dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
VON PAPER: On the morning of 30 June, I received a telephone call from Minister Goering, asking me to come to have a talk with him. I went to see Goering; he told me that a revolution had broken out in the Reich-an SA revolution-that Hitler was in Munich to put down this uprising there, and that he, Goering, was charged with restoring law and order in Berlin. Herr Goering asked me, in the interests of my own safety, as he said, to return to my apartment and stay there. I protested quite vehemently against this demand, but Herr Goering insisted. On my way back to my apartment, I went first to my office in the Vice Chancellery. On arriving there, I found my office occupied by the SS, and I was permitted only to enter my own room and get my files. I went on home to my apartment, where I found a large number of SS. The telephone was disconnected; the radio was disconnected; and I was completely cut off from the outside world for 3 whole days.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What measures were taken against your staff?
VON PAPEN: I naturally did not hear about the measures taken against my staff until 3 July, after I had regained my freedom. I learned that my press adviser, Herr Von Bose, had been shot in his office. I further learned that two of my male secretaries, Herr Von Tschirschky and another gentleman, had been taken to a concentration camp and a few days later, I learned of the death of my friend and colleague-a private colleague of mine-Herr Edgar Jung.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you try to inform the Reich President?
VON PAPEN: I finally succeeded, on the third day of my arrest, in contacting Goering by telephone. I demanded tome set free at once. Herr Goering apologized and said that it was only a mistake that I had been kept under arrest for this long period of time. I then went immediately to the Reich Chancellery. There I met Hitler, who was about to start a Cabinet session. I asked him to step into the next room so that I could speak to him and I refused to comply with his request that I should attend the Cabinet meeting. I said to him: "What has happened here to a member of your government is so incredible and fantastic that there is only one answer for me to give: A repetition of my request to resign-and at once." Herr Hitler tried to persuade me to remain. He said: "I will explain to you in the Cabinet and later in the Reichstag how everything happened, and why it happened." I said to him: "Herr Hitler, there is no explanation and no excuse for this incident; I demand that the fate of these members of my staff be made the subject of immediate investigation and the facts be cleared up." I demanded that he publish my resignation immediately. When he saw that I could not be persuaded to remain, Herr Hitler told me that he could not make my resignation public because the agitation among the German people was too great. He said that he could not make my resignation public for some 3 or 4 weeks. When I left Hitler, I tried personally and through one of my secretaries to get in touch with Hindenburg, but that attempt failed. My secretary found out-I must add that Herr Von Hindenburg was then in Neudeck in East Prussia-my secretary, who had gone to East Prussia, found that it was impossible to reach Hindenburg. He was completely cut off. My own telephone calls did not get through. I went to my friend General Von Fritsch, the Chief of the Armed Forces, and said to him: "Why don't the Armed Forces intervene? The Armed Forces are the only means for maintaining order that we still have in the country.
VON PAPEN: When General Von Schleicher and hi wife were murdered, as well as other officers, it would in m' opinion have been quite proper for the Wehrmacht itself to try t' restore order in this situation." Herr Von Fritsch said to me: "I can take action only when have Field Marshal Von Hindenburg's order in my hands." But Hindenburg was not accessible to us. He had obviously beer informed by the other side of the complete legality of the event which had taken place, and which Hitler declared in the Reichstag to be in conformity with the law. I did not attend that session o the Reichstag, either, as the witness Gisevius testified; and during the time that elapsed between 30 June and my appointment to Austria, I did not participate in a single act carried out by the Government. I should like to add that at the same time I asked the Reich Chancellor to hand over to me the body of my friend Bose. We knew that the Gestapo had cremated the bodies of the others.: succeeded . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I believe it would be a good time to recess now. [A recess was taken.]
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Hess is not present in this session.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Will you please go on. You were just answering the last question.
VON PAPER: I was only going to finish the question by saying that I succeeded in having the mortal remains of my friend Bose properly buried and that on that occasion, at his grave, I made c speech emphasizing that one day this injustice would be avenged
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In this connection I draw your attention to Document Number Papen-14, Pages 62 and 63, an affidavit by Maric Rose, who for years was the private secretary of the witness. Or Page 63 she refers to Bose's funeral service which we have jus discussed. I further refer to Document Number Papen-19, Pages 77 and 78 an affidavit by Schaffgotsch who devotes particular attention to the witness' vain attempts to reach Hindenburg in Neudeck. This was Document Number 19, Pages 77 and 78. Witness, you were offered a Vatican post at that time-a post as Ambassador to the Vatican. Will you please tell us the exact circumstances?
VON PAPEN: It is true that Hitler tried to keep me attached to his staff, and that about a week after the incidents I have described he sent State Secretary Lammers to ask me if I was prepared to accept the post of Ambassador to the Vatican. Of course, I refused this unreasonable request, which I mention here only because a few weeks later I accepted the Vienna post for an entirely different reason, and to prove that I was not interested in obtaining a post as such. I refused this request of Hitler's most bluntly at the time.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer you to Document Number Papen-18, Pages 75 and 76 of the document book; an affidavit by Martha von Papen, the wife of the witness, who describes Lammers' visit. With regard to the subject with which the witness has been dealing, namely, nonparticipation in the Reichstag meeting of 13 July, I refer to Document Number Papen-21, Page 79, an extract from the Volkischer Beobachter regarding the Reichstag meeting. The names of the ministers present are listed there. The name of the witness Von Papen does not appear. [Turning to the witness.] When did Hitler approach you on the subject of going to Vienna as Ambassador Extraordinary?
VON PAPEN: It was on the day of the murder of Dollfuss, 25 July 1934...
THE PRESIDENT: Can you remind me, Dr. Kubuschok, whether any question was put to the witness Lammers about this offer?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, a question was put to the witness Lammers. The witness Lammers was asked about it when he was examined.
THE PRESIDENT: What did he say?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: He said that Papen had refused.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
VON PAPEN: On 25 July, the day of the murder of Dollfuss, Hitler rang me up in the middle of the night, and asked me to go to Vienna at once as his Ambassador. I asked: "What gave you this odd idea?" He informed me of Dollfuss' murder, of which I had not yet heard, and said: "It is absolutely essential that someone who knows the conditions there should take over affairs at once." I replied that I could not possibly give my decision on such a step over the telephone, whereupon he asked me to come to Bayreuth at once to discuss it.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: How did these negotiations in Bayreuth turn out? Did you state your own terms for accepting the appointment?
VON PAPEN: In the discussion in Bayreuth. Hitler put it to me that I was the only available person who could re-establish a favorable situation in Austria, because, of course, Hitler knew my attitude toward that problem from the numerous protests I had raised in the Cabinet against Austria's treatment. He also knew that I had been a friend of the murdered Dr. Dollfuss and that I knew Herr Von Schuschnigg. I stated my conditions and these conditions were: The immediate recall of the Party Gauleiter, Herr Habicht, who was in Austria by Hitler's order. Hitler was of the opinion that if he did this it would amount to an admission of guilt.
THE PRESIDENT: Gauleiter of where?
VON PAPEN: Habicht?
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said that was his name. I wanted to know what Gau he was the Gauleiter of.
VON PAPEN: Perhaps "Gauleiter" is the wrong word. He had been sent to Austria by Hitler as a liaison man, to exert influence on the affairs of the Austrian National Socialists.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, perhaps you ought to point out that his title was "Landesleiter," which probably corresponds to the title "Gauleiter" in Germany.
VON PAPEN: He was Landesleiter, which was the title given to people who directed the Party organization abroad. Hitler replied that if he recalled this man, it would look like a confession of complicity in the Dollfuss murder. I replied that the whole world was in any case convinced of the complicity of the Party in Germany or its organizations, generally speaking; and that as far as I was concerned, it was only important that those connections should be broken off forthwith. I further demanded an assurance in writing from Hitler that the German-Austrian policy of the future-what is generally termed the Anschluss policy-would move on a purely evolutionary level, that is to say, that no recourse would be had to forcible measures and aggression. Hitler immediately ordered this man Habicht to be recalled and gave me a written assurance with reference to the second question. And finally, I said that I was prepared to take over the pacification program ion Austria, but only until normal and friendly relations had been re-established. This meant that later on in Austria I had the additional tine of "Ambassador on a Special Mission."
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, we have heard of your political break with Hitler after the speech at Marburg, your resignation from the Cabinet and your treatment on 30 June. I should now like you to give us your reasons for accepting that post in Austria in spite of the events already described.
VON PAPEN: My decision to go to Austria has been made the subject of a special charge by the Prosecution. In order to understand this decision of mine you must be acquainted with German history and you must know that the Austrian problem was the central problem of German policy generally. As Dr. Seyss-Inquart has discussed this problem at length, I can dismiss it quite briefly; and I need only add that the achievement of German unity, for which we had fought for three centuries, was considered by Germany herself to be the most significant and important aim of our national policy. The events of 30 June had brought about the collapse of the coalition which I had formed on 30 January. It had been historically established that I had failed to achieve my intentions and aims in home policy. After the Dollfuss murder, the danger existed that Germany would now suffer bankruptcy also in her one great foreign political aim of the desired unity. All this was in my mind when' I weighed the very serious decision as to whether I should accede to Hitler's request. If he put a Party man in that post, then obviously all hope would be lost. If he appointed a diplomat from the Foreign Office, it could be assumed that that official would have no personal influence on Hitler. Therefore, if the situation was to be saved, it would have to be someone who was at least in a position to influence Hitler and moreover someone who, like myself, was independent and had his own political line. Today, just as at that time, I am fully aware that many of my friends did not understand the step I took and that they interpreted it as lack of character. But I hold the view that this is a question which the individual has to settle with his conscience, without regard to understanding or the lack of it; and my conscience told me that I must do everything to restore order in this one question at least.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: With reference to the subject of Austria generally, I call your attention mainly to the documentary material which has been submitted in the previous case. To supplement this, I will only refer to Document Number Papen-64, Page 157, Document Number Papen-65, Page 158 and Document Number Papen-81, Page 178. This last document has already been presented in connection with the case of Seyss-Inquart. It refers to the views held by State Chancellor Dr. Renner on the Anschluss question. I should like only to quote the last four lines on Page 179: "As a Social Democrat, and therefore as a champion of the right of self-determination of nations, as first Chancellor of the Austro-German Republic and former president of its peace delegations to St. Germain, I shall vote in the affirmative." I have produced the document at this particular point in order to support the testimony of the defendant, who considered the Austro-German question from both points of view as a fateful problem; and the fact that this leading statesman, Dr. Renner, also placed in a difficult situation, expressed himself as in favor of Austro-German friendship is best shown here. Witness, on 26 July Hitler wrote a letter to you confirming your appointment as Ambassador Extraordinary to Vienna. That letter has been mentioned by the Prosecution. What is the explanation of the contents of that letter?
VON PAPEN: The contents of that letter can be explained very easily. If I was to have a chance of re-establishing normal and friendly relations, if I was to have a chance of creating a proper position for myself in relation to the Austrian Government, then after the events of 30 July a public statement of confidence had to be made. In that letter Hitler was to certify that my mission was one of pacification, and that he intended to disavow his terrorist methods. That is stated in the letter. And I find the Prosecution's statement that this letter was a "masterpiece of deceit" quite impossible to understand.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. Messersmith, in his affidavit, 2385-PS, alleges that you pursued from Vienna a policy of aggression towards the states of southeastern Europe and quotes as your personal verbatim statement, made on the occasion of the return visit he paid to you, the following: ". . . southeast Europe as far as Turkey constitutes the German hinterland; and I have been assigned to carry out the task of incorporating it into the Reich. Austria is the first country on this program." Did you make any such statement?
VON PAPEN: I took up my position in Henna in the autumn of 1934; and one of the first colleagues whom I saw was Mr. Messersmith. I never received an assignment to pursue a policy such as Mr. Messersmith describes in his affidavit; and I never made any such statement to Mr. Messersmith.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In this connection, I refer to Horthy's interrogatory, Document Number Papen-76, Pages 172 and 173.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, before you turned to the Messersmith affidavit, you were speaking, or the defendant was speaking, of some letter. Is that letter a document which is before us?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, the Prosecution have already presented that letter. It is the letter written on the occasion of the defendant's appointment. It is Number 2799-PS.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): My Lord, if Your Lordship has the British Document Book Number 11, it is Page 37.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness has just dealt with the statement in the Messersmith affidavit, 2385-PS. The same question, namely the return visit paid to Papen by Mr. Messersmith, is treated in a further affidavit by Messersmith, 1760-PS. I should like to point out that the wording of the statement referring to the influence of Germany on the states of southeast Europe differs considerably in Messersmith's two affidavits. As I have already indicated in my previous question, Mr. Messersmith says in 2385-PS that Papen said that he had been assigned to carry out the task of incorporating southeast Europe into the Reich. In contrast to that, the statement is worded very differently in 1760-PS. There Mr. Messersmith states that Papen said on that occasion that he had been ordered to see to it that the whole of southeast Europe, up to the Turkish border, should be regarded as Germany's natural hinterland, and that German economic control over that entire area should be facilitated by his work; thus, in one affidavit, incorporation is mentioned and in the other the facilitation of economic control. In connection with this latter much less strongly-worded affidavit 1760-PS, I ask the witness whether he did at that time make such a statement, namely, that the whole of southeastern Europe as far as the Turkish border was Germany's natural hinterland and that he had been called upon to facilitate German economic control throughout the entire area on Germany's behalf. Did you make such a statement?
VON PAPEN: The actual remark I made to Mr. Messersmith is perhaps . . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: [Interposing.] My Lord, I don't know whether it would be useful for the Tribunal to have the two references, the two passages. The passage in 2385-PS Your Lordships will find in Document Book lla, that is, the second document book, at Page 24 at the bottom of the page. The reference in 1760-PS is in Document Book 11, Page 22, about one-third down the page, and then it goes on to the next third of the page.
VON PAPEN: My actual remark to Mr. Messersmith is perhaps not quite so far from my defense counsel's last quotation as the difference between Mr. Messersmith's two statements would seem to indicate. It is perfectly possible that we discussed the question of southeast Europe and I can well imagine pointing out to him that the economic and political questions of the southeastern area were of great importance not only for Germany's policy, but also for Austria; for the expansion of our trade toward the Balkans was a perfectly legitimate aim. I kept Berlin informed of everything that I learned in Vienna regarding the policy of the countries of the southeastern area because naturally that was one of the functions of the Ambassador to Vienna. But except for that I did nothing in the whole course of my work in Vienna which tallies in any way with what Mr. Messersmith alleges here. Apart from that, may I say that it would be extremely foolish and contrary to the most elementary rules of diplomacy if I had made such a disclosure to an unknown ambassador in the course of my first conference with him. That would have made a sensation and would certainly have come to the ears of the Austrian Government and the whole world the next day.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On this point, I refer to Prince Erbach's interrogatory, Document Papen-96, Page 238, Questions 8 and 9, which deal with this subject. Page 232 of the English text.
VON PAPEN: Perhaps, My Lord, I might add that the Prosecution are in possession of all my reports from the Vienna period, and that these reports are bound to show whether I was pursuing such an objective.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you ever, during your time in Vienna, negotiate with Hungary and Poland about a division of Czechoslovakia? Mr. Messersmith makes such a statement.
VON PAPEN: No, I never did. The policy of the Reich in Czechoslovakia was the exclusive responsibility of our Legation in Prague.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to the Horthy interrogatory already presented as Document Papen-76. I also refer to Document Papen-68, Page 162, a report from Papen to Hitler, dated 31 August 1935. [Turning to the defendant.] Mr. Messersmith asserts in the affidavit mentioned that you stated during this conference that you were in Austria for the purpose of undermining and weakening the Austrian Government. Did you make such a statement?
VON PAPEN: May I make a general statement with reference to this affidavit. If I may express myself in diplomatic terms, I must describe it as in the highest degree astonishing. In this affidavit, Mr. Messersmith himself relates that on the occasion of my first visit he received me icily. That is perfectly correct. I was quite well aware that Mr. Messersmith was the keenest opponent of the Nazi system. It is therefore all the more astonishing to read here that during the second visit I opened my heart, so to speak, to Mr. Messersmith; the passage quoted here-that I came to undermine and weaken the Austrian Government-is, of course, not true either, because such a statement would naturally have been communicated to the Austrian Government by Mr. Messersmith at once, and would have rendered all my work of pacification and my position generally impossible from the outset. May I refer in this connection to the statement made by the Austrian Foreign Minister Schmidt, to whom such activities on my part were entirely unknown.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer in this connection also to Glaise-Horstenau's deposition in the case of Seyss-Inquart. Mr. Messersmith further alleges that you said to him during the discussion that you were trading on your reputation as a good Catholic with, among others, certain Austrians like Cardinal Innitzer. Further on in his affidavit he even asserts that you used your wife's reputation as a fervent and devout Catholic for this purpose, without scruples or qualms of conscience. Will you kindly state your views on this assertion of Mr. Messersmith's.
VON PAPEN: I think that of all the accusations raised against me, this is the most mortifying. I can understand that the policy pursued by a diplomat may be criticized and misinterpreted, but I cannot understand why anyone should be accused of misusing his own religious convictions for dirty, political, commercial purposes; I can understand even less-and find it the height of bad taste-that anyone should say that I even used the religious convictions of my wife for such purposes. Perhaps I can leave this to the judgment of this High Tribunal.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. Messersmith in his affidavit also refers to a document whose author he does not, however, mention. This document is alleged to have been shown him by Foreign Minister Berger-Waldenegg in January 1935, and is said to reveal the substance of your conference with Hitler, Schacht, and Von Neurath on the occasion of your visit to Berlin. An agreement is alleged to have been made at that conference to the effect that for the next 2 years intervention in the internal political affairs of Austria was to be avoided. Finally Dr. Schacht is said to have made available 200,000 marks monthly for support of the National Socialists in Austria. What do you say about Mr. Messersmith's statement?