: Herr Von Papen wanted, first of all, to present himself to the Turkish Government and to obtain information on the general situation.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did Herr Von Papen at that time, through his conduct and his statements, express his agreement with German foreign policy and, in particular, with the policy toward Poland? Or did he, as far as he was able, attempt to work against this policy?
KROLL: After the arrival of Herr Von Papen, I was, of course, interested to learn what he imagined the future development of the general situation would be and, in particular, the Polish question. I assumed, of course, that as he came from Germany he was well informed about Hitler’s plans; and I was disappointed to find that he knew no more than I did, which was nothing at all.
Then we discussed the situation in detail; as far as I was able to tell, Herr Von Papen, who spoke very frankly with me about these things, distrusted Hitler’s foreign policy. He was an enemy of war, a true and sincere enemy of war; and, of course, he was also an enemy of war against Poland. He was quite convinced that an agreement could be reached on the Polish question if it could only be made clear to Hitler that a conflict with Poland would of necessity lead to a World War. He then endeavored, and I must say in very open, clear, and courageous language, to point out this view in his reports. And in his talks with the Turkish statesmen, as well as with the accredited diplomats in Ankara, he attempted to prove that, in fact, a conflict with Poland would of necessity lead to a conflict with England and France. I often told myself later that he was convinced that if everyone, Germans as well as foreigners, had spoken to Hitler in this clear manner, the war would have been avoided.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: After the outbreak of the Polish war, what was the attitude of Herr Von Papen toward the spread of the war to the Nordic States, Holland, Belgium, and finally, Russia?
KROLL: Herr Von Papen, of course, hoped that during this winter pause some agreement would be reached or at least a meeting arranged. He knew that once the action spread to the west, the war would break out in all its horror and that then it would probably be too late to talk things over. Of course, as far as possible, he looked for mediation in Turkey and he was glad and willing to consider any opportunity, such as had resulted from talks with his friend, the Dutch Minister in Ankara, Van Visser. The motive behind this offer of Visser was Holland’s wish to have the war ended before spring and along with that the fighting in the west, and the goal was to be a talk between Germany and England.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I am interested in knowing what Herr Von Papen’s opinion of such a peace was. Did he think that it would be possible to achieve annexation by way of peace, or what was the purpose of this peace which he had in mind?
KROLL: I believe it is known from the previous activity of Herr Von Papen that he was a friend and believer in European understanding. He knew that this war had not begun because of a territorial problem but because of a principle; that is to say, the prevention of future one-sided aggressive wars. And so, in the restoration of the legal status before the beginning of the war, that is, in the restoration of the status quo ante on the basis of 1938, including the restoration of Poland and Czechoslovakia, he saw the prerequisite for instituting pourparlers.
He considered the second prerequisite for the successful carrying on of such pourparlers the restoration of confidence in the German signature, which was known to have been destroyed through Hitler’s foreign policy. The only question was how this confidence could be restored. He clearly realized that the prerequisite for this was a basic reform of the regime, with the aim of making Germany a legal state once more. Finally, Herr Von Papen, posted as he was in Turkey, believed he saw the possibility of ending the war by reaching an understanding, because Turkey was in a better position for mediation than practically any other state of equal importance in foreign politics. It enjoyed the confidence of both belligerent parties, and that is essential for arranging a pourparler. And so he endeavored, in all his talks with Turkish statesmen, to win Turkey over for a mediation. During all his years in Turkey that was the leitmotif of his work, namely, to bring the war to an end as soon as possible. It is a fact that he finally enjoyed the satisfaction of hearing the Turkish President, in 1942 in a big public speech before the Turkish National Assembly, offering the services of Turkey for mediation between the belligerents.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you have knowledge of the efforts of Herr Von Papen to avert a spread of the war toward Turkey, contrary to the efforts of certain circles of the Axis partners around Hitler? During the war there were several crises which you might briefly mention.
KROLL: I should like to say first that Papen’s activity in Turkey can be summed up in one word. He considered it his mission to make one and the same the interests of Germany, his country, and the interests of peace. That meant, in effect, that he endeavored to prevent the spreading of the war to Turkey and the Near East and thus create the prerequisite for having Turkey intervene as mediator at the proper time.
Now, as to the crises. I should like to limit myself to those cases in which Herr Von Papen had the impression that the neutrality of Turkey was endangered by the intentions of the Axis partners.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I did before draw your attention to the fact that there was no charge against Von Papen in connection with his activities at Ankara; and also, I may add, that this was a summing-up in one word, I thought.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: There are only a very few cases, Your Lordship. He will tell us about them briefly to complete the general picture.
THE PRESIDENT: The only way in which the evidence can be relevant at all is insofar as it throws light upon Von Papen’s activities before he went to Ankara. That is what I pointed out to you before.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I said the other day, Your Lordship, that the personality of a person charged with war conspiracy cannot be judged correctly if only one period of his activity is mentioned. He was at a post where he could do only negative or positive things. It is certainly not irrelevant if at least it may be presented in brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, this witness has been telling us for a considerable time that Papen’s activities were entirely peaceful and that they were endeavors to make Turkey mediate; and what he is doing now is simply going on with further details on the same subject, and it is over a period when, as I say, no charge is made against Von Papen at all by the Prosecution.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: If the Tribunal understands that the Defendant Von Papen actually interpreted his mission in Ankara as a peace mission, I need put no further questions to the witness. Then I come to my last questions.
What was the position of Herr Von Papen in regard to the Party, especially as to the Landesleitung in Ankara?
KROLL: On his arrival Von Papen was received with unconcealed distrust. No wonder, for it was known that he was no National Socialist. During these 4 years in Turkey I did not meet anyone who considered him a National Socialist. His relationship to the Party became worse in the course of the years, and finally it resulted in open conflict. That was in 1942, when the Landesgruppenleiter of the Party in Ankara once told his colleagues, if it rested with him he would have Herr Von Papen shot. Then he was challenged about it and corrected himself. He said he didn’t say that; he only said he would have him put in a concentration camp.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was the attitude of Von Papen to the Jewish question?
KROLL: In repeated public speeches as well as in his actions, Herr Von Papen quite clearly opposed the anti-Jewish policy of the Party. He was acquainted with Jewish emigrants. He had Jewish doctors; he bought in Jewish stores. In short, I believe that was one of the main reasons which caused this tension between him and the Party.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did Herr Von Papen even employ a Jewish woman in the Embassy?
KROLL: As far as I know, yes. I believe that was the wife of his servant, his porter.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: She was employed as a telephone operator there? Frau B...., is that right?
KROLL: Yes.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Do you know a Herr Posemann? Did he have any connection with the German Embassy?
KROLL: At my time, Posemann was not in the German Embassy. I recall that he had a bookstore in Ankara. He had nothing to do with the Embassy.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was the attitude of Herr Von Papen in the personnel question? Did he employ National Socialists in the Embassy, or what preferences did he have?
KROLL: It is well known that the Party was never quite satisfied with Von Papen’s choice of workers. That was shown by the very severe consequences on 30 June and after the Anschluss. It was somewhat dangerous to be one of his first co-workers.
Of course, he was regarded with suspicion because he did not make a National Socialist command post out of the Embassy, as was done in the Balkans, and because, when he asked for personnel, he chose people who he knew were not National Socialists. I think I need only mention two names, Herr Von Haeften and Legationsrat Von Trott zu Solz, two men who I believe were executed in connection with 20 July. Of course, it was especially held against Von Papen that he opposed all efforts to remove me from my post. I do not know whether I should go into that.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Please do, briefly.
KROLL: Repeatedly—I could really say every month—an attempt was made to have me eliminated as deputy of Von Papen. Finally when that did not do any good, since Von Papen always opposed these attempts, the Landesgruppenleiter, beating the war drum, and the Ortsgruppenleiter of Ankara and Istanbul in the spring of 1942 came to see Von Papen and officially in the name of the Party demanded that I should be removed from my post. Von Papen refused this once more but finally in 1943 the pressure of the Party became too great, especially since other sources conspired against me, and so then I was excluded.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: A final question: During the years you worked together you became well acquainted with the activity of Von Papen and his personality. Perhaps you can give us a brief picture of the defendant.
KROLL: I already said before...
THE PRESIDENT: No, he has already sketched it at very considerable length and we don’t want it briefly reiterated.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Then I shall dispense with this question. I have finished the examination of the witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no questions, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel want to ask any questions? Then the witness can retire.
[The witness left the stand.]
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I only need to refer briefly to a few documents. In Document Book 1, I submit Document 24, Page 86. I refer to the note:
“An agreement was reached with the Prosecution to the effect that the fact should be accepted that the Enabling Act of 24 March 1933 was preceded by two Enabling Acts in 1923.”
I refer to Document Book 2, Document 63, an article from The Stars and Stripes of 27 March 1946. These are the peace efforts through Earle. The article is to supplement the interrogatory of Lersner.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 36?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number 63, Page 153.
Furthermore, I refer to Volume II...
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. This document that you just put before us is a document of 27 March 1946. What are we going to do with that? It is a newspaper article.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: It is a newspaper article on an interview with Earle. He was speaking with Lersner. To supplement the testimony of Lersner, which we do not have here, I should like to use this newspaper article. It enlarges on something which is briefly mentioned in Lersner’s written testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: But you had the opportunity of getting an affidavit from Lersner or for putting what questions you wanted to Lersner, and now you are putting in a newspaper article dated 1946 whilst the Trial is going on.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, since I cannot hear Lersner himself because of his absence—we intended to hear him as a witness—the question in the interrogatory was answered rather briefly. To complete it...
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of the interrogatory?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Lersner interrogatory is dated 15 April 1946. It is Document 93. Date of the interrogatory, 15 April 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal doesn’t think that this document ought to be admitted. Newspaper articles whilst the Trial is going on are not the sort of evidence which the Tribunal thinks it right to admit.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In Volume III I submit Document 99, an affidavit by Schaffgotsch, Page 245. It is just being submitted, Mr. President. It is a brief affidavit concerning Papen’s vain efforts in the spring of 1934 to reach Hindenburg.
Finally, as Document 100, I shall submit the appeal of the Reich Government of 1 February 1939, which was mentioned yesterday, and also an excerpt on foreign policy from Hitler’s speech of 23 March. Yesterday it was referred to during the proceedings.
Furthermore, I refer to all documents in all three document books which have been submitted and ask that you take judicial notice of them.
Then I have one final request. Yesterday parts of the discussion of the affidavits of Schröder and Meissner were read into the record. I believe the Prosecution, since they have not made use of the affidavits, will be willing that these parts be stricken from the record.
THE PRESIDENT: It was Meissner’s affidavit which was used to some extent, wasn’t it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, it was. My Lord, I should have thought the most convenient course was that the Tribunal would take it that I have merely put the facts out of the affidavit and would not consider that the evidence of the affidavit was before them. Otherwise, I think it would be very difficult to correct the record, but of course I accept that position.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we think so. We will treat it as those facts having been put to the witness and the witness having answered them, without considering it as a sworn statement.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, purely as my questions.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I am now finished with the case of the Defendant Von Papen.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. The Tribunal will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will sit on Saturday in open session from 10 to 1.
I call on counsel for the Defendant Speer.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: Perhaps the High Tribunal will recall the fact that when we were discussing the evidence material which I had suggested for presentation in this case I dispensed with the testimony of witnesses and stated that I would limit myself to the use of interrogatories and to the questioning of witnesses outside of the courtroom.
I had hoped I should thus be able to produce my entire evidence. However, I am not in possession of all the interrogatories I sent out. I have only received part of them. I will use those replies which are at my disposal to the best of my ability in the examination of the defendant so that a special presentation of those interrogatories and of the depositions will be superfluous. Despite everything, I hope to conduct the examination of the defendant in such a manner that in my estimation I shall be finished in a day and at the most 7 hours.
Now, with the permission of the High Tribunal I should like to call the Defendant Speer to the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
[The Defendant Speer took the stand.]
Will you state your full name, please?
ALBERT SPEER (Defendant): Albert Speer.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.
[The defendant repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: Sit down.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Herr Speer, will you please tell the Tribunal about your life up until the time you were appointed Minister?
SPEER: I was born on 19 March 1905. My grandfather and my father were successful architects. At first I wanted to study mathematics and physics; but then I took up architecture, more because of tradition than inclination. I attended the universities at Munich and Berlin; and in 1929 at the age of 24, I was the first assistant at the technical college in Berlin. At the age of 27, in 1932, I went into business for myself until 1942.
In 1934 Hitler noticed me for the first time. I became acquainted with him and from that period of time onward I exercised my architect’s profession with joy and enthusiasm, for Hitler was quite fanatical on the subject of architecture; and I received many important construction contracts from him. Along with putting up a new Reich Chancellery in Berlin and various buildings on the Party Rally grounds here in Nuremberg, I was entrusted with the replanning of the cities of Berlin and Nuremberg. I had sketched buildings which would have been among the largest in the world, and the carrying through of these plans would have cost no more than 2 months of Germany’s war expenditure. Through this predilection which Hitler had for architecture I had a close personal contact with him. I belonged to a circle which consisted of other artists and his personal staff. If Hitler had had any friends at all, I certainly would have been one of his close friends.
Despite the war, this peaceful construction work was carried on until December 1941, and only the winter catastrophe in Russia put an end to it. The German part of the manpower was furnished by me for the reconstruction of the destroyed railroad installations in Russia.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The Prosecution, in Document 1435-PS, which is Exhibit USA-216, has quoted a remark from your first speech as a Minister, dated February 1942, in which you state that at that time you had placed 10,000 prisoners of war at the disposal of the armament industry.
Mr. President, this remark may be found in my document book, on Page 4 of the English text and Page 1 of the French text.
Herr Speer, what do you have to say about this document?
SPEER: At that time in my capacity as an architect I had nothing to say as to whether these workers were to be taken into armaments or not. They were put at the disposal of the Stalag, the prisoner-of-war installation of the OKW. I took it as a matter of course that they would be put at the disposal of armaments in the larger sense.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Herr Speer, did you ever participate in the planning and preparation of an aggressive war?
SPEER: No. Since I was active as an architect up until the year 1942, there can be no question about that whatsoever. The buildings which I constructed were completely representative of peacetime building. As an architect I used up material, manpower, and money in considerable amounts for this purpose. This material, in the last analysis, was lost to armaments.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Were you...
SPEER: One moment, please.
The carrying out of these large building plans which Hitler had supported was, actually and especially psychologically, an obstacle to armament.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The Prosecution asserts you had been a Reichsleiter.
SPEER: No, that is a mistake on the part of the Prosecution.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: You wore the Golden Party Badge. When and why did you receive it?
SPEER: I received the Golden Party Badge from Hitler in 1938. It was because I had completed the plans for a new building program in Berlin. Besides myself, five other artists received this Golden Party Badge at the same time.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Were you a member of the Reichstag?
SPEER: In 1941 I was called into the Reichstag by Hitler, that is, outside of an election, as replacement for a member who had left the Reichstag. Hitler at that time told me that in my person he also wanted an artist represented in the Reichstag.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Did you ever receive a donation?
SPEER: No.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: How did your activity as a Minister start?
SPEER: On 8 February 1942, my predecessor, Dr. Todt, was killed in an airplane crash. Several days later Hitler declared I was to be his successor in his many offices. At that time I was 36 years of age. Up until that time, Hitler considered the main activity of Todt to be in the building sphere, and that is why he called me to be his successor. I believe that it was a complete surprise to everyone when I was called to office as a Minister.
Immediately upon my assuming office, it could be seen that not building but the intensification of armaments was to be my main task, for the heavy losses of material in the battles in Russia during the winter of 1941-1942 was a great blow. Hitler called for considerable intensification of armament production.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: When you assumed office, did you find an office completely set up in the Reich Ministry for Arms and Munitions?
SPEER: No, Dr. Todt had neglected this function of his up until that time; and in addition, in the fall of 1941 Hitler issued a decree according to which the armament of the Army was to take second place to the armament of the Air Force. At that time he foresaw a victorious outcome of the war in Russia and had decreed that armament was to be concentrated on the imminent war against England and was to be converted to that end. Because of this unbelievable optimism of his, the rescinding of that order was postponed until January 1942; and only from that date onward—that is, during the last month of his life—did Dr. Todt start to build up his organization. Therefore I had the difficult task first of all to work myself into a completely new field; secondly, at the same time to create all organizational prerequisites for my task; and thirdly, to restore the decreasing armament production for the Army and to increase production as much as possible within the next few months. As is very well known today, I succeeded in doing that.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: What promises did you receive from Hitler about the duration of your task and about the set-up of your staff of collaborators?
SPEER: Hitler promised me that I should consider my task only as a war task and that after the war I might once more resume my profession of architect.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: At this point I should like to mention a passage from Document 1435-PS, which deals with a speech delivered by Speer on 24 February 1942, 10 days after he assumed office. This document shows that he was very reluctant about changing his profession of architect for that of Minister. I quote:
“Finally I can say for myself that my personal contribution is a very large one. Up until very recently I lived in a world of pure ideals.”
In Document 1520-PS, which is Exhibit GB-156, found on Page 2 of my document book, Page 5 of the English text and Page 2 of the French and Russian texts, on 8 May 1942 Hitler stated; and I quote: “The Führer thereupon stated several times that the Reich Ministry Speer would be dissolved on the day when peace was concluded.”
I should further like to submit Document Number Speer-43 which is a memorandum from Speer to Hitler, dated 20 September 1944. Mr. President, this may be found on Page 6 of the English text, Page 3 of the French and Russian texts. From this document you can see that Speer was considered hostile to the Party (“parteifremd” and “parteifeindlich”) by Bormann and Goebbels because of his circle of collaborators. Speer writes in his memorandum, and I quote:
“The task which I have to fulfill is a nonpolitical one. I was content in my work as long as I personally and my work were evaluated only according to professional achievements and standards. I do not feel strong enough to carry out successfully and without hindrance the technical work to be accomplished by myself and my co-workers if it is to be measured by Party political standards.”
Herr Speer, can you describe the fundamental principles according to which you built up your Ministry?
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number are you giving that?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Exhibit Number 1, Mr. President.
Herr Speer, can you describe the fundamental principles which you followed in building up your Ministry?
SPEER: I personally was no expert, and I did not want to act as an expert. Therefore, I selected the best possible experts to be found in Germany as my co-workers. I believed that these men were to be found within industry itself. Therefore, I made up my Ministry of honorary industrial workers. This was done in the United States in a similar way during the war in matters of production. Professional civil servants were lacking in my Ministry, and you cannot really consider my Ministry as one set up along normal lines. In June 1944 I delivered a speech in Essen about the fundamental principles upon which I founded my Ministry and its work, to defend myself against the various attacks against my system in Party circles.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, I regret, but I believe that the High Tribunal is not yet in possession of my document book containing the interrogatories. I would have been glad to point out that the statements given by witnesses Saur and Schieber in this connection are summed up in this answer. Now I shall submit...
THE PRESIDENT: If you will give us the references—give us the names of the witnesses; we can take notice of them afterwards. What is the name?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The witness Saur and we are dealing with his answers to Points 4, 5, and 8 of the interrogatory. The witness Schieber gives a statement regarding this point under Figure 12 of his interrogatory.
Now I should like to submit the speech given by Speer on 9 June 1944 as Exhibit Number 2. It confirms the testimony which the defendant has made about the set-up of his Ministry by engaging honorary industrial co-workers. I shall quote it. I am sorry to say that this speech also is not contained in Your Honor’s supplementary volume. I am very sorry. I will just have to read it, and I quote:
“These honorary co-workers drawn from industry....”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Flächsner, it is a little bit inconvenient to the Tribunal not to have these documents before them. You could not possibly postpone the particular documents that you have not got here until tomorrow morning? Shall we have the supplementary volume then?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The promise was given me that it would be at my disposal by this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; well, then, would it be convenient to leave those parts which are contained in the supplementary volume over until tomorrow?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: In the Supplementary Volume Number 5 we find a document, very short in part, with which I shall not concern myself today. Only this one speech which I am mentioning now is...
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: I quote:
“These honorary co-workers, drawn from industry, carry the responsibility to the last detail for what is manufactured in the various enterprises and industries and how it is manufactured.”
Then a few lines further down:
“Among your main tasks, next to the awarding of contracts to these industries, is to supervise the restrictions on types, the specialization of industries, involving under certain circumstances the closing-down of certain enterprises; to further rationalization from the point of view of raw materials, construction, and production; as well as unconditional exchange of experience, without regard to patents.”
From various passages of this document it can be seen clearly that Speer considered his office an improvised instrument which made use of the existing authorities of the Reich for the fulfillment of his tasks but without burdening himself with these tasks. The decree of 10 August, which is mentioned in the speech of Speer, shows that he expressly prohibited his offices from turning into administrative offices. The defendant did not want bureaucratic official methods of working in his Ministry.
THE PRESIDENT: What speech of Speer are you referring to?
You said the decree of 10 August.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: It is still the same speech, Mr. President, which I just mentioned. The decree is mentioned therein.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t get what the year was when you began. What was the year?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The year was 1942, 10 August; and the speech was given in the year 1944. Therefore, he was referring to a decree which had been in force for some time.
Just how important it was to the defendant to have new non-bureaucratic forces in his Ministry is shown in the passage from his speech which I would like to quote now:
“Any institution which has lasted for some period of time and which exceeds a certain size has a tendency to become bureaucratic. Even if, in one of the first large attacks on Berlin, large parts of the current files of the Ministry were burned, and therefore, for some time, we were lucky enough to have unnecessary ballast taken from us, we cannot expect that occurrences of that sort will continuously bring new vigor into our work.”
Herr Speer, so far as the Tribunal wishes, will you please briefly supplement these statements about the tasks of your Ministry from the technical point of view?
SPEER: I shall try to be very brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you, Dr. Flächsner, you read us the speech.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The speech, yes...
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to be very remote to every issue, even as it is, and why you should want to supplement it, I don’t know.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: I thought it might be of interest to the High Tribunal to hear about the sphere of activity which the defendant had in his capacity as Minister. This speech was made to experts and is, therefore, really only of interest to an expert. I assumed that the High Tribunal would wish to know just what the task of the Production Ministry of Herr Speer was. I think the Prosecution imagined its sphere of activity to be considerably greater than it actually was.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to know what he says about the tasks of his Ministry, you can ask him. But you have just been reading his speech, and we don’t want to...
DR. FLÄCHSNER: No, no, I do not want that either. He is just to give us briefly some of the technical tasks of his Ministry. That is what I wanted to know.
THE PRESIDENT: You don’t seem to be hearing me accurately. Wouldn’t it be better if you put your earphones on?
What I said was that you had read the speech and we didn’t want to hear any more argument upon the speech from the defendant. If you want to ask the defendant what the tasks of his Ministry are, ask him. What you asked him was, “Do you wish to supplement the speech?”
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Herr Speer, will you please tell us what the tasks were which your Ministry had to carry out and please do not refer to the things that I mentioned in the speech.
SPEER: I believe the tasks of a production ministry are well known in all industrial states. I just wanted to summarize briefly which functions I had to concern myself with in detail in this Ministry.
For one, we had to surmount the deficiency, in raw materials, metals, and steel. Then, by the introduction of assembly-line work, which is customary in the United States but was not yet current in Germany, the work was systematized; and thus machinery and space were utilized to the utmost. Also, it was necessary to amplify the production programs, for example, for fine steel, aluminum, and individual parts like ball bearings and gear wheels.
One of the most important tasks was the development of new weapons and their serial production; and then, beginning with 1943, the reparation of the damage caused by the extraordinarily sudden bombing attacks, which forced us to work with improvised means and methods.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: What was the importance of this activity in the sphere of your Ministry?
SPEER: It is to be taken as a matter of course that this sphere of activity was the most important in our country, if only because it included providing equipment for the Army. I claimed that during the war the rest of the economy would have to be regulated according to the exigencies of armament. In times of war, at home, there are only two tasks which count: To furnish soldiers for the front, and to supply weapons.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Why was the task of your Ministry purely a war function?
SPEER: Because during peacetime the giving of orders is normally regulated according to supply and demand, but in wartime this regulating factor is lacking.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Therefore it was one of the main tasks of your Ministry to exercise a State control over the distribution of orders?
SPEER: Yes.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Then, at first, you had responsibility only for armaments production for the Army; but at the end of 1944, you were responsible for the entire field of armament and war production. Can you briefly tell me the stage of this development, and how thereby the extent of your task grew?
SPEER: It would be best for me to tell you about the development by dealing with the number of workers I had.
In 1942 I took over the armaments and construction programs with altogether 2.6 million workers. In the spring of 1943 Dönitz gave me the responsibility for naval armament as well, and at this point, I had 3.2 million workers. In September of 1943, through an agreement with the Minister of Economy, Herr Funk, the production task of the Ministry of Economy was transferred to me. With that I had 12 million workers working for me.
Finally, I took over the air armament from Göring on 1 August 1944. With that the total production was marshaled under me with 14 million workers. The number of workers applies to the Greater German Reich, not including the occupied countries.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: How was it possible to have a task of that magnitude directed by a Ministry that consisted almost exclusively of honorary members, who moreover had no practical routine experience in purely administrative matters?
SPEER: The administrative sectors in the various armament offices retained their tasks. In that way, for example, in the Army, the Heereswaffenamt—the Army Ordnance Office—which contained several thousand workers, gave the orders, supervised the carrying out of these orders, and saw to it that delivery of the orders and payment were carried out in a proper manner. Only in that way did I succeed in having the entire armament production—which amounted to 3,000 or 4,000 million marks a month—carried through with an honorary co-worker staff of 6,000 people.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Were all armament enterprises of a Wehrmacht branch subordinate to you?
SPEER: No. There actually was a small group of enterprises which were run directly by the Wehrmacht branches with their own workers. These were excepted. They were the munition plants and similar industries, and also the enterprises of the SS.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The Prosecution is changing you with the fact you share the responsibility for the recruiting of foreign workers and prisoners of war and for taking manpower from concentration camps. What do you say to this?
SPEER: Neither I nor the Ministry was responsible for this. The Ministry was a new establishment, which had a technical problem to deal with. It took no competence in any field away from an existing authority. The conditions of work were still handled through the old existing authorities. The Food Ministry and the various offices connected with it were responsible for the food supply, and the occupation-supervising agencies in the Reich Labor Ministry were responsible for the maintenance of safe and bearable conditions at the places of work; the Trustees of Labor, working under the Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment, were responsible for the salaries and the quality and quantity of work done; and the Health Office of the Reich Ministry of the Interior was responsible for health conditions. The Justice Department and the Police Department were responsible for violations against labor discipline, and, finally, the German Labor Front was responsible for representing the interests of labor with the employers.
The centralizing of all of these authorities lay in the hands of the Gauleiter as Reich Defense Commissioner. The fact that the SS put itself and its concentration camp internees outside the control of the State is not a matter with which I or my Ministry was concerned.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Your Codefendant Sauckel testified to the effect that with the carrying out of the recruiting of workers for the industries, his task was finished. Is that correct in your opinion?
SPEER; Yes, certainly, as far as the placing of workers is concerned, for one of the subjects of dissension between Sauckel and me was that the appropriate employment of workers in industry itself had to be a matter of the works manager and that this could not be influenced by the labor office. It applied however only to labor recruitment and not to the observance of labor conditions. In this connection, the office of Sauckel was partly responsible as supervising authority.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: To what extent could the works manager conform with the decrees of Sauckel as to labor conditions and so on?
SPEER: The decrees issued by Sauckel were unobjectionable, but the works managers did not always find it possible to carry through the decrees for reasons which were outside their power. The bombing attacks brought about difficulties, disorganized transportation, or destroyed living quarters. It is not possible to make the managers responsible for the observance of these decrees under circumstances which often took on catastrophic proportions after the summer of 1944. These were times of crises and it was a matter for the Reich authorities to determine just how far it was possible to carry through these decrees and it is not right to push this responsibility on the little works manager.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: How far was the factory manager responsible to your Ministry in this regard?
SPEER: Within the framework of the above-mentioned responsibility which industry enjoyed, the armament factory managers had received a semiofficial function from me. This, of course, applied only to technical tasks.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Were there any industries making secret items which were not permitted to be inspected by the Gauleiter? I recall evidence given here where this was reported.
SPEER: There were some industries which concerned themselves with secret matters; but in such cases the works trustee of the Labor Front was represented, and he could report to the Gauleiter on conditions in the factory through the Gauobmann (chief of the Labor Front in a Gau).
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Did you approve the punishment of people who were unwilling to work?
SPEER: Yes, I considered it right that workers who violated labor discipline should be punished, but I did not demand supplementary measures in this regard. As a matter of principle, I represented the view that a satisfactory work output on the part of 14 million workers could be achieved in the long run only through the good will of the worker himself. This is a bit of experience which applies generally, causing every employer in the world to do all in his power to have his workers satisfied.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Did you support the efforts made by Sauckel to improve the social conditions of the workers, and if so, why did you?
SPEER: Naturally I supported them, even though I did not have any jurisdiction along that line; and the same reasons which I have just mentioned applied, for our experience showed that labor which is satisfied has much less loss in the way of material. This for me was very important, considering our deficiency in raw materials. It is obvious moreover that the better quality produced by satisfied laborers is of special significance in time of war.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: In the records of your discussions with Hitler, there are various directives made by Hitler dealing with the care and the treatment of foreign workers. Did you cause Hitler to give these directives?
SPEER: Yes.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: In this connection, I should like to submit three pieces of evidence—first of all, Document Speer-11. Mr. President, this is found on Page 10 of the English text, Page 7 of the French text. In this document, upon Speer’s request in March 1942, it was put down; and I quote:
“That the Russians under all circumstances were to receive sufficient food and that civilian Russians were not to be put behind barbed wire and be treated as prisoners of war.”
As my next piece of evidence, which will be Exhibit Number 4, I would like to submit Document Number Speer-13. According to this document, in May 1943 Hitler decided, at the suggestion of Speer, that the German as well as Russian miners should receive a substantial amount of supplementary rations and it is specified there that especially the Russian prisoners of war are to receive compensation in the form of tobacco and similar items for special efforts and achievements.
The next piece of evidence is Exhibit Number Speer-5, and it is Document Number 9. Mr. President, this is found on Page 12 of the English text and Page 9 of the German text in the document book. According to this document the food supply in Italian armament plants is to be put at about the level of the German rations. In this connection it is important that Speer, at the same time, issued directives that also the families of these workers receive equivalent care.
I had other documents of this type at my disposal but in order to save the time of the translation department, I did not include them in my document book.
Herr Speer, to whom did the bonuses of the armament industry go, and what did they consist of?
SPEER: We gave out many millions of packages to armament plants. They contained additional food, chocolate, cigarettes, and so forth; and these bonuses were given in addition to all the extra food rations which were determined by the Food Ministry for those who worked longer hours or who did heavy work. In the industries, these bonuses were given to all workers without distinction, including the foreign workers, prisoners of war, and the workers from concentration camps.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: I shall again refer to the fact that these bonuses were also given to armament workers from concentration camps later on when discussing another document.
In what form did your Ministry put its demands to the industries?
SPEER: It is important to note that the demands made of industries were only in the manner of production schedules and it was up to the industries to place their demands as to manpower, machinery, and material on the basis of these schedules.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Was there often an unusual increase in working hours in industry and how did this happen?
SPEER: Working time should remain uniform in modern assembly-line production during the entire month. Due to the bombing attacks, delays in supplying tools and raw materials set in. As a result the number of hours of work varied from 8 to 12 a day. The average, according to our statistics, might have been 60 hours to 64 hours a week.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: What were the working hours of the factory workers who came from concentration camps?
SPEER: They were exactly the same as for all the other workers in the industry, for the workers from concentration camps were on the whole only a part of the workers employed; and these workers were not called upon to do any more work than the other workers in the factory.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: How is that shown?
SPEER: There was a demand on the part of the SS that the inmates of concentration camps be kept in one part of the factory. The supervisors consisted of German foremen and specialists. The working hours, for inherent reasons, had to be co-ordinated with those of the entire industry, for it is a known fact that there is only one rhythm of work in a given industry.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: It is shown unequivocally from two documents which I shall submit in another connection that the workers from concentration camps in army and naval armament and in the air armament branch worked on an average 60 hours per week.
Why, Herr Speer, were special KZ Camps, the so-called work camps, established next to the industries?
SPEER: The work camps were established so that long trips to the factories could be avoided and in this way permit the workers to arrive fresh and ready for work.
Furthermore, the additional food which the Food Ministry had granted for all workers, including the workers from concentration camps, would not have been received by these men if they had come directly from big concentration camps; for then this additional food would have been used up in the concentration camp. In this way, those workers who came from concentration camps received, in full measure, bonuses which were granted in the industry, such as cigarettes or additional food.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Did you know, during your activities, that the workers from concentration camps had advantages if they worked in factories?
SPEER: Yes. My co-workers called my attention to this fact, and I also heard it when I inspected the industries. Of course, a wrong impression should not be created about the number of concentration camp inmates who worked in German industry. In toto, 1 percent of the labor personnel came from concentration camps.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: When you inspected establishments, did you ever see concentration camp inmates?
SPEER: Of course, when on inspection tours of industries I occasionally saw inmates of concentration camps who, however, looked well fed.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Concerning the report which Herr Speer made about concentration camps and the treatment which the inmates received in factories, I refer to a confidential letter from the office chief Schieber to Speer, dated 7 May 1944. I submit it as Document Number Speer-44, Exhibit Number 6.
Mr. President, I am sorry, this will also be found in the second document book, which has not yet been submitted. But it would be a pity if I were not to discuss it at this time, for it fits so well into this pattern. Therefore, I should like to quote briefly from it.
The office chief Schieber writes to his Minister as follows...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Flächsner, the Tribunal thinks it would be much more helpful to them to have the document before them.
We are told that the book will be ready tomorrow afternoon, and that it will not be ready before tomorrow afternoon.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, I believe that I did everything possible at the time to see that the documents were put at the disposal of the translation department in good time. The difficulty must have arisen from the fact that the interrogatories did not come back in time. I assume that that is what happened.
The quotation from this document is not long, Mr. President. I believe I might as well quote from it now. Or do you wish that...
THE PRESIDENT: No; go on, if it is more convenient to you. I do not mind. You may go on.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Thank you very much.
The office chief Schieber writes to his Minister:
“Considering the care which the manpower from camps received from our factory managers in spite of all the difficulties and considering the general decent and humane treatment which foreign and concentration camp laborers received, both the Jewesses and concentration camp laborers work very efficiently and do everything in order not to be sent back to the concentration camp.
“These facts really demand that we transfer still more concentration camp inmates into armament industries.”
And a few lines further down:
“I have discussed this whole matter in great detail with the delegate of Obergruppenführer Pohl, Sturmbannführer Maurer, and especially pointed out that by a decentralized dividing-up of concentration camp laborers it might be possible appropriately to utilize their forces while affording them better nourishment and satisfactory lodging.”
Then it says:
“Moreover, Maurer especially points out....”
THE PRESIDENT: You need not make such long pauses as you are making.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: “Aside from that, Maurer especially points out that Obergruppenführer Pohl constantly improved the food situation of concentration camp inmates working in factories and that by granting additional protein foods, given under constant medical supervision, a marked increase in weight was obtained and thereby better work achieved.”
In another document we see that the employment of concentration camp workers in armament industries is recommended, in that advantages accrue to these workers and that for this reason concentration camp inmates are glad to work in armament industries.
I refer, in this connection, to Document 1992-PS, which may be found on Page 11 of the document book. It is Page 14 in the English text. This document shows that already in 1937 inmates of concentration camps were being employed in workshops and that this work was quite popular.
Herr Speer, what do you know about the working conditions in subterranean factories?
SPEER: The most modern equipment for the most modern weapons had been housed in subterranean factories. Since we did not have many of these subterranean works at our disposal, we had to house in the main this latest equipment there. This equipment required perfect conditions of work—air which was dry and free from dust, good lighting facilities, big fresh air installations, so that the conditions which applied to such a subterranean factory would be about the same as those in a night shift in a regular industry.
I should like to add that contrary to the impression which has been created here in Court, these subterranean factories, almost without exception, were staffed with German workers, because we had a special interest in having these modern installations manned by the best workers which were at our disposal.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Can you tell us about how many of these factories there were?
SPEER: It was an insignificant number at the end of the war. We were using 300,000 square meters of subterranean premises and were planning for 3,000,000 square meters.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Herr Speer, in the year 1943 you visited the concentration camp at Mauthausen? Why did you visit this camp?
SPEER: I learned, when I inspected industries at Linz, that along the Danube, near the camp at Mauthausen, a large harbor installation and numerous railroad installations were being put up so that the paving stone coming from the quarry at Mauthausen could be transported to the Danube. This was purely a peacetime matter which I could not tolerate at all, for it violated all the decrees and directives which I had issued. I gave short notice of an impending visit, for I wanted to ascertain on the spot whether this construction work was an actual fact and request stoppage of the work. This is an example for giving directives in this field even within the economic administrative sphere of the SS. I stated on that occasion that it would be more judicious to have these workers employed during wartime in a steel plant at Linz rather than in peacetime construction.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Will you describe the visit to the camp?
SPEER: My visit ostensibly followed the prescribed program as already described by the witness Blaha. I saw the kitchen barracks, the washroom barracks, and one group of barracks used as living quarters. These barracks were made of massive stone and were models as far as modern equipment is concerned. Since my visit had only been reported a short time in advance, in my opinion it is out of the question that big preparations could have been made before my visit. Nevertheless, the camp or the small part of the camp which I saw made a model impression of cleanliness. However, I did not see any of the workers, any of the camp inmates, since at that time they were all engaged in work. The entire inspection lasted perhaps 45 minutes, since I had very little time at my disposal for a matter of that kind and I had inner repulsive feelings against even entering such a camp where prisoners were being kept.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The main purpose of your visit then was to request the stoppage of the work which you considered nonessential to the war effort?
SPEER: Yes.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: On your visit were you able to learn about the working conditions in the camp?
SPEER: No, I could not do that, since no workers were to be seen in the camp and the harbor installations were so far from the street that I could not see the men who were working there.
THE PRESIDENT: The translation that came through to me was that it was against him spiritually to enter such places. Was that correct? Well, what did you say?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: No. I asked him whether on the occasion of this visit he was able to learn about the working conditions which applied in this camp. That was my question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did you say anything about “spiritually”?
SPEER: No.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: No.
Did you learn, on your visit at Mauthausen or on another occasion, about the cruelties which took place at this concentration camp and at other concentration camps?
SPEER: No.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Now, I should like to conclude my questions on the utilization of workers by asking you: Did you have any interest in the fact that a healthy and sufficiently trained labor supply should be at your disposal?
SPEER: Naturally I had the utmost interest along this line even though I was not competent for this. As from 1942 we had mass production in armament, and this system with assembly-line workers demands an extraordinary large percentage of skilled workers. Because of drafting for military service, these skilled laborers had become especially important, so that any loss of a worker or the illness of a worker meant a big loss for me as well.
Since a worker needed an apprenticeship of 6 to 12 weeks and since even after this for a period of about 6 months a great amount of scrap must be allowed for—for it takes about that much time before quality work can be expected—it is evident that the care of skilled workers in industry was an added worry for us.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The Prosecution has mentioned the so-called extermination by work. Could a change of personnel, which would have taken place through extermination by work, be tolerated at all by an industry?
SPEER: No. A change in the workers, in the way in which it was described here, cannot be borne by any industry. It is out of the question that in any German industry anything like that took place without my hearing about it; and I never heard anything of that sort.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Herr Speer, the Prosecution asserts that you applied means of terror and brutality so that the achievements of the compulsory workers would be increased to the utmost...
SPEER: No.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Just a moment. I have not finished. The Prosecution is of the opinion that you used SS and Police against recalcitrant workers and favored and recommended the use of concentration camps for such. Is that correct?
SPEER: No, not in that form, for that was against my interests. There were efforts in Germany to bring about increased productivity through very severe compulsory measures. These efforts did not meet with my approval. It is quite out of the question that 14 million workers can be forced to produce satisfactory work through coercion and terror, as the Prosecution maintains.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: In this connection, please refer to Page 7 of the English text, Page 4 of the French text. I should like to quote from Document Number Speer-43. It says there:
“I do not believe that the second system which might be applied in our economy, the system of compulsion by plant commissars, or extensive proceedings and punishment when output is insufficient, can lead to success.”
Now, Mr. President, I have come to the end of my first part.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 20 June 1946 at 1000 hours.]
ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-NINTH DAY Thursday, 20 June 1946
Morning Session
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. In the first place, supplementary witnesses will be heard at the end of the case for the defendants. Secondly, interrogatories and other documents received by that time must be offered in evidence then. Thirdly, interrogatories and other documents allowed before the end of the evidence but received at a later date will be received and considered by the Tribunal up to the end of the Trial. That is all.
[The Defendant Speer resumed the stand.]
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Yesterday we finished talking about the utilization of labor in industry, and now we shall turn to the question of how the factories were supplied with manpower; that is to say, the question of mass and special demands for laborers.
Herr Speer, you stated in your testimony of 18 October 1945 first, that you categorically demanded new laborers from Sauckel; secondly, that you knew that among these laborers there would be foreigners; thirdly, that you had known that some of these foreign workers were working in Germany against their will. Please comment on this statement.
SPEER: This voluntary statement is quite correct. During the war I was very grateful to Sauckel for every laborer whom I got through him. Many a time I held him responsible for the fact that through lack of manpower the armament industry did not achieve the results it might have, but I always emphasized the merits which accrued to him because of his activity on behalf of armaments.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Now, when in your testimony of 18 October 1945, and at present again, you refer to manpower, do you mean all manpower in general, including German workers, foreigners from occupied countries, and foreigners from friendly or annexed states, and also prisoners of war?
SPEER: Yes. Beginning with the middle of 1943, I was at odds with Sauckel over questions of production and about the insufficient availability of reserves of German labor. But that has nothing to do with my fundamental attitude toward Sauckel’s work.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: What percentage of the total number of laborers assigned was Sauckel obliged to furnish upon your demands?
SPEER: You mean of the total labor supply, not foreigners?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Yes.
SPEER: Up to August, 1944—that is up till the time when I took over the air armament as well—perhaps 30 or 40 percent of all the workers provided. Of course, by far the majority of them were German workers. When in August 1944 I took over the air armament I had no appreciable demand for workers because the bomber attacks on the transportation system in the Reich resulted in a steady decline of armament production.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Was your need for labor unlimited?
SPEER: No. The volume of armament production and also of our entire production with my corresponding need for labor was governed by our raw material supply.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: That means, your need was restricted by the amount of raw materials available?
SPEER: My need for labor was limited by the amount of raw materials.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: You achieved a marked increase in production figures for armament. In order to achieve this increase, did the workers employed increase proportionally?
SPEER: No. In 1944 7 times as many weapons were manufactured as in 1942, 5½ times as many armored vehicles, and 6 times as much ammunition. The number of workers in these branches was increased by only 30 percent. This success was not brought about through a greater exploitation of labor but rather through the abolition of obsolete methods of production and through an improved system of controlling the production of armament.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: What was meant by the concept “war production”—“Kriegsproduktion”?
SPEER: The concept which is frequently used here, “war production,” is nothing else but the ordinary concept, production. It comprises everything which is manufactured industrially or by artisans, including the civilian needs.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: What was meant in Germany by the concept of “armaments”? What did that include?
SPEER: The concept of “armaments” was in no way restricted to that sphere which was outlined through the Geneva prisoner-of-war agreement. The modern concept of “armaments” is a much more comprehensive one. It includes a much wider sphere of activity. There were no basic principles set down for our concept of “armaments.” The characteristic of an armament factory was that as an intermediary authority, the Armament Inspectorate took care of it and watched over it. In Germany, for instance, the entire production of raw steel belonged to armament; all rolling mills, foundries and forges; the production or the manufacture of aluminum and modern synthetic materials; the chemical production of nitrogen or fuel or synthetic rubber; the production of synthetic wool; the manufacture of individual items the use of which in armament cannot be predicted at the time of their manufacture such as ball bearings, gears, valves, engine pistons, and so forth, or the production of tool machinery; the setting up of assembly lines; similarly the manufacture of motor cars and the construction of locomotives, of merchant ships, also textile factories, and factories manufacturing leather goods or wooden wares.
In the interrogatories which I sent to my witnesses, I tried to have stated what percentage of the German armament industries produced armaments as defined by the Geneva Convention, and I should like to give you the figures. My co-workers agree unanimously that between 40 and 20 percent of our armament program was concerned with the production of weapons, armored cars, planes, warships, or the general equipment which the various branches of the Armed Forces required. The bulk of the material, therefore, was not armament in the sense of the Geneva Convention. The reason for the expansion of the concept of “armament” in Germany was, besides manufacturing reasons, the preferential treatment which applied to these industries, a treatment which resulted in numerous industries clamoring to be called armament industries.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, in the questionnaires which have not yet been submitted to the Tribunal because the book is not yet ready, the witness Sauer under Figures 7 and 10, the witness Schieber under Figures 6 to 9, and the witness Kehrl under Figures 4 to 7, concern themselves with the definition as applied to the concept of armament.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the last name?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Kehrl.
Herr Speer, by way of example, you know Krupp’s at Essen. How far did this concern produce armament equipment in the sense of the Geneva prisoner-of-war agreement, that is, weapons, munitions, and objects which are necessary for the direct conduct of war?
SPEER: Krupp’s are an excellent example of the fact that an armament concern only reserves a fraction of its production for war equipment. Of course, I must point out the fact that especially this Krupp concern was one of those armament industries which, among others, had the smallest production of armament, on a percentage basis.
Krupp’s main interest lay in mines, and in three large works which produced unprocessed and highly tempered steel. The manufacture of locomotives and products for the chemical industry were specialties of Krupp’s. On the other hand, the actual armament specialty of Krupp’s—the construction of armored turrets for warships, and large special guns—was not at all exploited during this war. Only in 1944 did Krupp erect the first big factory for the production of guns near Breslau. Up to that time Krupp was mainly concerned with the designing of new weapons, while for the production other firms were licensed. All in all, one can say that at Krupp’s, 10 to 15 percent of the personnel turned out armament equipment in the sense of the Geneva Agreement, even though the entire works were classified as armament works.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: What did you and your Ministry have to say as to whether a factory would receive German or foreign workers?
SPEER: My Ministry had no influence in that direction at all. The need for workers was reported to my Ministry by the industries which were subordinate to me. They reported a total figure of workers needed, and there were no specifications as to whether foreign workers, prisoners of war, or German workers were wanted. This total figure was forwarded to the Plenipotentiary General for Labor. Sauckel refused to accept detailed demands, and he was quite right in this respect, for he could not issue detailed directives to the offices subordinate to him concerning the percentage of German or foreign workers which were to be allocated locally to the various factories.
The ultimate distribution of workers to the factories was taken care of by the labor offices without any intervention of my offices or agencies. Therefore, here too, we did not exert influence as to whether Germans, foreigners or prisoners of war were allocated to any factory. The factory then had to report back to us about the number of workers newly received. This report was turned in to my Ministry in a lump figure so that I could not tell whether and what number of foreign workers or prisoners of war the total figure contained. Of course, I knew that foreign workers worked on armament equipment, and I quite agreed to that.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, to facilitate matters for the Tribunal I would like to remark that Figures 1, 7, 8, and 17 of the questionnaire of the witness Schmelter deal with these questions. In the questionnaire of Schieber, Numbers 10, 11, 30, and 31 deal with this point. Furthermore, in the questionnaire of Kehrl relevant material is contained in the answers to Numbers 8 and 9.
Herr Speer, who sent in the demands for manpower needed in armament to the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
SPEER: The demands for workers were split up into various sectors, according to the different economic branches. There were approximately 15 different sectors which placed their demands. I placed demands for Army and Navy armament and for construction, and beginning with September of 1943, for the sectors chemistry, mining, and other production. Air armament had its special labor allocation department, and their demands were voiced by the Reich Air Ministry.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: In the questionnaires, the witness Schmelter has dealt with this matter in his answer to Question 2; the witness Schieber in his answers to Questions 2, 3, and 5; and the witness Kehrl under Questions 2 and 3.
Weren’t the demands for labor for the three branches of the Armed Forces centralized in your Ministry?
SPEER: No. Of course, beginning with March 1942, I had nominally taken over the Armament Office under General Thomas from the OKW, and this Armament Office was a joint office of all three Armed Forces branches, where labor allocation problems were discussed too. Through an agreement between Göring and me it was decided that air armament, independently of me, should look after its own interests. This agreement was necessary since at first, as Minister for Army Armament, I had a biased interest and therefore did not want to make decisions regarding the demands for labor of a unit that was not subordinate to me.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: How far are you responsible for the employment of prisoners of war in armament, and here I mean armament in a restricted sense and in contradiction to the Geneva Convention?
SPEER: I did not exert my influence to have prisoners of war employed contrary to the directives given out by the OKW. I knew the point of view held by the OKW, according to which the Geneva Convention was to be strictly observed. Of course, I knew as well that these Geneva regulations did not apply to Russian prisoners of war and Italian military internees. I could not exert any influence on the allocation of prisoners of war to the individual factories. This allocation was determined by the labor offices in connection with the offices depending on the chief of Prisoner of War Affairs, the “Stalag.”
DR. FLÄCHSNER: In this connection I should like to refer to the questionnaire of the witness Schmelter, to his reply to Question 14.
Herr Speer, who was the competent officer on the intermediate level under the OKW?
SPEER: The supervision of the proper allocations of prisoners of war was carried out by the Military Economy Officer (Wehrwirtschaftsoffizier) as the intermediary authority. He was incorporated in the office of the Military Area Commander who was under the jurisdiction of the Army.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The Prosecution has submitted an affidavit by Mr. Deuss, who is an American statistics expert. This is Document 2520-PS.
According to this affidavit, 400,000 prisoners of war were employed in the production of war equipment. These figures are supposed to originate from statistics in your Ministry. Will you comment on this figure?
SPEER: The figures are well known to me through my activity as a Minister, and they are correct. This figure of 400,000 prisoners of war covers the total number of prisoners of war employed in armament production.
It is a wrong conclusion drawn in this affidavit that all these prisoners of war were connected with the production of objects of armament as specified by the Geneva Convention. Statistics concerning the number of prisoners of war employed in those industries which produced armament goods as specified in the Geneva Convention were not kept by us and, therefore, no such figure can be compiled from my documents.
Apart from that, this figure of 400,000 prisoners of war includes 200,000 or 300,000 Italian military internees, all of whom were brought into my production field at that time. This affidavit does not prove, therefore, that prisoners of war were employed in the production of armament goods as such.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The Central Planning Board was mentioned here frequently. You were a member of this board. Can you describe in detail the origin of the Central Planning Board and its sphere of activity?