dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. DIX: I remember the facts, I believe, correctly and reliably, as follows: This morning I was in the room of the Defense Counsel speaking to the witness Dr. Gisevius. I believe my colleague, Professor Kraus, was also taking part in the conversation. Then my colleague, Stahmer, approached me and said he would like to speak to me. I replied that at the moment I was having an important and urgent conversation with Gisevius, and asked whether it could wait. Stahmer said "no," and that he must speak to me at once. I then took my colleague Stahmer aside, probably five or six paces from the group with whom I had been speaking. My colleague Stahmer told me the following-it is quite possible, I don't remember the actual words he used, that he started by saying that he was telling me this for professional reasons, as one colleague to another. If he says so now, I am sure that it is so. Anyhow I don't remember that any longer. He said to me, "Listen, Goering has an idea that Gisevius will attack him as much as he can. If he attacks the dead Blomberg, however, then Goering will disclose everything against Schacht-and he knows lots of things about Schacht which may not be pleasant for Schacht. He, Goering, had been very reticent in his testimony; but if anything should be said against the dead Blomberg, then he would have to reveal things against Schacht." That was what he meant-that he would bring things up against Schacht. That was the conversation. I cannot say with absolute certainty whether my colleague told me I should call Gisevius' attention to it. If he says he did not say so, then it is certainly true, and I believe him; but I could only interpret that information to mean that I should notify Gisevius of this development promised by Goering. I therefore thought-and did not have the slightest doubt- that I was voicing Goering's intention, and that I was acting as Dr. Stahmer wished, and that that was the purpose of the whole thing. What else could be the reason for Dr.
DR. DIX: Stahmer's telling me at that moment, immediately before my discussion with Gisevius, even while I was in conversation with Gisevius, that he could not wait, that I must break off my conversation? Why should he inform me at that time, unless he meant that the mischief hinted at and threatened by Goering might possibly be avoided-in other words, that the witness Gisevius, on whom everything depended, should think twice before making his statement? I did not have the slightest doubt that what Stahmer meant by his words to me was that I should convey them to Gisevius. As I said, even if Stahmer had not asked me-and he was certainly speaking the truth when he said he did not ask me to take action-I would have replied, if I had been questioned before he made this statement, and that probably with an equally good conscience, that he had asked me to pass it on to Gisevius. But I will not maintain that he actually used those words. Anyway, it is absolutely certain that this conversation did take place, and it was in the firm belief that I was acting as Dr. Stahmer and Goering intended that I went straight to Gisevius. He was standing only five or six steps away from me, or even nearer. I think I understood him to say, when I addressed him, that he had heard parts of it. I don't know whether I understood him correctly. I then informed him of the gist of this conversation. That is what happened early this morning.
DR. STAHMER: May I say the following: It goes without saying, that I neither asked Dr. Dix to pass it on to Gisevius, nor did I count upon his doing so; but I surmised that Gisevius would be examined this morning, and that Dr. Dix would question the witness concerning the circumstances of Blomberg's marriage. That is what I had been told previously-namely, that Dr. Dix intended to put this question to the witness. Therefore, I called Dr. Dix's attention to it, assuming that he would abstain from such a question concerning Blomberg's marriage. That was not intended for the witness in any way, and I know definitely that I said to Dr. Dix that I was telling him this merely as one colleague to another, and he thanked me for it. He said, "Thank you very much." At any rate, if he had said to me, "I am going to tell the witness," I would have said immediately, "For heaven's sake; that is information intended only for you personally." Indeed, I am really surprised that Dr. Dix has in this manner abused the confidence which I placed in him.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, we have heard the facts, and we do not think we need hear anything more about it beyond considering the question as to whether the witness is to go on with his evidence. Witness, has the explanation which has been given by Dr. Stahmer and Dr. Dix sufficiently covered the matters with which you were proposing to deal with reference to Field Marshal Von Blomberg? Is there anything further that you need say about it?
GISEVIUS: I beg your pardon. Perhaps I did not quite understand the question. Concerning Blomberg, at this point I did not want to say anything further; I merely wanted, on the first occasion that Blomberg's name came up, to make it clear that the whole thing gave me the feeling that I was under pressure. I was standing so near that I could not help hearing what Dr. Stahmer said, and the manner in which Dr. Dix told me about it-for I had heard at least half of it- could not be understood in any other way than to mean that Dr. Dix in a very loyal manner was instructing me, a witness for the Defendant Schacht, to be rather reticent in my testimony on a point which I consider very important. That point will come up later and has nothing whatsoever to do with the marriage of Herr Von Blomberg. It has to do with the part which the Defendant Goering played in it, and I know quite well why Goering does not want me to speak about that affair. To my thinking, it is the most corrupt thing Goering ever did, and Goering is just using the cloak of chivalry by pretending that he wants to protect a dead man, whereas he really wants to prevent me from testifying in full on an important point- that is, the Fritsch crisis.
THE PRESIDENT: [turning to Dr. Pannenbecker.] The Tribunal will hear the evidence then, whatever evidence you wish the witness to give.
GISEVIUS: I beg your pardon. What I have to say in connection with the Blomberg case is finished. I merely wanted to protest at the first opportunity when the name was mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, counsel will continue his examination and you will give such evidence as is relevant when you are examined or cross-examined by Dr. Dix on behalf of the Defendant Schacht.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, after the events of 30 June 1934, had the position of the Gestapo become so strong that no measures against it had any chance of succeeding?
GISEVIUS: I must answer this in the negative. The Secret State Police doubtlessly gained in power after 30 June, but because of the many excesses committed on 30 June, the opposition in the various ministries against the Secret State Police had become so strong that through collective action the majority of ministers could have used the events of 30 June to eliminate the Secret State Police. I personally made repeated efforts in that direction. With the knowledge of the Defendant Frick I went to see the Minister of Justice Guertner and begged him many times to use the large number of illegal murders as a reason for action against the Secret State Police. I personally went to Von Reichenau also, who was Chief of the Armed Forces Offices at that time, and told him the same thing. I know that my friend Oster brought the files concerning this matter to the knowledge of Blomberg, and I wish to testify here that, in spite of the excesses of the 30 of June, it would have been quite possible at that time to return to law and order.
DR. PANNENBECKER: After that, what did the Reich Minister of the Interior do-that is, what did Frick do to steer the Secret State Police to a course of legality?
GISEVIUS: We started a struggle against the Secret State Police and tried at least to prevent Himmler from getting into the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Shortly before Goering had relinquished the Ministry of the Interior to Frick, he had made Himmler Chief of the Secret State Police in Prussia. Himmler, starting from that basis of power, had attempted to assume police power in the other Laender of the Reich. Frick tried to prevent that by taking the stand that he, as Reich Minister of the Interior, had an equal voice in appointing police functionaries in the Reich. At the same time, we tried to prevent an increase in the numbers of the Secret State Police by systematically refusing all requests by the Gestapo to increase its body of officials. Unfortunately here also, as always, Himmler found ways and means to overcome this. He went to the finance ministers of the individual states and told them that he needed funds for the guard troops of the concentration camps, for the so-called "Death's Head" units, and he drew up a scale whereby five SS men were to guard one prisoner. With these funds Himmler financed his Secret State Police, as, of course it rested with him how many men he wanted to imprison. In other ways too, we in the Reich Ministry of the Interior attempted by all possible means to block the way of the Gestapo; but unfortunately, the numerous requests we sent to the Gestapo remained unanswered. Again it was Goering who forbade Himmler to answer and who protected Himmler when he refused to give any information in reply to our inquiries. Finally, a last effort was made during my term of office in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. We tried to paralyze the Secret State Police at least to some extent by introducing into protective custody the right of supervision and complaint. If we could have achieved the right of review of all cases of protective custody, we would also have been able to get an insight into the individual actions of the Gestapo.
GISEVIUS: A law was formulated, and this law was first submitted to the Ministerial Council of Prussia, the largest of the states. Again it was the Defendant Goering who, by all available means, opposed the passing of such a law. A very stormy cabinet meeting on the matter ended with my being asked to leave the Ministry of the Interior.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, I have shown you a memorandum . . .
THE PRESIDENT: This will be a convenient time to break off. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal wishes me to say that it anticipates that you will put any questions which you think necessary with reference to the alleged intimidation of the witness when you come to cross-examine.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, Sir; thank you.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, I should like to talk about the efforts which were made by the Ministry of the Interior to stop the arbitrary methods of the Gestapo, particularly with reference to the concentration camps. I therefore ask you to look at a memorandum which originates from the Reich and Prussian Ministry of the Interior. It is Document 775-PS, which I submitted this morning as Exhibit Frick-9 when I presented the evidence for Frick. It is Number 34 in the document book. Do you know that memorandum?
GISEVIUS: No, I don't. It appears that this memorandum was drawn up after I had left the Ministry of the Interior. I assume this from the fact that in this memorandum the Reich Minister of the Interior appears to have already given up the fight, since he writes that as a matter of principle it should be made clear who bears the responsibility, and, if necessary, the responsibility for all the consequences must now-and I quote-"be borne by the Reichsfuehrer SS who, in fact, has already claimed for himself the leadership of the Political Police in the Reich." At the time when I was at the Reich Ministry of the Interior we tried particularly to prevent this from happening-namely, that Himmler should take over the Political Police. This is evidently a memorandum written about 6 months later when the terror had become still greater. The facts which are quoted here are known to me.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Can you say anything about this? Does it not deal with the Puender case and the case of Esterwege, Oldenburg?
GISEVIUS: The Esterwege case can be told most briefly. It is one of many. So far as I can recollect, an SA or local group leader was arrested by the Gestapo because he got excited about the conditions in the Papenburg concentration camp. This was not the first time either. I don't know why the Defendant Frick picked on this particular case. Nevertheless, one day Daluege showed me one of those customary handwritten slips sent by Frick to Himmler. Frisk had written to Himmler in the margin in large green letters that an SA man or local group leader, or whatever he was, had been arrested illegally, that this man must be released at once, and that if Himmler did that sort of thing again he, Frick, would institute criminal proceedings against Himmler for illegal detention. I remember this story very well, because it was somewhat peculiar-considering the police conditions which existed at the time- that Himmler should be threatened by Frick with criminal proceedings, and Daluege made some sneering remarks to me regarding Frick's action. That is the one case:
THE PRESIDENT: What was the date?
GISEVIUS: This must have happened in the spring of 1935, I should say in March or April.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, do you know how Himmler reacted to that threat of criminal proceedings?
GISEVIUS: Yes. There was a second case. That is this Puender affair which is mentioned here. He reacted similarly to both, and therefore it might be better if I first relate the Puender affair in this connection. It concerned a Berlin attorney, who was a lawyer of high standing and legal adviser to the Swedish Embassy. The widow of the Ministerial Director Klausner, who had been murdered on 30 June, approached Puender, as she wanted to sue the life insurance companies for payment of her annuity. But as Klausner had allegedly committed suicide on that day, no director of any insurance company dared pay the money to the widow. Consequently, the attorney had to sue. But the Nazis had made a law according to which all such awkward cases-awkward for the Nazis-were not to be tried in court: they were to be taken to a so-called Spruchkammer in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. If I am not mistaken, this law was called "Law for the Settlement of Civilian Claims." They were never at a loss for fine-sounding names and titles at that time. This law forced the attorney to submit his claim to the court first. He was apprehensive. He went to the Ministry of the Interior and told the State Secretary, "If I comply with the law and sue, I shall be arrested." The State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior forced him to sue. Thereupon the very wise attorney went to the Ministry of Justice and told State Secretary Freisler that he did not want to sue as he would certainly be arrested by the Gestapo. The Secretary in the Ministry of Justice informed him that he would have to send in a claim in any case, but that nothing would happen as the courts had been instructed to pass such cases on without comment to the Spruchkammer in the Ministry of the Interior. Thereupon the attorney sued and the Gestapo promptly arrested him for slander because he had stated that the Ministerial Director Klausner had not met his death by suicide. This was for us a classical example of what we had come to in Germany as far as protective custody was concerned.
GISEVIUS: I had taken the liberty of selecting this case from among hundreds, or I should say thousands of similar cases and of suggesting to Frick that this matter should be brought to the notice not only of Goering, but of Hitler as well this time. Then I sat down and drafted a letter or a report from Frick to Hitler, which also went to the Ministry of Justice. There were more than five pages, and I discussed from every angle the facts concerning Ministerial Director Klausner's suicide, with the assistance of the SS, and the ensuing lawsuit. This report to Hitler concluded with Frick's remark that the time had now come to have the problem of protective custody settled by the Reich and by lawful means. And now I answer your question regarding what happened. It roughly coincided with Frick's letter to Himmler regarding deprivation of liberty. Himmler took these two letters to a meeting of Reichsleiter, that is, the so-called ministers of the movement, and he put the question to them, whether it was proper to allow one Reichsleiter, namely Frick, to write such letters to another Reichsleiter, that is, to Himmler. These worthy gentlemen answered this question in the negative and reprimanded Frick. Then Himmler went to the meeting of the Prussian cabinet where the protective custody law, which I mentioned, was being discussed. Perhaps I may draw your attention to the fact that at that time it was a rare thing for Himmler to be allowed to attend a meeting of Prussian ministers. There was a time in Germany-and it was quite a long period-when Himmler was not the powerful man which he afterwards became because the bourgeois ministers and the generals were cowards and gave way to him. Thus, it was a rare thing for Himmler to be allowed to attend a meeting of the Prussian Ministerial Council at all, and that particular meeting ended by my being discharged from the Ministry of the Interior.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, I should like to quote to you two sentences from the memorandum which I have just shown to you-that is, 775-PS-and ask you to tell me whether the facts are stated correctly. I quote: "In this connection, I draw your attention to the case of the attorney Puender, who was taken into protective custody together with his colleagues, merely because, after making inquiry at the Reich Ministry of the Interior and at our ministry, he had filed a suit, which he was obliged to do under a Reich law."
GISEVIUS: Yes, that is correct.
DR. PANNENBECKER: And then the other sentence. I quote: "I mention here only the case of a teacher and Kreisleiter at Esterwege who was kept in protective custody for 8 days because . . ."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker, where is that sentence which you have just read?
DR. PANNENBECKER: In the Frick Document Book under Number 34, second sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: Which page?
DR. PANNENBECKER: In my Document Book it is Page 80.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you speaking of Paragraph 3 on Page 70?
DR. PANNENBECKER: No, Mr. President, I have just discovered that this particular sentence in the document has not been translated. Perhaps I may read one more sentence which apparently has been translated. It can be found in Paragraph 3 of the same document. "I mention here only the case of a teacher and Kreisleiter at Esterwege who was kept in protective custody for 8 days because, as it turned out afterwards, he had sent a correct report to the head of his district concerning abuses by the SS."
GISEVIUS: Yes, that corresponds to the facts.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, did you yourself have any support from Frick for your personal protection?
GISEVIUS: Yes. At that time, of course, I was such a suspect in the eyes of the Secret State Police that all sorts of evil designs were being made against me. Frick gave an order, therefore, that I should be protected in my home by the local police. A direct telephone from my home to the police station was installed, and I had only to pick up the receiver and someone at least would know in case I had surprise visitors. Furthermore, the Gestapo used their usual methods against me by accusing me of criminal acts. Apparently the files were taken to Hitler in the Reich Chancellery, and Frick intervened, and it was soon discovered that this concerned a namesake of mine! Frick said quite openly on the telephone that these fellows-as he put it-had once more lied to the Fuehrer. This was the signal for the Gestapo, who were, of course, listening in on this telephone conversation, that they could no longer use these methods. Then we advanced one step further through Heydrich. He was so kind as to inform me by telephone that I probably had forgotten that he could pursue his personal and political opponents to their very graves. I made an official report of that threat to Frick, and Frick, either personally or through Daluege, intervened with Heydrich, and there is no doubt that he thereby rendered me a considerable service, for Heydrich never liked it very much when his murderous intentions were talked about openly.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Witness, would then, at least a minister of the Reich have no cause for alarm about his own personal safety if he tried to fight against the terror of the Gestapo and Himmler?
GISEVIUS: If you ask me that now, I must say that Schacht was the only one who was put into a concentration camp. But it is true that we all asked ourselves just how long it would take for a Reich Minister to be sent to a concentration camp. As regards Frick, he told me confidentially, as far back as 1934, that the Reich Governor of Bavaria had given him reliable information, according to which he was to be murdered while taking a holiday in the country, in Bavaria, and he asked me whether I could find out any details. At that time I went with my friend Nebe to Bavaria by car, and we made a secret investigation which, at any rate, proved that such plans had been discussed. But, as I said, Frick survived.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I have no further questions.
DR. RUDOLF DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): May I ask you to decide on the following question? I have called Gisevius. He is a witness called by me, and this is, therefore, not a subsequent question which I am putting, but I am examining him as my witness. I am of the opinion, therefore, that it is right and expedient that I should now follow up the examination by my colleague Pannenbecker, and that my other colleagues who also want to put questions follow the two of us. I ask the Tribunal to decide on this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you the only defendants' counsel who asked for this witness to be called on behalf of your client?
DR. DIX: I called him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know; but are you the only defendants' counsel who asked to call him?
DR. DIX: I believe, Sir, I am the only one who has called him.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Dix, you may examine him next.
DR. DIX: Dr. Gisevius, Dr. Pannenbecker has already mentioned the fact that you have published a book entitled To the Bitter End . I have submitted quotations from that book to the Tribunal as evidence, and they have been accepted as documentary evidence by the Tribunal. For this reason I now ask you: Are the contents of that book historically true; did you write it only from memory, or is it based on notes which you made at the time?
GISEVIUS: I can say here to the best of my knowledge, and with a good conscience, that the contents of the book are historically true. In Germany I always made personal notes as far as it was possible. I have said here that my dead friend Oster had in the War Ministry a considerable collection of documents to which I had access at all times. In writing about any important matter in which I made reference to friends in the opposition group, I never did so without having first consulted them many times about it. And since 1938 I have been in Switzerland, first as a visitor and later on for professional reasons, and there I was able to continue my notes undisturbed. The volume which has been submitted to the Tribunal was practically completed in 1941, and in 1942 had already been shown to several friends of mine abroad.
THE PRESIDENT: If he says that the book is true, that is enough.