the French member. I understand it is now being fetched. Should I wait
until it arrives?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you can go on.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: The Defendant Papen is charged primarily with the
guilt of conspiracy, and the proof of this charge of conspiracy will
emerge automatically from the proof of the four allegations specified in
Appendix A of the Indictment. These are as follows:
(1) He promoted the accession of the Nazi conspirators to power.
(2) He participated in the consolidation of their control over Germany.
(3) He promoted the preparations for war.
(4) He participated in the political planning and preparation of the
Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression, _et cetera_.
Broadly speaking, the case against Von Papen covers the period from the
1st of June 1932 to the conclusion of the Anschluss in March 1938.
So far in this Trial, almost the only evidence specifically implicating
Von Papen has been evidence in regard to his activities in Austria. This
evidence need only be summarized now. But if the case against Von Papen
rested on Austria alone, the Prosecution would be in the position of
relying on a period during which the essence of his task was studied
plausibility and in which his whole purpose was to clothe his operations
with a cloak of sincerity and innocent respectability. It is therefore
desirable to put the evidence already given in its true perspective by
showing in addition the active and prominent part he played for the
Nazis before he went to Austria.
Papen himself claims to have rejected many times Hitler’s request that
he should actually join the Nazi Party. Until 1938 this may indeed have
been true, for he was shrewd enough to see the advantage of maintaining,
at least outwardly, his personal independence. It will be my object to
show that, despite his facade of independence, Papen was an ardent
member of this conspiracy and, in spite of warnings and rebuffs, was
unable to resist its fascination.
In the submission of the Prosecution, the key to Von Papen’s activities
is that, although perhaps not a typical Nazi, he was an unscrupulous
political opportunist and ready to fall in with the Nazis when it suited
him. He was not unpracticed in duplicity and viewed with an apparent
indifference the contradictions and betrayals which his duplicity
inevitably involved. One of his chief weapons was fraudulent assurance.
Before dealing with the specific charges, I will refer to Document
2902-PS, which is on Page 38 of the English document book, and I put it
in as Exhibit GB-233. This is Von Papen’s own signed statement showing
his appointments. It is not in chronological order, but I will read the
relevant parts as they come. I need not read the whole of it. The
Tribunal will note that this statement is written by Dr. Kubuschok,
Counsel for Von Papen, although it is signed by Von Papen himself.
Paragraph 1:
“Von Papen many times rejected Hitler’s request to join the
NSDAP. Hitler simply sent him the Golden Party Badge. In my
opinion, legally speaking, he did not thereby become a member of
the Party.”
Interposing there, My Lord, the fact that he was officially regarded as
having become a member in 1938 will be shown by a document which I shall
refer to later.
Going on to Paragraph 2:
“From 1933 to 1945 Von Papen was a member of the Reichstag.”
Paragraph 3:
“Von Papen was Reich Chancellor from the 1st of June 1932 to the
17th of November 1932. He carried on the duties of Reich
Chancellor until his successor took office—until the 2d of
December 1932.”
Paragraph 4:
“On the 30th of January 1933 Von Papen was appointed Vice
Chancellor. From the 30th of June 1934”—which was the date of
the Blood Purge—“he ceased to exercise official duties. On that
day he was placed under arrest. Immediately after his release on
the 3rd of July 1934 he went to the Reich Chancellery to hand in
his resignation to Hitler.”
The rest of that paragraph I need not read. It is an argument which
concerns the authenticity or otherwise of his signature as it appears in
the _Reichsgesetzblatt_ to certain decrees in August 1934. I am prepared
to agree with his contention that his signature on those decrees may not
have been correct and may have been a mistake. He admits holding office
only to the 3rd of July 1934.
He was, as the Tribunal will also remember, in virtue of being Reich
Chancellor, a member of the Reich Cabinet.
Going on to Paragraph 5:
“On the 13th of November 1933, Von Papen became Plenipotentiary
for the Saar. This office was terminated under the same
circumstances described under Paragraph 4.”
The rest of the document I need not read. It concerns his appointments
to Vienna and Ankara, which are matters of history. He was appointed
Minister to Vienna on the 26th of July 1934, and recalled on the 4th of
February 1938, and he was Ambassador in Ankara from April 1939 until
August 1944.
The first allegation against the Defendant Von Papen is that he used his
personal influence to promote the accession of the Nazi conspirators to
power. From the outset Von Papen was well aware of the Nazi program and
Nazi methods. There can be no question of his having encouraged the
Nazis through ignorance of these facts. The official NSDAP program was
open and notorious; it had been published in _Mein Kampf_ for many
years; it had been published and republished in the _Yearbook of the
NSDAP_ and elsewhere. The Nazis made no secret of their intention to
make it a fundamental law of the State. This has been dealt with in full
at an earlier stage of the Trial.
During 1932 Von Papen as Reich Chancellor was in a particularly good
position to understand the Nazi purpose and methods; and in fact, he
publicly acknowledged the Nazi menace. Take, for instance, his Münster
speech on the 28th of August 1932. This is Document 3314-PS, on Page 49
of the English document book, and I now put it in as Exhibit GB-234, and
I quote two extracts at the top of the page:
“The licentiousness emanating from the appeal of the leader of
the National Socialist movement does not comply very well with
his claims to governmental power. . . . I do not concede him the
right to regard only the minority following his banner as the
German nation and to treat all other fellow countrymen as free
game.”
Take also his Munich speech of the 13th of October 1932. That is on Page
50 of the English document book, Document Number 3317-PS, which I now
put in as Exhibit GB-235, and I will simply read the last extract on the
page:
“In the interest of the entire nation, we decline the claim to
power by parties which want to bind their followers body and
soul and which want to identify their party or movement with the
German nation.”
I do not rely on these random extracts to show anything more than that
he had, in 1932, clearly addressed his mind to the inherent lawlessness
of the Nazi philosophy. Nevertheless, in his letter to Hitler of the 13
of November 1932, which I shall quote more fully later, he wrote of the
Nazi movement as, I quote:
“. . . so great a national movement, the merits of which for
people and country I have always recognized in spite of
necessary criticisms . . . .”
So variable and so seemingly contradictory were Von Papen’s acts and
utterances regarding the Nazis that it is not possible to present the
picture of Papen’s part in this infamous enterprise unless one first
reviews the steps by which he entered upon it. It then becomes clear
that he threw himself, if not wholeheartedly, yet with cool and
deliberate calculation, into the Nazi conspiracy.
I shall enumerate some of the principal steps by which Papen fell in
with the Nazi conspiracy.
As a result of his first personal contact with Hitler, Von Papen as
Chancellor rescinded, on the 14th of June 1932, the decree passed on the
13th of April 1932 for the dissolution of the Nazi para-military
organizations, the SA and the SS. He thereby rendered the greatest
possible service to the Nazi Party, inasmuch as it relied upon its
para-military organizations to beat the German people into submission.
The decree rescinding the dissolution of the SA and the SS is shown in
Document D-631, on Page 64 of the document book; and I now put it in as
Exhibit GB-236. It is an extract from the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, which was
an omnibus decree. The relevant passage is in Paragraph 20:
“This order comes into operation from the day of announcement.
It takes the place of the Decree of the Reich President for the
Safeguarding of the State Authority of . . . .”—the date should
be the 13th of April 1932.
THE PRESIDENT: Which page of the document book is it?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I am sorry, My Lord; it is Page 64. And the date shown
there should not be the 3rd of May 1932, it should be the 13th of April
1932. That was the decree which had previously dissolved the Nazi
para-military organizations under the Government of Chancellor Brüning.
At the bottom of the page the Tribunal will see the relevant parts of
the decree of the 13th of April reproduced. At the beginning of
Paragraph 1 of that decree it said:
“All organizations of a military nature of the German National
Socialist Labor Party will be dissolved with immediate effect,
particularly the SA and the SS.”
This rescission by Von Papen was done in pursuance of a bargain made
with Hitler which is mentioned in a book called _Dates from the History
of the NSDAP_ by Dr. Hans Volz, a book published with the authority of
the NSDAP. It is already an exhibit, Exhibit USA-592. The extract I want
to quote is on Page 59 of the document book, and it is Document Number
3463-PS. I quote an extract from Page 41 of this little book:
“28th of May”—that was in 1932, of course—“In view of the
imminent fall of Brüning, at a meeting between the former Deputy
of the Prussian Center Party, Franz Von Papen, and the Führer in
Berlin (first personal contact in spring 1932); the Führer
agrees that a Papen cabinet should be tolerated by the NSDAP,
provided that the prohibitions imposed on the SA, uniforms, and
demonstrations be lifted and the Reichstag dissolved.”
It is difficult to imagine a less astute opening gambit for a man who
was about to become Chancellor than to reinstate this sinister
organization which had been suppressed by his predecessor. This action
emphasizes the characteristic duplicity and insincerity of his public
condemnations of the Nazis which I quoted a few minutes ago.
Eighteen months later he publicly boasted that at the time of taking
over the chancellorship he had advocated paving the way to power for
what he called the “young fighting liberation movement.” That will be
shown in Document 3375-PS, which I shall introduce in a few minutes.
Another important step was when, on the 20th of July 1932, he
accomplished his famous _coup d’état_ in Prussia which removed the
Braun-Severing Prussian Government and united the ruling power of the
Reich and Prussia in his own hands as Reichskommissar for Prussia. This
is now a matter of history. It is mentioned in Document D-632, which I
now introduce as Exhibit GB-237. It is on Page 65 of the document book.
This document is, I think, a semi-official biography in a series of
public men.
Papen regarded this step, his _coup d’état_ in Prussia, as a first step
in the policy later pursued by Hitler of coordinating the states with
the Reich, which will be shown in Document 3357-PS, which I shall come
to later.
The next step, if the Tribunal will look at Document D-632, on Page 65
of the document book, the last four or five lines at the bottom of the
page:
“The Reichstag elections of the 31st of July, which were the
result of Von Papen’s disbandment of the Reichstag on the 4th of
June”—which was made in pursuance of the bargain that I
mentioned a few minutes ago—“strengthened enormously the NSDAP,
so that Von Papen offered to the leader of the now strongest
party his participation in the government as Vice Chancellor.
Adolf Hitler rejected this offer on the 13th of August.
“The new Reichstag, which assembled on the 30th of August, was
disbanded by the 12th of September. The new elections brought
about a considerable loss to the NSDAP, but did not strengthen
the Government parties, so that Papen’s Government retired on
the 17th of November 1932 after unsuccessful negotiations with
the Party leaders.”
My Lord, I shall wish to quote a few more extracts from that biography,
but as it is a mere catalogue of events, perhaps Your Lordship would
allow me to return to it at the appropriate time.
So far as those negotiations mentioned just now in the biography concern
Hitler, they involved an exchange of letters in which Von Papen wrote to
Hitler on the 13th of November 1932. That letter is Document D-633, on
Page 68 of the English document book, and I now put it in as Exhibit
GB-238. I propose to read a part of this letter, because it shows the
positive efforts made by Papen to ally himself with the Nazis, even in
face of further rebuffs from Hitler. I read the third paragraph. I
should tell the Tribunal that there is some underlining in the English
translation of that paragraph which does not occur in the German text:
“A new situation has arisen through the elections of November
the 6th, and at the same time a new opportunity for a
consolidation of all nationalist elements. The Reich President
has instructed me to find out by conversations with the leaders
of the individual parties concerned whether and how far they are
ready to support the carrying out of the political and economic
program on which the Reich Government has embarked. Although the
National Socialist press has been writing that it is a naive
attempt for Reich Chancellor Von Papen to try to confer with
personalities representing the nationalist concentration, and
that there can only be one answer, ‘No negotiations with Papen,’
I would consider it neglecting my duties, and I would be unable
to justify it to my own conscience, if I did not approach you in
the spirit of the order given to me. I am quite aware from the
papers that you are maintaining your demands to be entrusted
with the Chancellor’s Office, and I am equally aware of the
continued existence of the reasons for the decision of August
the 13th. I need not assure you again that I myself do not claim
any personal consideration at all. All the same, I am of the
opinion that the leader of so great a national movement, whose
merits for people and country I have always recognized in spite
of necessary criticism, should not refuse to enter into
discussions on the situation and the decisions required with the
presently leading and responsible German statesman. We must
attempt to forget the bitterness of the elections and to place
the cause of the country which we are mutually serving above all
other considerations.”
Hitler replied on 16 November 1932 in a long letter, laying down terms
which were evidently unacceptable to Von Papen, since he resigned the
next day and was succeeded by Von Schleicher. That document is D-634,
put in as part of Exhibit GB-238 as it is part of the same
correspondence. I need not read from the letter itself.
Then came the meetings between Papen and Hitler in January 1933, in the
houses of Von Schröder and of Ribbentrop, culminating in Von Schleicher
being succeeded by Hitler as Reich Chancellor on 30 January 1933.
Referring back again to the biography on Page 66 of the document book,
there is an account of the meeting at Schröder’s house, the second
paragraph on the page:
“The meeting with Hitler, which took place in the beginning of
January 1933, in the house of the banker Baron Von Schröder in
Cologne, is due to his initiative”—that means, of course
Papen’s initiative—“although Von Schröder was the mediator.
Both Von Papen and Hitler later made public statements about
this meeting (press of 6 January 1933). After the rapid downfall
of Von Schleicher on the 28th of January 1933, the Hitler-Von
Papen-Hugenberg-Seldte Cabinet was formed on the 30th of January
1933 as a government of national solidarity. In this cabinet Von
Papen held the office of Vice Chancellor and Reich Commissioner
for Prussia.”
The meetings at Ribbentrop’s house, at which Papen was also present,
have been mentioned by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe (Document D-472, which was
Exhibit GB-130).
I now wish to introduce into evidence an affidavit by Von Schröder, but
I understand that Dr. Kubuschok wishes to take an objection to this.
Perhaps before Dr. Kubuschok takes his objection it might help if I
said, quite openly, that Schröder is now in custody, and according to my
information he is at Frankfurt; so that physically he undoubtedly could
be called. Perhaps I might also say at this moment that there would be
no objection from the Prosecution’s point of view to interrogatories
being administered to Von Schröder on the subject matter of this
affidavit.
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen): I object to the
reading of the affidavit of Schröder. I know that in individual cases
the Tribunal has permitted the reading of affidavits. This occurred
under Article 19 of the Charter, which is based on the proposition that
the Trial should be conducted as speedily as possible and that for this
reason the Tribunal should order the rules of ordinary court procedure
in that respect. Of decisive importance, therefore, is the speediness of
the Trial. But in our case the reading of the affidavit cannot be
approved for that reason.
Our case is quite analogous to the case that was decided on the 14th of
December with regard to Kurt Von Schuschnigg’s affidavit. Schröder is in
the vicinity. Schröder was apparently brought to the neighborhood of
Nuremberg for the purposes of this Trial. The affidavit was taken down
on 5 December. He could be brought here at any time. The reading of the
affidavit would have the consequence that I would have to refer not only
to him but also to several other witnesses, because Schröder describes a
series of facts in his affidavit which in their entirety are not needed
for the finding of a decision. However, once introduced into the Trial,
they must also be discussed by the Defense in the pursuance of its duty.
The affidavit discusses internal political matters, using improper
terms. For this reason misunderstandings would be brought into the Trial
which could be obviated by the hearing of a witness I believe,
therefore, that the oral testimony of a witness should be the only way
in which Schröder’s testimony should be submitted to the Tribunal, since
otherwise a large number of witnesses will have to be called along with
the reading of Schröder’s affidavit and his personal interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to make any observation?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes, I do, My Lord. The Tribunal has been asked to
exclude this affidavit, using as a precedent the decision on Von
Schuschnigg’s affidavit. I think I am correct in saying that Von
Schuschnigg’s affidavit was excluded as an exception to the general rule
on affidavits which the Tribunal laid down earlier the same day when Mr.
Messersmith’s affidavit was accepted. Perhaps Your Lordship will allow
me to read from the transcript the Tribunal’s decision on the affidavit
of Messersmith.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Messersmith was in Mexico, was he not?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is so, My Lord; yes.
THE PRESIDENT: So that the difference between him and Schuschnigg in
that regard was very considerable.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: In that regard, but what I was going to say was this,
My Lord: In ruling on Messersmith’s affidavit Your Lordship said:
“In view of those provisions”—that is Article 19 of the
Charter—“the Tribunal holds that affidavits can be presented
and that in the present case it is a proper course. The question
of the probative value of the affidavit as compared with the
witness who has been cross-examined would, of course, be
considered by the Tribunal, and if at a later stage the Tribunal
thinks the presence of a witness is of extreme importance, the
matter can be reconsidered.”
And Your Lordship added:
“If the Defense wish to put interrogatories to the witness, they
will be at liberty to do so.”
Now in the afternoon of that day, when Schuschnigg’s affidavit came up
. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Which day was this?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: This was the 28th of November, My Lord. It is on Page
473 (Volume II, Page 352) of the transcript, the Messersmith affidavit;
and Page 523 (Volume II, Page 384) is the Schuschnigg affidavit.
Now, when the objection was taken to the Schuschnigg affidavit, the
objection was put in these words:
“Today when the resolution was announced in respect of the use
to be made of the written affidavit of Mr. Messersmith, the
Court was of the opinion that in a case of very great importance
possibly it would take a different view of the matter.”—And
then defense counsel went on to say—“As it is a case of such an
important witness, the principle of direct evidence must be
adhered to.”
THE PRESIDENT: Have you a reference to a subsequent occasion on which we
heard Mr. Justice Jackson upon this subject, when Mr. Justice Jackson
submitted to us that on the strict interpretation of Article 19 we were
bound to admit any evidence which we deemed to have probative value?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, I haven’t got that reference.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don’t you call this witness?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I say, quite frankly—and I was coming on to
that—this witness is in a position of being an alleged co-conspirator,
and I do not make any secret of the fact that for obvious reasons the
Prosecution would not desire to call him as a witness, and I put this
affidavit forward as an admission by a co-conspirator. I admit that it
is not an admission made in pursuance of the conspiracy, but I submit
that by technical rules of evidence, this affidavit may be accepted in
evidence as an admission by a co-conspirator; and as I said before,
there will be no objection to administering interrogatories on the
subject matter of this affidavit, and indeed, the witness would be
available to be called as a defense witness if required.
That is all I have to say on that, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: There would be no objection to bringing the witness here
for the purpose of cross-examination upon the affidavit?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I don’t think there could be any objection if it were
confined to the subject matter of the affidavit. I would not like . . .
THE PRESIDENT: How could you object, for instance, to the defendant
himself applying to call the witness?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: As I said, I don’t think there could be any objection
to that, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: The result would be the same, wouldn’t it? If the witness
were called for the purpose of cross-examination, then he could be asked
other questions which were not arising out of the matter in the
affidavit. If the defendant can call him as his own witness, there can
be no objection to the cross-examination going outside the matter of the
affidavit.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Of course he couldn’t be cross-examined by the
Prosecution in that event, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you would ask his questions in re-examination,
but they would not take the form of cross-examination?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is what I mean, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you would prefer that he should be called
for the defendants rather than be cross-examined outside the subject
matter of the affidavit?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything you wish to add or not?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: There is nothing I wish to add.
THE PRESIDENT: It is time for us to adjourn. We will consider the
matter.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): In the place of
Dr. Von Rohrscheidt, counsel for Defendant Hess, I would like to make
the following declaration.
Dr. Von Rohrscheidt has been the victim of an accident. He has broken
his ankle. The Defendant Hess has asked me to notify the Tribunal that
from now on until the end of the Trial, he desires to make use of his
right under the Charter to defend himself. The reason that he wants to
do that for the whole length of the Trial is to be found in the fact
that due to his absence his counsel will not be informed of the
proceedings of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the oral application which has
just been made to it on behalf of the Defendant Hess.
As to the objection to the affidavit of Von Schröder which was made this
morning by counsel for the Defendant Von Papen, the Tribunal does not
propose to lay down any general rule about the admission of affidavit
evidence. But in the particular circumstances of this case, the Tribunal
will admit the affidavit in question but will direct that if the
affidavit is put in evidence, the man who made the affidavit, Von
Schröder, must be presented, brought here immediately for
cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel. When I say immediately I
mean as soon as possible.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, I will not introduce this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Major Barrington.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, before coming on to that affidavit, I last
read a passage from the biography about the meeting at Von Schröder’s
house, and I ask the Tribunal to deduce from that extract from the
biography that it was at that meeting that a discussion took place
between Von Papen and Hitler, which led up to the government of Hitler
in which Von Papen served as Vice Chancellor. So that now at the point
the Defendant Von Papen was completely committed to going along with the
Nazi Party, and with his eyes open and on his own initiative he had
helped materially to bring them into power.
The second allegation against the Defendant Von Papen is that he
participated in the consolidation of Nazi control over Germany.
In the first critical year and a half of the Nazi consolidation Von
Papen, as Vice Chancellor, was second only to Hitler in the Cabinet
which carried out the Nazi program.
The process of consolidating the Nazi control of Germany by legislation
has been fully dealt with earlier in this Trial. The high position of
Von Papen must have associated him closely with such legislation. In
July 1934 Hitler expressly thanked him for all that he had done for the
co-ordination of the government of the National Revolution. That will
appear in Document 2799-PS. In fact, although I shall read from that
document in a minute, the document has been introduced to the Court by
Mr. Alderman.
Two important decrees may be mentioned specially, as actually bearing
the signature of Von Papen. First, the decree relating to the formation
of special courts, dated the 21st of March 1933, for the trial of all
cases involving political matters. The Tribunal has already taken
judicial notice of this decree. The reference to the transcript is Page
30 (Volume II, Page 197) of the 22d of November, afternoon session.
This decree was the first step in the Nazification of the German
judiciary. In all political cases it abolished fundamental rights,
including the right of appeal, which had previously characterized the
administration of German criminal justice.
On the same date, the 21st of March 1933, Von Papen personally signed
the amnesty decree liberating all persons who had committed murder or
any other crime between the 30th of January and the 21st of March 1933
in the National Revolution of the German people. That document is
2059-PS, and is on Page 30 of the English document book. I read Section
1.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think you need read the decrees if you will
summarize them.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: If Your Lordship pleases, I will ask you to take
judicial notice of that decree.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: As a member of the Reich Cabinet, Von Papen was, in my
submission, responsible for the legislation carried through even when
the decrees did not actually bear his signature. But I shall mention as
examples two categories of legislation in particular in order to show by
reference to his own previous and contemporaneous statements that they
were not matters of which he could say that as a respectable politician
he took no interest in them.
First, the civil service. As a public servant himself, Von Papen must
have had a hard but apparently successful struggle with his conscience
when associating himself with the sweeping series of decrees for
attaining Nazi control of the civil service. This has been dealt with on
Page 30 (Volume II, Page 197) of the transcript of the 22d of November
in the afternoon session, and Page 257 (Volume II, Page 207). In this
connection I refer the Tribunal to Document 351-PS, which is on Page 1
of the document book. It is Exhibit USA-389, and it is the minutes of
Hitler’s first Cabinet meeting on the 30th of January 1933. I read from
the last paragraph of the minutes, on Page 5 of the document book in the
middle of the paragraph:
“The Deputy of the Reich Chancellor and the Reich Commissioner
for the State of Prussia suggested that the Reich Chancellor
should refute, in an interview at the earliest opportunity, the
rumors about inflation and the rumors about infringing the
rights of civil servants.”
Even if this was not meant to suggest to Hitler the giving of a
fraudulent assurance, at the best it emphasizes the indifference with
which Von Papen later saw the civil servants betrayed.
Secondly, the decrees for the integration of the federal states with the
Reich. These again have been dealt with earlier in the Trial, Page 29
(Volume II, Page 196) of the transcript of 22 November, afternoon
session. The substantial effect of these decrees was to abolish the
states and to put an end to federalism and any possible retarding
influence which it might have upon the centralization of power in the
Reich Cabinet. The importance of this step, as well as the role played
by Papen, is reflected in the exchange of letters between Hindenburg,
Von Papen—in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for Prussia—and
Hitler, in connection with the recall of the Reich Commissioner and the
appointment of Göring to the post of Prime Minister of Prussia. I refer
to Document 3357-PS, which is on Page 52 of the English document book,
and I now put it in as Exhibit GB-239.
In tendering his resignation on the 7th of April 1933, Von Papen wrote
to Hitler, and I read from the document:
“With the draft of the law for the co-ordination of the states
with the Reich, passed today by the Reich Chancellor,
legislative work has begun which will be of historical
significance for the political development of the German State.
The step taken on 20 July 1932 by the Reich Government, which I
headed at the time, with the aim of abolishing the dualism
between the Reich and Prussia is now crowned by this new
interlocking of the interests of the state of Prussia with those
of the Reich. You, Herr Reich Chancellor, will now be, as once
was Bismarck, in a position to co-ordinate in all points the
policy of the greatest of German states with that of the Reich.
Now that the new law affords you the possibility of appointing a
Prussian Prime Minister, I beg you to inform the Reich President
that I dutifully return to his hands my post of Reich
Commissioner for Prussia.”
I would like to read also the letter which Hitler wrote to Hindenburg in
transmitting this resignation. Hitler wrote:
“Vice Chancellor Von Papen has addressed a letter to me which I
enclose for your information. Herr Von Papen has already
informed me within the last few days that he has come to an
agreement with Minister Göring to resign on his own volition, as
soon as the unified conduct of the governmental affairs in the
Reich and in Prussia would be assured by the new law on the
co-ordination of policy in the Reich and the States.
“On the eve of the day when the new law on the institution of
Reichsstatthalter was adopted, Herr Von Papen considered this
aim as having been attained, and requested me to undertake the
appointment of the Prussian Prime Minister, at the same time
offering further collaboration in the Reich Government, by now
lending full service.
“Herr Von Papen, in accepting the post of Commissioner for the
Government of Prussia in these difficult times since 30 January,
has rendered a very meritorious service to the realization of
the idea of coordinating the policy in Reich and states. His
collaboration in the Reich Cabinet, to which he is now lending
all his energy, is infinitely valuable; my relationship to him
is such a heartily friendly one, that I sincerely rejoice at the
great help I shall thus receive.”
Yet it was only 5 weeks before this that on the 3rd of March 1933, Von
Papen had warned the electorate at Stuttgart against abolishing
federalism. I will now read from Document 3313-PS, which is on Page 48
of the English document book, and which I now introduce as Exhibit
GB-240—about the middle of the third paragraph. This is an extract from
Von Papen’s speech at Stuttgart. He said:
“Federalism will protect us from centralism, that organizational
form which focuses all the living strength of a nation on one
point. No nation is less fitted to be governed centrally than
the German.”
Earlier, at the time of the elections in the autumn of 1932, Von Papen
as Chancellor had visited Munich. The _Frankfurter Zeitung_ of the 12th
of October 1932 commented on his policy. I refer to Document 3318-PS on
Page 51 of the English document book, which I introduce as Exhibit
GB-241. The _Frankfurter Zeitung_ commented:
“Von Papen claimed that it had been his great aim from the very
beginning of his tenure in office to build a new Reich for, and
with, the various states. The Reich Government is taking a
definite federalist attitude. Its slogan is not a dreary
centralism or uniformity.”
That was in October 1932. All that was now thrown overboard in deference
to his new master.
I now come to the Jews. In March 1933 the entire Cabinet approved a
systematic state policy of persecution of the Jews. This has already
been described to the Tribunal. The reference to the transcript is Pages
1442 (Volume III, Page 525) and 2490 (Volume V, Page 93).
Only 4 days before the boycott was timed to begin “with all
ferocity”—to borrow the words of Dr. Goebbels—Von Papen wrote a
radiogram of reassurance to the Board of Trade for German-American
Commerce in New York which had expressed its anxiety to the German
Government about the situation. His assurance—which I now put in as
Document D-635, and it will be Exhibit GB-242 on Page 73 of the English
document book—his assurance was published in the _New York Times_ on
the 28th of March 1933, and it contained the following sentence which I
read from about the middle of the page. This document is the last but
one in the German document book:
“Reports circulated in America and received here with
indignation about alleged tortures of political prisoners and
mistreatment of Jews deserve strongest repudiation. Hundreds of
thousands of Jews, irrespective of nationality, who have not
taken part in political activities, are living here entirely
unmolested.”
This is a characteristic . . .
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The article in the _New York Times_ goes back to a
telegram of the Defendant Von Papen, which is contained in the document
book one page ahead. The English translation has a date of the 27th of
March. This date is an error. The German text which I received shows
that it is a question of a weekend letter, which, according to the
figures on the German document, was sent on the 25th of March. This
difference in time is of particular importance for the following reason:
In effect, on the 25th of March nothing was yet known concerning the
Jewish boycott, which Goebbels then announced for the 1st of April. The
Defendant Von Papen could, therefore, on the 25th of March, point to
these then comparatively few smaller incidents as he does in the
telegram. In any case, the conclusion of the indictment that the
contents of the telegram were a lie thereby falls.
THE PRESIDENT: Major Barrington, have you the original of that?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: The original is here, My Lord; yes. It is quite
correct that there are some figures at the top, which, though I had not
recognized it, might indicate that it was dispatched on the 25th.
THE PRESIDENT: And when was the meeting of the Cabinet which approved
the policy of persecution of the Jews?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, My Lord, I can’t say. It was some time within
the last few days of March, but it might have been on the 26th. I can
have that checked up.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I clarify that matter by saying that the Cabinet
meeting in which the Jewish question was discussed took place at a much
later date and that in this Cabinet meeting Cabinet members, among
others the Defendant Von Papen, condemned the Jewish boycott. I shall
submit the minutes of the meeting as soon as my motion has been granted.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know what you mean by your motion being granted.
Does Counsel for the Prosecution say whether he persists in his
allegation or whether he withdraws it?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I will say this. Subject to checking the date when the
Cabinet meeting took place . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can do that at the adjournment and let us know
in the morning.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: If Your Lordship pleases. At this point I will just
say this: That it was, as the Tribunal has already heard, common
knowledge at the time that the Nazi policy was anti-Jewish, and Jews
were already in concentration camps, so I will leave it to the Tribunal
to infer that at the time when that radiogram was sent, which I am
prepared to accept as being the 25th of March, that Von Papen did know
of this policy of boycotting.
I will go further now that I am on this point, and I will say that Von
Papen was indeed himself a supporter of the anti-Jewish policy, and as
evidence of this I will put in Document 2830-PS, which is on Page 37A of
the document book, and which I now introduce as Exhibit GB-243.
This is a letter, My Lord, written by Von Papen from Vienna on the 12th
of May 1936 to Hitler on the subject of the Freiheitsbund. Paragraph 4
of the English text is as follows:
“The following incident is interesting. The Czech Legation
secretary Dohalsky has made to Mr. Staud, (leader of the
Freiheitsbund) the offer to make available to the Freiheitsbund
any desired amount from the Czech Government which he would need
for the strengthening of his struggle against the Heimwehr. Sole
condition is that the Freiheitsbund must guarantee to adopt an
anti-German attitude. Mr. Staud has flatly refused this offer.
This demonstrates how even in the enemy’s camp the new grouping
of forces is already taken into account. From this the further
necessity results for us to support this movement financially as
heretofore, and mostly in reference to the continuation of its
fight against Jewry.”
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I must point out here a difficulty which has apparently
been caused by the translation. In the original German text the word
“mit Bezug” is used in regard to the transmittal in the following way:
“. . . referring to the continuation of its fight against Jewry.” This
word “mit Bezug” means here that under this heading the money must be
transmitted, although this was not the real purpose, for the Austrian
Freiheitsbund (Freedom Union) was not an anti-Semitic movement but a
legal trade union to which Chancellor Dollfuss also belonged. This
expression “mit Bezug” means only that the transmittal of the money
demanded a covering designation because it was not permissible to
transmit money from abroad to a party recognized by the state for any
party purposes, as is shown by the rejected offer of the Czechoslovaks.
I only wanted to point out here that the words “in reference” perhaps
give a wrong impression and should rather be translated “referring.” In
any case, I should like to point out that this “in reference” was a kind
of camouflage for the transmittal of the money.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know to which word you are referring, but as I
understand it the only purpose of referring to this letter was to prove
that in it Von Papen was suggesting that a certain organization should
be financially assisted in its fight against Jewry. That is the only
purpose of referring to the letter. I don’t know what you mean about
some word being wrongly translated.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is exactly how the error originated. The money was
not transmitted to fight Jewry for that was not at all the purpose of
this Christian Trade Union in Austria, but a certain designation for the
transmittal of the money had to be devised. So this continuation of its
fight against Jewry was used. The purpose therefore was not the fight
against Jewry but the elimination through financial support of another
foreign influence, namely that of Czechoslovakia.
THE PRESIDENT: I should have thought myself that the point which might
have been taken against the Prosecution was that the letter was dated
nearly 3 years after the time with which you were then dealing.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is so, My Lord; it was not at the time of the
previous one.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the previous one was marked 1933, and this was 1936.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Oh yes. I put it in, My Lord, only to show what Von
Papen’s position was by then, at any rate. If Your Lordship has any
doubt as to the translation I would suggest that it might now be
translated by the interpreter. We have the German text, a photostat.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you can have it translated again tomorrow; if
necessary, you can have it gone into again then.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes, My Lord.
I come now to the Catholic Church. The Nazi treatment of the Church has
been fully dealt with by the United States Prosecution. In this
particular field Von Papen, a prominent lay Catholic, helped to
consolidate the Nazi position both at home and abroad as perhaps no one
else could have done.
In dealing with the persecution of the Church, Colonel Wheeler read to
the Tribunal Hitler’s assurance given to the Church on the 23rd of March
1933 in Hitler’s speech on the Enabling Act, an assurance which resulted
in the well-known Fulda Declaration of the German bishops, also quoted
by Colonel Wheeler. That was Document 3387-PS, which was Exhibit
USA-566. This deceitful assurance of Hitler’s appears to have been made
at the suggestion of Von Papen 8 days earlier at the Reich Cabinet
meeting at which the Enabling Act was discussed, on the 15th of March
1933. I refer to Document 2962-PS, which is Exhibit USA-578, and it is
on Page 40 of the English document book. I read from Page 44, that is at
the bottom of Page 6 of the German text. The minutes say:
“The Deputy of the Reich Chancellor and Reich Commissioner for
Prussia stated that it is of decisive importance to coordinate
into the new state the masses standing behind the parties. The
question of the incorporation of political Catholicism into the
new state is of particular importance.”
That was a statement made by Von Papen at the meeting at which the
Enabling Act was discussed prior to Hitler’s speech on the Enabling Act
in which he gave his assurance to the Church.
On the 20th of July 1933 Papen signed the Reich Concordat negotiated by
him with the Vatican. The Tribunal has already taken judicial notice of
this as Document 3280(a)-PS. The signing of the Concordat, like Hitler’s
Papen-inspired speech on the Enabling Act, was only an interlude in the
church policy of the Nazi conspirators. Their policy of assurances was
followed by a long series of violations which eventually resulted in
Papal denunciation in the Encyclical “Mit brennender Sorge,” which is
3476-PS, Exhibit USA-567.
Papen maintains that his actions regarding the Church were sincere, and
he has asserted during interrogations that it was Hitler who sabotaged
the Concordat. If Von Papen really believed in the very solemn
undertakings given by him on behalf of the Reich to the Vatican, I
submit it is strange that he, himself a Catholic, should have continued
to serve Hitler after all those violations and even after the Papal
Encyclical itself. I will go further. I will say that Papen was himself
involved in what was virtually, if not technically, a violation of the
Concordat. The Tribunal will recollect the allocution of the Pope, dated
the 2d of June 1945, which is Document 3268-PS, Exhibit USA-356, from
which on Page 1647 (Volume IV, Page 64) of the transcript Colonel Storey
read the Pope’s own summary of the Nazis’ bitter struggle against the
Church. The very first item the Pope mentioned is the dissolution of
Catholic organizations and if the Tribunal will look at Document 3376-PS
on Page 56 of the English document book, which I now put in as Exhibit
GB-244 and which is an extract from _Das Archiv_, they will see that in
September 1934 Von Papen ordered—and I say “ordered” advisedly—the
dissolution of the Union of Catholic Germans, of which he was at the
time the leader. The text of _Das Archiv_ reads as follows:
“The Reich Directorate of the Party announced the
self-dissolution of the Union of Catholic Germans.
“Since the Reich Directorate of the Party, through its
Department for Cultural Peace, administers directly and to an
increasing extent all cultural problems including those
concerning the relations of State and churches, the tasks at
first delegated to the Union of Catholic Germans are now
included in those of the Reich Directorate of the Party in the
interest of a still closer co-ordination.
“Former Vice Chancellor Von Papen, up to now the leader of the
Union of Catholic Germans, declared about the dissolution of
this organization that it was done upon his suggestion, since
the attitude of the National Socialist State toward the
Christian and Catholic Church had been explained often and
unequivocally by the Führer and Chancellor himself.”
I said that Von Papen “ordered” the dissolutions, although the
announcement said it was self-dissolution on his suggestion; but I
submit that such a suggestion from one in Papen’s position was
equivalent to an order, since by that date it was common knowledge that
the Nazis were dropping all pretense that rival organizations might be
permitted to exist.
After 9 months’ service under Hitler, spent in consolidating the Nazi
control, Von Papen was evidently well content with his choice. I refer
to Document 3375-PS, Page 54 of the English document book, which I put
in as Exhibit GB-245. On the 2d of November 1933, speaking at Essen from
the same platform as Hitler and Gauleiter Terboven, in the course of the
campaign for the Reichstag election and the referendum concerning
Germany’s leaving the League of Nations, Von Papen declared:
“Ever since Providence called upon me to become the pioneer of
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 Führer; and just as I at the time of
taking over the Chancellorship”—that was in 1932—“advocated
paving the way to power for the young fighting liberation
movement, just as I on January 30 was destined by a gracious
fate to put the hands of our Chancellor and Führer into the hand
of our beloved Field Marshal, so do I today again feel the
obligation to say to the German people and all those who have
kept confidence in me:
“The good Lord has blessed Germany by giving her in times of
deep distress a leader who will lead her through all distresses
and weaknesses, through all crises and moments of danger, with
the sure instinct of the statesman into a happy future.”
And then the last sentence of the whole text on Page 55:
“Let us, in this hour, say to the Führer of the new Germany that
we believe in him and his work.”
By this time the Cabinet, of which Von Papen was a member and to which
he had given all his strength, had abolished the civil liberties, had
sanctioned political murder committed in aid of Nazism’s seizure of
power, had destroyed all rival political parties, had enacted the basic
laws for abolition of the political influence of the federal states, had
provided the legislative basis for purging the civil service and
judiciary of anti-Nazi elements, and had embarked upon a State policy of
persecution of the Jews.
Papen’s words are words of hollow mockery: “The good Lord has blessed
Germany . . . .”
The third allegation against the Defendant Papen is that he promoted
preparations for war. Knowing as he did the basic program of the Nazi
Party, it is inconceivable that as Vice Chancellor for a year and a half
he could have been dissociated from the conspirators’ warlike
preparations; he, of whom Hitler wrote to Hindenburg on the 10th of
April 1933 that, “His collaboration in the Reich Cabinet, to which he is
now lending all his energy, is infinitely valuable.”
The fourth allegation against Papen is that he participated in the
political planning and preparations for wars of aggression and wars in
violation of international treaties. In Papen’s case this allegation is
really the story of the Anschluss. His part in that was a preparation
for wars of aggression in two senses: First, that the Anschluss was the
necessary preliminary step to all the subsequent armed aggressions;
second, that, even if it can be contended that the Anschluss was in fact
achieved without aggression, it was planned in such a way that it would
have been achieved by aggression if that had been necessary.
I need do no more than summarize Papen’s Austrian activities since the
whole story of the Anschluss has been described to the Tribunal already,
though with the Tribunal’s permission I would like to read again two
short passages of a particularly personal nature regarding Papen. But
before I deal with Papen’s activities in Austria there is one matter
that I feel I ought not to omit to mention to the Tribunal.
On the 18th of June 1934 Papen made his remarkable speech at Marburg
University. I do not propose to put it in evidence, nor is it in the
document book, because it is a matter of history and in what I say I do
not intend to commit myself in regard to the motives and consequences of
his speech which are not free from mystery; but I will say this: That as
far as concerns the subject matter of Papen’s Marburg speech, it was an
outspoken criticism of the Nazis. One must imagine that the Nazis were
furiously angry; and although he escaped death in the Blood Purge 12
days later, he was put under arrest for 3 days. Whether this arrest was
originally intended to end in execution or whether it was to protect him
from the purge as one too valuable to be lost, I do not now inquire.
After his release from arrest he not unnaturally resigned the Vice
Chancellorship. Now the question that arises—and this is why I mention
the matter at this point—is why, after these barbaric events, did he
ever go back into the service of the Nazis again? What an opportunity
missed! If he had stopped then he might have saved the world much
suffering. Suppose that Hitler’s own Vice Chancellor, just released from
arrest, had defied the Nazis and told the world the truth. There might
never have been a reoccupation of the Rhineland; there might never have
been a war. But I must not speculate. The lamentable fact is that he
slipped back, he succumbed again to the fascination of Hitler.
After the murder of Chancellor Dollfuss only 3 weeks later, on 25 July
1934, the situation was such as to call for the removal of the German
Minister Rieth and for the prompt substitution of a man who was an
enthusiast for the Anschluss with Germany, who could be tolerant of Nazi
objectives and methods but who could lend an aura of respectability to
official German representation in Vienna. This situation is described in
the transcript at Pages 478 and 479 (Volume II, Pages 355, 356).
Hitler’s reaction to the murder of Dollfuss was immediate. He chose his
man as soon as he heard the news. The very next day, the 26th of July,
he sent Von Papen a letter of appointment. This is on Page 37 of the
English document book; it is document 2799-PS and it has already been
judicially noticed by the Tribunal. Mr. Alderman read the letter, and I
only wish to refer to the personal remarks toward the end. Hitler in
this letter, after reciting his version of the Dollfuss affair and
expressing his desire that Austrian-German relations should be brought
again into normal and friendly channels, says in the third paragraph:
“For this reason I request you, dear Herr Von Papen, to take
over this important task just because you have possessed and
continue to possess my most complete and unlimited confidence
ever since our collaboration in the Cabinet.”
And the last paragraph of the letter:
“Thanking you again today for all that you once have done for
the co-ordination of the Government of the National Revolution
and since then, together with us, for Germany . . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: This might be a good time to break off for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, I had just read from the letter of
appointment as Minister in Vienna which Hitler sent to Von Papen on the
26th of July 1934. This letter, which, of course, was made public,
naturally did not disclose the real intention of Von Papen’s
appointment. The actual mission of Von Papen was frankly stated shortly
after his arrival in Vienna in the course of a private conversation he
had with the American Minister, Mr. Messersmith. I quote from Mr.
Messersmith’s affidavit, which is Document 1760-PS, Exhibit USA-57, and
it is on Page 22 of the document book, just about half way through the
second paragraph. Mr. Messersmith said:
“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 southeastern 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,
towards that end.”
Throughout the earlier period of his mission to Austria, Von Papen’s
activity was characterized by the assiduous avoidance of any appearance
of intervention. His true mission was re-affirmed with clarity several
months after its commencement when he was instructed by Berlin that
“during the next 2 years nothing can be undertaken which will give
Germany external political difficulties,” and that every appearance of
German intervention in Austrian affairs must be avoided; and Von Papen
himself stated to Berger-Waldenegg, an Austrian Foreign Minister, “Yes,
you have your French and English friends now, and you can have your
independence a little longer.” All of that was told in detail by Mr.
Alderman, again quoting from Mr. Messersmith’s affidavit, which is in
the transcript at Pages 492 (Volume II, Page 354), 506, and 507 (Volume
II, Pages 362-364).
Throughout this earlier period, the Nazi movement was gaining strength
in Austria without openly admitted German intervention; and Germany
needed more time to consolidate its diplomatic position. These reasons
for German policy were frankly expressed by the German Foreign Minister
Von Neurath in conversation with the American Ambassador to France; this
was read into the transcript at Page 520 (Volume II, Page 381) by Mr.
Alderman from Document L-150, Exhibit USA-65.
The Defendant Von Papen accordingly restricted his activities to the
normal ambassadorial function of cultivating all respectable elements in
Austria, and ingratiating himself in these circles. Despite his facade
of strict nonintervention, Von Papen remained in contact with subversive
elements in Austria. Thus in his report to Hitler, dated 17 May 1935, he
advised concerning Austrian-Nazi strategy as proposed by Captain
Leopold, leader of the illegal Austrian Nazis, the object of which was
to trick Dr. Schuschnigg into establishing an Austrian coalition
government with the Nazi Party. This is Document 2247-PS, Exhibit
USA-64, and it is in the transcript at Pages 516 to 518 (Volume II,
Pages 379, 380). It is on Page 34 of the English document book. I don’t
want to read this letter again, but I would like to call the attention
of the Tribunal to the first line of what appears as the second
paragraph in the English text, where Von Papen, talking about this
strategy of Captain Leopold, says, “I suggest that we take an active
part in this game.”
I mention also in connection with the illegal organizations in Austria,
Document 812-PS, Exhibit USA-61, which the Tribunal will remember was a
report from Rainer to Bürckel, and which is dealt with in the transcript
at Pages 498 to 505 (Volume II, Pages 367 to 376).
Eventually the agreement of 11 July 1936 between Germany and Austria was
negotiated by Von Papen. This is already in evidence as Document TC-22,
Exhibit GB-20. The public form of this agreement provides that while
Austria in her policy should regard herself as a German state, yet
Germany would recognize the full sovereignty of Austria and would not
exercise direct or indirect influence on the inner political order of
Austria. More interesting was the secret part of the agreement, revealed
by Mr. Messersmith, which ensured the Nazis an influence in the Austrian
Cabinet and participation in the political life of Austria. This has
already been read into the transcript at Page 522 (Volume II, Page 383)
by Mr. Alderman.
After the agreement the Defendant Von Papen continued to pursue his
policy by maintaining contact with the illegal Nazis, by trying to
influence appointments to strategic Cabinet positions, and by attempting
to secure official recognition of Nazi front organizations. Reporting to
Hitler on 1 September 1936, he summarized his program for normalizing
Austrian-German relations in pursuance of the agreement of 11 July. This
is Document 2246-PS, Exhibit USA-67, on Page 33 of the English document
book.
The Tribunal will recall that he recommended “as a guiding principle,
continued, patient, psychological manipulations with slowly intensified
pressure directed at changing the regime.” Then he mentions his
discussion with the illegal party and says that he is aiming at
“cooperative representation of the movement in the Fatherland Front, but
nevertheless is refraining from putting National Socialists in important
positions for the time being.”
There is no need to go over again the events that led up to the meeting
of Schuschnigg with Hitler in February 1938, which Von Papen arranged
and which he attended, and to the final invasion of Austria in March
1938. It is enough if I quote from the biography again on Page 66 of the
document book. It is about two-thirds of the way down the page:
“Following the events of March 1938, which caused Austria’s
incorporation into the German Reich, Von Papen had the
satisfaction of being present at the Führer’s side when the
entry into Vienna took place, after the Führer, in recognition
of his valuable collaboration, had on 14 February 1938, admitted
him to the Party and had bestowed upon him the Golden Party
Badge.”
And the biography continues:
“At first Von Papen retired to his estate Wallerfangen in the
Saar district, but soon the Führer required his services again
and on the 18 April 1939 appointed Von Papen German Ambassador
in Ankara.”
Thus the fascination of serving Hitler triumphed once again, and this
time it was at a date when the seizure of Czechoslovakia could have left
no shadow of doubt in Papen’s mind that Hitler was determined to pursue
his program of aggression.
One further quotation from the biography on Page 66, the last sentence
of the last paragraph but one:
“After his return to the Reich”—that was in 1944—“Von Papen
was awarded the Knight’s Cross of the War Merit Order with
Swords.”
In conclusion, I draw the Tribunal’s attention again to the fulsome
praises which Hitler publicly bestowed upon Von Papen for his services,
especially in the earlier days. I have given two instances where Hitler
said “His collaboration is infinitely valuable,” and again “You possess
my most complete and unlimited confidence.”
Papen, the ex-Chancellor, the soldier, the respected Catholic, Papen the
diplomat, Papen the man of breeding and culture—there was the man who
could overcome the hostility and antipathy of those respectable elements
who barred Hitler’s way. Papen was—to repeat the words of Sir Hartley
Shawcross in his opening speech—“one of the men whose co-operation and
support made the Nazi Government of Germany possible.”
That concludes my case. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe will now follow with the
case of Von Neurath.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the presentation
against the Defendant Von Neurath falls into five parts, and the first
of these is concerned with the following positions and honors which he
held.
He was a member of the Nazi Party from 30 January 1937 until 1945, and
he was awarded the Golden Party Badge on 30 January 1937. He was general
in the SS. He was personally appointed Gruppenführer by Hitler in
September 1937 and promoted to Obergruppenführer on 21 June 1943. He was
Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Chancellorship of the
Defendant Von Papen from 2 June 1932 and under the Chancellorship of
Hitler from 30 January 1933 until he was replaced by the Defendant Von
Ribbentrop on 4 February 1938. He was Reich Minister from 4 February
1938 until May 1945. He was President of the Secret Cabinet Council, to
which he was appointed on 4 February 1938, and he was a member of the
Reich Defense Council. He was appointed Reich Protector for Bohemia and
Moravia from 18 March 1939 until he was replaced by the Defendant Frick
on 25 August 1943.
He was awarded the Adler Order by Hitler at the time of his appointment
as Reich Protector. The Defendant Ribbentrop was the only other German
to receive this decoration.
If the Tribunal please, these facts are collected in Document 2973-PS,
which is Exhibit USA-19, and in that document, which is signed by the
defendant and his counsel, the defendant makes comments on certain of
these matters with which I should like to deal.
He says that the award of the Golden Party Badge was made on 30 January
1937 against his will and without his being asked.
I point out that this defendant not only refrained from repudiating the
allegedly unwanted honor, but after receiving it, attended meetings at
which wars of aggression were planned, actively participated in the rape
of Austria, and tyrannized Bohemia and Moravia.
The second point is that his appointment as Gruppenführer was also
against his will and without his being asked. On that point, the
Prosecution submits that the wearing of the uniform, the receipt of the
further promotion to Obergruppenführer and the actions against Bohemia
and Moravia must be considered when the defendant’s submission is
examined.
He then says that his appointment as Foreign Minister was by Reich
President Von Hindenburg. We submit we need not do more than draw
attention to the personalities of the Defendant Von Papen and Hitler and
to the fact that President Von Hindenburg died in 1934. This defendant
continued as Foreign Minister until 1938.
He then says that he was an inactive Minister from the 4th of February
1938 until May 1945. At that moment attention is drawn to the activities
which will be mentioned below and to the terrible evidence as to Bohemia
and Moravia which will be forthcoming from our friend the Soviet
prosecutor.
This defendant’s next point is that the Secret Cabinet Council never sat
nor conferred.
I point out to the Tribunal that that was described as a select
committee of the Cabinet for the deliberation of foreign affairs; and
the Tribunal will find that description in Document 1774-PS, which I now
put in as Exhibit GB-246. This is an extract from a book by a well-known
author, and on Page 2 of the document book, the first page of that
document, in about the seventh line from the bottom of the page, they
will see that among the bureaus subordinated to the Führer for direct
counsel and assistance, number four is the Secret Cabinet Council;
President: Reich Minister Baron Von Neurath.
And if the Tribunal will be kind enough to turn over to Page 3, about
ten lines from the top, they will see the paragraph beginning:
“A Secret Cabinet Council to advise the Führer in the basic
problems of foreign policy has been created by the decree of 4
February 1938”—and a reference is given.
“This Secret Cabinet Council is under the direction of Reich
Minister Von Neurath, and includes the Foreign Minister, the Air
Minister, the Deputy of the Führer, the Propaganda Minister, the
Chief of the Reich Chancellery, the Commanders-in-Chief of the
Army and Navy and the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed
Forces. The Secret Cabinet council constitutes a closer staff of
collaborators of the Führer which consists exclusively of
members of the Government of the Reich; strictly speaking it
represents a select committee of the Reich Government for the
deliberation on foreign affairs.”
In order to have the formal composition of the body, that is shown in
Document 2031-PS, which is Exhibit GB-217. I believe that has been put
in. I need not read it again.
The next point that the defendant makes as to his offices is that he was
not a member of the Reich Defense Council.
If I may very shortly take that point by stages, I remind the Tribunal
that the Reich Defense Council was set up soon after Hitler’s accession
to power on 4 April 1933; and the Tribunal will find a note of that
point in Document 2261-PS, Exhibit USA-24; and they will find that on
the top of Page 12 of the document book there is a reference to the date
of the establishment of the Reich Defense Council.
The Reich Defense Council is also dealt with in Document 2986-PS,
Exhibit USA-409, which is the affidavit of the Defendant Frick, which
the Tribunal will find on Page 14. In the middle of that short
affidavit, Defendant Frick says:
“We were also members of the Reich Defense Council which was
supposed to plan preparations in case of war which later on were
published by the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the
Reich.”
Now, that the membership of this Council included the Minister for
Foreign Affairs, who was then the Defendant Von Neurath, is shown by
Document EC-177, Exhibit USA-390. If the Tribunal will turn to Page 16
of the document book, they will find that document and, at the foot of
the page, the composition of the Reich Defense Council, the permanent
members including the Minister for Foreign Affairs. That document is
dated “Berlin, 22 May 1933” which was during this defendant’s tenure of
that office. That is the first stage.
The functioning of this council, with a representative of this
defendant’s department, Von Bülow, present, is shown by the minutes of
the 12th meeting on 14 May 1936. That is Document EC-407, which I put in
as Exhibit GB-247. The Tribunal will find at Page 21 that the minutes
are for the 14th of May 1936, and the actual reference to an
intervention of Von Bülow is in the middle of Page 22.
Then, the next period was after the secret law of 4 September 1938. This
defendant was, under the terms of that law, a member of the Reich
Defense Council by virtue of his office as president of the Secret
Cabinet Council. That is shown by the Document 2194-PS, Exhibit USA-36,
which the Tribunal will find at Page 24, and if you will look at Page
24, you will see that the actual copy which was put in evidence was
enclosed in a letter addressed to the Reich Protector in Bohemia and
Moravia on the 4th of September 1939. It is rather curious that the
Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia is now denying his membership in
the council when the letter enclosing the law is addressed to him.
But if the Tribunal will be good enough to turn on to Page 28, which is
still that document, the last words on that page describe the tasks of
that council and say:
“The task of the Reich Defense Council consists, during
peacetime, in deciding all measures for the preparation of Reich
defense, and the gathering together of all forces and means of
the nation in compliance with the directions of the Führer and
Reich Chancellor. The tasks of the Reich Defense Council in
wartime will be especially determined by the Führer and Reich
Chancellor.”
If the Tribunal will turn to the next page, they will see that the
permanent members of the Council are listed, and that the seventh one is
the President of the Secret Cabinet Council, who was, again, this
defendant.
I submit that that deals, for every relevant period, with this
defendant’s statement that he was not a member of the Reich Defense
Council.
The second broad point that the Prosecution makes against this defendant
is that in assuming the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs in
Hitler’s Cabinet, this defendant assumed charge of a foreign policy
committed to breach of treaties.
We say first that the Nazi Party had repeatedly and for many years made
known its intention to overthrow Germany’s international commitments,
even at the risk of war. We refer to Sections 1 and 2 of the Party
program, which, as the Tribunal has heard, was published year after
year. That is on Page 32 of the document book. It is Document 1708-PS,
Exhibit USA-255.