dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, I am not going to delay. You understand that what I am putting to you, Defendant, is this: That during the early months of your Chancellorship you took action and tried to get Hitler to come in with you. When he refused you for the second time, you then, according to Meissner, were prepared to use force against him. When that was refused to you through Schleicher, you resigned. When Schleicher took over and got into difficulties, you turned around to Hitler again. That is what I am putting to you; and it was at your request, was it not, that you and Hitler had the meeting at the house of Kurt von Schroder on 4 January 1933?
VON PAPEN: No, that is a completely false idea. Unfortunately, the Court did not permit me to go into detail about this meeting on 4 January.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, do you disagree with Von Schroder that it was at your request that the meeting took place?
VON PAPEN: Yes, I am of an entirely different opinion. This meeting took place at Hitler's wish.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you ask him to tell us about that meeting on 4 January?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, certainly; I am going to deal with it. Well, now, do you say that Hitler asked for the meeting? I am suggesting to you, you see, that Von Schroder, who was the intermediary, says that you asked for the meeting. Do you disagree with that?
VON PAPEN: Yes, I am of an entirely different opinion. What Herr Von Schroder says does not correspond to the facts. Herr Von Schroder...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Welt you tell the Tribunal who arranged it.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I object to the use of the Schroder affidavit. The document was to be submitted when the Prosecution presented its evidence. I asked that the witness be called since he is located nearby. The Court asked the Prosecution to bring the witness. The Prosecution chose not to call the witness. Now, in cross-examination, the affidavit is to be used. I do not believe that that is permissible, since the decision of the Court would be crossed. The Court decided on the use of the affidavit in conjunction with the witness. Now it would be used without the witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is quite true. I should submit that it is a different matter using it in cross-examination when Dr. Kubuschok has put in as part of his own evidence- evidence from Schulthess' Calendar of European History -an account of this very meeting, which you will find in Volume I, Page 27, of his document book, and then, surely, if evidence of this kind has been put in a document book, I am entitled to challenge that evidence in cross-examination by the affidavit of Von Schroder. My Lord, I am sorry, I should have gone further. My friend has put in an actual statement from Baron von Schroder, which appears on Page 26. He says that at the same time Baron von Schroder handed the following declaration to the County Bureau to correct the false press news. "The initiative for bringing about a discussion between former Reich Chancellor Von Papen, as the representative of the widest National Conservative circles, and Herr Hitler, as the sole leader of the National Socialist movement, emanated solely from me personally." I should have thought that, inasmuch as a statement from Von Schroder has been put in, I am entitled to challenge that with another statement of Von Schroder.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I say something, Mr. President? There are two entirely different things here. Sir David is referring to a document which I produced from Schulthess' Calendar of History . That is a joint communiqué by Papen and Schroder, which was published in the Papers at the time. I object, however, to an affidavit of the witness Schroder, and I pointed it out at the time. The Prosecution agreed with me at that time that Schroder was a person open to suspicion under the Indictment and that he himself was involved in the matter to such an extent that producing an affidavit is possible only if we have an opportunity to put the appropriate question to Von Schroder. At any rate, what is here is nothing but a copy of contemporary documents from the historical calendar by Schulthess. These documents, in agreement with the Prosecution, were accepted by the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, can you not put the facts without relying on the document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I can quite easily, My Lord; I will do that. At this meeting, Defendant, did you not suggest-I am sorry, I apologize. I think we should have gotten the surroundings. First we will get where it was and who was there. It was in Baron van Schroder's house in Cologne  I think, or his flat in Cologne; is that not right?
VON PAPEN: Yes, but no friend of mine.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the people who were in the house-and I will come to who were present at the meeting: Hitler's party, that is, himself, the Defendant Hess, Himmler, and Keppler, was it not?
VON PAPEN: That is possible, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Keppler is the gentleman of whom the Tribunal have heard as being in Vienna in March of 1938, is that not so?
VON PAPEN: He was a man who was always in Hitler's entourage.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the actual discussion took place between you and Hitler, with Von Schroder present. Is that not so?
VON PAPEN: No. Perhaps I might give the Court a short account of the conference as the Court desired.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think it is easier to put the facts to you. I will take them quite shortly. I am in the hands of the Tribunal. Do you say that Von Schroder was not present?
VON PAPEN: Schroder may have been present for parts of the conversation. I recall that in the main I talked to Hitler alone.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The meeting started at about 11:30 in the morning, did it not? The meeting between you and Hitler?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the first point that you raised was to explain to Hitler that although you had not been able to release the two Nazis who had been condemned for killing a Communist, that you had tried to get President Von Hindenburg to pardon them. Is that not right?
VON PAPEN: I recall that Hitler strongly reproached me because of the death sentence against these National Socialists.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the second point that you raised as an explanation to Hitler was that it was not through any intrigue or machinations of yours that President Von Hindenburg had refused to discuss with Hitler the question of Hitler's becoming Chancellor. Was that not the second point; it was not you who had caused Von Hindenburg to refuse the discussion?
VON PAPEN: Yes. I explained that my offer to him of 13 August 1932 had been meant absolutely honestly.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think that was an answer to your question.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you not explain to Hitler that it was not your fault that Von Hindenburg had refused to discuss the question of making Hitler Chancellor in August of 1932 . . .
VON PAPEN: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: . . . when Hitler had met Von Hindenburg?
VON PAPEN: No, that cannot be right, for according to the evidence of historical documents Hitler had a talk with Von Hindenburg on 13 August, and Hindenburg explained to him the reasons why he did not agree to Hitler's Chancellorship.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I am putting to you is that you told Hitler on 4 January, when you had that talk with Von Hindenburg: "I want you to understand it was not my fault that Von Hindenburg was not ready to discuss the question of your being Chancellor." Did you not tell him that, that it was not your fault, that you thought Von Hindenburg would have been ready?
VON PAPEN: No, Mr. Prosecutor, that is what Herr Von Schroder says; but that is not right.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, what do you say was said on the point of Von Hindenburg and Hitler? If you do not accept what I suggest to you, what do you say?
VON PAPEN: What Hindenburg told Hitler can be read in all the books; that is a well-known matter of history.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, no. What we want to know-if I may say so, with great respect to the Tribunal-is what you told Hitler on 4 January. What did you tell him, if you told him anything, about the position between President Von Hindenburg and himself?
VON PAPEN: If you had permitted me to make an explanation about the course of the conference, I would already have explained that. In the course of this talk I did nothing but call Hitler's attention to the fact of how necessary it was to reach an agreement with Herr Von Schleicher, how necessary it was to enter his Government. In other words, I continued those efforts which I had made in 1932 to induce the Nazi Party to co-operate.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you seriously telling the Tribunal that you told Hitler that he should go into a Schleicher Cabinet?
VON PAPEN: I told him he should enter a Schleicher Cabinet.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is what I put to you. I am suggesting that is entirely wrong. What you suggested to Hitler was that it would be a sound thing for the conservatives and nationalists, whose political views coincided with yours, to join with Hitler in forming a government, that you put to him what actually happened on 30 January, you suggested it to him at this meeting. Do you say that is untrue?
VON PAPEN: Not one word is true; that is absolutely false. As proof of this, I state the following: Immediately after the conversation I wrote a letter to Schleicher, on 4 January, in the afternoon. He probably received this letter on the morning of the 5th. However, even before Herr Von Schleicher received this letter of mine on the actual substance of the talk, the morning PAPENs of 5 January started a tremendous campaign against me, asserting that this talk with Schroder showed disloyalty to Schleicher. Returning to Berlin, I went to see Herr Von Schleicher immediately, and I explained to him what the substance of our talk had actually been. Herr Von Schleicher then published a communiqué on this subject. This communiqué. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But he was not the only person, you know, that published a communiqué. You and Hitler published a communiqué. I want you to remember, Defendant, I put to you that the suggestion from you was that you and Hitler would form a coalition with the conservative forces behind you, and the National Socialist forces behind Hitler. Now just look at the communiqué that you and Hitler issued. Will you give the defendant Document Number D-637. My Lord, this is a new document, which will become GB-496. Look at the foot of it, Defendant, the end of the document: "Adolf Hitler and Herr Von Papen publish the following joint declaration: "In answer to false deductions which have in many cases been circulated in the press regarding Adolf Hitler's meeting with the former Reich Chancellor Von Papen, the undersigned declare that the conversation dealt exclusively with the question of the possibility of a great national political united front and that in particular the opinions of both parties on the present Reich Cabinet were not touched on at all in this general discussion." Now, Defendant, when you have been reminded of what you published yourself, is it not correct what I have put to you, that you suggested to Hitler that you should form this coalition of conservatives and nationalists who agreed with you, and the Nazi Party under Hitler?
VON PAPEN: No, Mr. Prosecutor, this communiqué states two things: In the first place, I point out that we did not speak at all about overthrowing the Schleicher Cabinet or replacing it by another government, as the press generally assumed. Then I state that it is necessary to create "a great national, political united front." Herr Von Schleicher headed the same Cabinet that I had headed, with the same political forces. So if I called on Hitler to enter this Cabinet, then that is exactly the same political combination as if I had asked him to join any Cabinet.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I am not going to argue with you. If you say that that communiqué is your way of expressing that you had asked Hitler to take the Nazis into Von Schleicher's Government, and that you had not discussed forming the coalition, if you say that that is what that communiqué expresses, I have no further questions, and I will pass on to another point. I have made my suggestion, and I suggest the communiqué bears it out. But now, let us come to the next action of yours. Do you deny that during January you were active in making contact with Hitler, and on Hitler's behalf with President Von Hindenburg, in order to bring Hitler into the Government? Or do you agree with that?
VON PAPEN: That is true, and I will say in what respect. I had two official talks with Hindenburg. On 9 January, when I returned to Berlin, I went from Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher to Reich President Von Hindenburg. Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher, being of the opinion that in the Schroder talk I had been disloyal to him, had asked Von Hindenburg not to receive me any more. I informed Von Hindenburg of the actual contents of the Schroder talk and, after I had reached an agreement with Von Schleicher, Hindenburg was also convinced that the whole thing had been a big misunderstanding. Then, to the best of my memory, I did not talk officially to Herr Von Hindenburg about these governmental matters again until 22 January.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, just let us see what the Chief of the Presidential Chancellery says about it, and see whether he can reinforce your memory. Would you look at Herr Meissner's affidavit, at the second part of Paragraph 6? [A document was handed to the defendant.] My Lord, it is lla, Page 45, about 7 lines from the foot of the page. [Turning to the defendant.] You see, just after the first section of Paragraph 6, Defendant, the second part, it begins: "Schleicher first made these suggestions to Hindenburg in the middle of January..." Then the next sentence is: "In the meantime Papen had returned to Berlin and, through arrangements with Hindenburg's son, had several talks with the President. When Schleicher renewed his demand for emergency powers, Hindenburg declared that he was unable to give him such blank authority and must reserve for himself decisions in every individual case. Schleicher, for his part, said that under these circumstances he was unable to stay in the Government and tendered his resignation on 28 January 1933." Then, Paragraph 7: "In the middle of January, when Schleicher first asked' for exceptional powers, Hindenburg was not aware of the meetings between Papen and Hitler, particularly the meeting which had taken place in the house of the Cologne banker, Kurt von Schroder. In the second part of January Papen played an increasingly important role in the house of the Reich President, but in spite of Papen's persuasions Hindenburg was extremely hesitant, until the end of January, to appoint Hitler Chancellor. He wanted to have Papen as Chancellor once more. Papen finally won him to Hitler with the argument that the representatives of the other rightwing parties which would belong to the government would restrict Hitler's freedom of action. In addition Papen expressed his misgivings that, if the present opportunity were once again neglected, a revolt of the National Socialists and civil war would be likely." Is that right?
VON PAPEN: No.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I make a comment on the use of the Meissner affidavit? The case is similar to but not quite the same as the Schroder case. The Meissner affidavit was not offered to the Court during the proceedings. But during the Prosecution's case it came to my knowledge that a Meissner affidavit was to be used. I talked to the Prosecution and pointed out that I would not under any circumstances be satisfied with the submitting of the Meissner affidavit, but would insist on calling Meissner as a witness. The reason is the same. The personality of the witness Meissner, who was very involved in these affairs, makes extreme caution advisable. The Prosecution told me that they would not use the affidavit, and finally told me that they would not call Schroder as a witness. I had no reason to call the witness myself. Now I am in a position where the affidavit is being submitted in cross-examination, and I am unable to question or expose the suspect witness Meissner before the Court. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE My Lord, concerning the position with regard to this affidavit, Major Barrington tells me that he did not have it when he presented the individual case against Von Papen. I am using it now. If the Tribunal thinks there is sufficient divergence between what the witness accepts and the affidavit to justify it, I have not the slightest objection to Dr. Kubuschok's making application for Meissner to be cross-examined.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about the allegation of Dr. Kubuschok that the Prosecution says they were not going to use the affidavit?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did not say that. Major Barrington, who was with me, had no recollection of my saying that at all. Major Barrington certainly never said that. It was never our intention, because it clearly was a most important document for us to use.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Seth of November. We gave a copy to Dr. Kubuschok.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes. Mr. President, may I explain? The British Prosecution did not make a binding statement that they would not submit the affidavit and not call the witness. I always said that if an affidavit were to be used, I would call the witness. I asked the Prosecution repeatedly, "Are you going to call the witness or not?" They said, "No." Then I said, "Then I am not interested in it. We will drop this whole subject, and I will not call the witness."
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit seems to have been made a long time ago.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, it was almost as soon as the Tribunal began. I think that perhaps you ought to use the facts and not use the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am perfectly prepared to do whatever the Tribunal wants. If there is any question, and Dr. Kubuschok wants Meissner for cross-examination, as far as I am concerned, he can have him. I mean, I am in a slightly different position from that with respect to Von Schroder. As far as fairness is concerned, I want Your Lordship to understand that certainly none of my staff thought for a moment that the Defense understood we were not going to use it, because we always intended to use it. We gave a copy of this affidavit to the Defense so that there would be ample notice of this affidavit.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, that was done, and I gratefully acknowledged it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am really anxious not to occupy too much of the Tribunal's time. I would rather go on and put the facts in and save any discussion about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, do that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think you said, Defendant- you put it that you had two meetings with President Von Hindenburg and then, I think, after 18 January you had meetings with Hitler, and after 22 January you had meetings with the Defendant Goering, as he said in his evidence, is that not so?
VON PAPEN: No, I did not meet with Hitler from 4 January until 22 January.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will call it about 4 days, the dates of the Nazi Party say that you began negotiations on the 18th, but we will not quarrel about a day or two. The crucial meeting was the meeting which eras arranged with Oskar von Hindenburg at the Defendant Von Ribbentrop's house, was it not?
VON PAPEN: It was a preliminary talk; it was at any rate the first contact with the National Socialists, with Hitler, and with Goering.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And Oskar von Hindenburg had private conversations with Hitler which lasted for about an hour, at that meeting at Von Ribbentrop's house; is that not so?
VON PAPEN: That is possible. I do not recall it any more.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And thereafter, the decision was come to that Hitler would become Chancellor in the new Government and that he would bring into the Government the Defendant Frick as Minister of the Interior, and the Defendant Goering as Minister without Portfolio, and he himself would head the Government as Chancellor?
VON PAPEN: No; on the 22d, we did not reach any agreement as to this; rather we limited ourselves to... 18 June 4,
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I said only within a few days that had been agreed between you, had it not?
VON PAPEN: Yes, but it is very important to establish-forgive me if I add this-that we did not begin these talks until after it was certain that Herr Von Schleicher could not form a government, after the attempt to split the Nazi Party had failed. That is very important.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, are you telling the Tribunal that at this time you did what you have agreed you have done to bring Hitler into power, simply because he was head of the biggest party in the Reichstag, or because you thought he was the most suitable man to be Chancellor of Germany at that date; which was your motive?
VON PAPEN: My motive, Mr. Prosecutor, was very simple. In the situation existing after 23 January, there were only two possibilities, either to violate the Constitution, which would result in civil war, or to form a government headed by Hitler. I believe I explained that in great detail to the Court.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I really want to know, Defendant, is that at this time you had had these contacts with Hitler. You have been Chancellor of Germany yourself. At this time did you think that Hitler personally, and Hitler's aims and intentions and personality, were a good thing for Germany to have as Chancellor? It is a perfectly simple question. I want a straight answer. Did you think it was a good thing to have Hitler, as you knew him then, as Chancellor of Germany?
VON PAPEN: To that I can say only that the coalition which I formed on behalf of the Reich President was a forced solution. There was no question of whether it was better or worse. We had to accept it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, just let us see. I think you said that you were not certain that Hitler would eliminate opposition before he came into power. How long did it take you, after Hitler became Chancellor, to find out that his desire was to eliminate all opposition?
VON PAPEN: I realized that finally when I made the last attempt in my Marburg speech to hold him to the joint program, and when this attempt failed...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was 18 months later, on 17 June 1934. Are you telling the Tribunal that it took you 17 months to realize that Hitler wanted to break down the opposition?
VON PAPEN: No, I told the Court...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let me remind you of one or two things. Do you remember Herr Ernst Heilmann, who had been the leader of the Social Democrats in the Prussian Diet?
VON PAPEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He was, I think, for 10 years a member of the Prussian Diet with you. He went into a concentration camp at once and was treated with the most terrible cruelty, was he not?
VON PAPEN: I learned of that later, here, for the first time. I did not know it at that time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you telling the Tribunal that you did not know in 1933 that Ernst Heilmann went into a concentration camp?
VON PAPEN: I knew only that a number of political opponents, Communists and Socialists, had been sent to concentration camps by the Gestapo. That I knew.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, answer my question. Here was the leader of the Social Democrats in the Prussian Diet, a man who sat in Parliament with you for 10 years. Do you say that you did not know that he had gone to a concentration camp?
VON PAPEN: I do not recall, no. I believe I learned of it only here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, let me give you a famous name, Karl von Ossietzki, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, the author and journalist. Did you not know that he had gone into a concentration camp?
VON PAPEN: I remember Herr Ossietzki only as the publisher of a periodical; otherwise I know nothing about him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You did not know that he was the 1936 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, did you?
VON PAPEN: I could not possibly have known that in 1933.