dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, the Prosecution has made the charge that the very act of forming the government was a crime; he is therefore defending himself by stating that he tried to provide for a safeguard against the preponderant influence of Hitler in the government. It is relevant...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; but that is what I said. He has given that explanation. He does not need to add all sorts of details to support that explanation. I have written down, some moments ago, that the President asked him because he wished to minimize the influence of Hitler. Now he is going on with all sorts of details.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, he is merely trying to set forth in what way he wanted to limit Hitler's influence, and that is a very important point. He is going to tell us for what safeguards within this government he provided; the selection of personalities, all the other restrictions which were agreed upon to rule out the possibility of Hitler's influence becoming overpowering. This is a very important point in reply to the Prosecution's charges.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can do it as shortly as possible, and not do it in too great detail. That is all the Tribunal wants.
VON PAPEN: I shall be very brief, My Lord. The safeguarding measures which I introduced at the request of the Reich President were the following: 1) A very small number of National Socialist ministers in the new cabinet; only 3 out of 11, including Hitler. 2) The decisive economic departments of the cabinet to be placed . in the hands of non-National Socialists. 3) Experts to be put into the ministry posts as far as possible. 4) Joint reports of Reich Chancellor Hitler and Vice Chancellor Von Papen to Hindenburg in order to minimize the personal influence of Hitler on Hindenburg. 5) I tried to form a parliamentary bloc as a counterbalance against the political effects of the National Socialist Party.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: To what extent did Reich President Von Hindenburg himself select the members of the new cabinet?
VON PAPEN: The Reich President reserved the right to appoint the Foreign Minister and the Reichswehr Minister. The first of these two key posts was given to Herr Von Neurath, in whom the President had special confidence; and the Reich Defense Ministry was given to General Von Blomberg, who also enjoyed the particular confidence of the Reich President. The National Socialist members of this cabinet were only the Reich Minister of the Interior, Frick, whose activity as Minister of the Interior for the State of Thuringia had been completely moderate, and the Minister without Portfolio, and later Prussian Minister of the Interior, Goering.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In this connection I should like to refer to Document Book 3, Document Numbers 87 and 93, namely, an affidavit of the former Minister, Dr. Alfred Hugenberg, and an interrogatory of Freiherr von Lersner.
THE PRESIDENT: What page in Book 3 did you say?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Hugenberg's statement is on Pages 194-195; Lersner's on Pages 210-212. The Prosecution asserts that the Government formed on 30 January took over the program of the NSDAP as its own. Will you explain now, Witness, what the basis of that Government's policy was.
VON PAPEN: The view held by the Prosecution is completely incorrect. The program which on 30 January we decided to adopt was not the program of the Nazi Party, but it was a coalition program. And this is perfectly plain from the proclamation which this Government issued to the German people on 1 February. And to give historical proof of this, may I quote two sentences from that proclamation? It says: "The National Government will consider it as its first and foremost task to restore the spiritual and political unity of our people. It will consider Christianity as the basis of its general moral outlook and will firmly protect the family as the determining unit of the nation and the State. "The tremendous problem of reorganizing our economy will be solved with two large Four Year Plans." I should like to add just one sentence: "This Government is fully conscious of the magnitude of its duty to support the maintenance and affirmation of peace, which the world now needs more than ever." In addition, this coalition program, which the Prosecution describes as the Nazi program, contained the following points: Continued existence of the Lander and the federal character of the Reich; protection of justice and the legal system, permanent tenure of office for judges; reform of the Constitution; safeguarding of the 'rights of the Christian churches; and, above all, abolition of the class conflict through a solution of social problems, the restoration of a true national community.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you yourself do anything else to assure the application of your own political ideas?
VON PAPEN: I did everything within my power, together with my political friends, to carry through the ideas which I myself had contributed to this political program. At that time the essential point seemed to me the creation of a counterbalance to National Socialism; and therefore, I asked the leaders of the rightist parties to give up the old party programs and to unite in a large, common political organization with the aim of fighting for the principles which we had enunciated. However, the party leaders did not act on this suggestion. Party differences were too marked and no changes took place. The only thing I accomplished was the establishment of a voting bloc of all three parties, and on behalf of this voting bloc I made many speeches in which I presented this program, this coalition program, to the country.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I want to refer to a speech delivered by the witness on 11 February on behalf of the voting bloc; it may be found in Document 12, Pages 54 and 5S. I quote from about the middle of Page 55, the following brief passage: "Therefore, I consider the circumstance that the present Reich Cabinet is not made up of one single party or movement, but of various groups of the national movement, of free politicians and experts, not a disadvantage, but rather an advantage." What specific questions were emphasized and underlined in the program of this voting bloc? You spoke of these questions in various speeches. In order to save time, I should like only to submit to the Tribunal the document dealing with this point, Document Number 10. Will you briefly explain your attitude, and comment on the various questions; first of all, the social problem?
VON PAPEN: The social problem was, of course, at the head of my program, because this question dominated all others. It was our task to make well-satisfied citizens out of the workers who were now engaged in class conflict and to give to each the opportunity of a livelihood and a home. I stated in the speech, which is contained in this document, that there would always be differences in property but that a small group should not possess everything while the great mass of the people had nothing. And above all, I again and again emphasized the fact that if we could succeed in solving the social problem we would, in that way, make an eminent contribution to peace in Europe.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was your program in foreign political matters?
VON PAPEN: The program was very simple. It consisted merely of the desire to do away, in a peaceful manner, with the discriminations against the German people and against our sovereignty.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was your platform on religious questions?
VON PAPEN: It is plain from all of my speeches that I considered the regeneration of the German people in a Christian sense as the prerequisite for the solution of the social and all other problems which confronted us. I shall return to this point later.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to submit as evidence the document which I have already mentioned, Document Number 10; and I ask that the High Tribunal take judicial notice of it. Since a mistake affecting the sense of the translation has been made on Page 39 and since the question of dissolving the trade unions will play an important role later, I should like to read a brief paragraph on Page 39, about the middle of the page: "I recognize that the trade unions have done much to imbue the working classes with professional honor and professional pride. Many trade unions, for instance the Union of Clerks, have made exemplary achievements in this respect. The conception of class conflict, however, stood in the way of real reform and constructive work in this direction. "The Socialist parties prevented the trade unions' efforts to convert the workers into a class. If the trade unions would recognize the signs of the times and remain out of politics to a greater extent, then they could, especially now, become a strong pillar of the national life." Please comment on the results of the elections on 5 March 1933. I just want to draw the Court's attention in this connection to Document Number 98, in which I have set down a diagram of the election results in the years in question.
VON PAPEN: This election became extremely significant for later developments. First of all, I should like to state that this election was a truly free one, for it was conducted together with the old functionaries of the Republic; and that it was actually free is also shown by the fact that the votes of the Communists and of the Social Democrats did not decrease at all. I, personally, had expected that the NSDAP would be successful at the polls. In November 1932 I had taken away 36 of its seats in the Reichstag, and I expected that it would regain some of those seats. I had also Hoped that my own voting bloc would be very successful. I hoped that the people would realize the necessity of creating a counterbalance. However, this did not happen...
THE PRESIDENT: Surely the figures are sufficient for us. We can form our own conclusions from the figures. We can see the figures. We do not need to have them all explained and commented on to us. There are very much more important things for us to consider.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, will you now describe the events leading up to the Enabling Act of 23 March 1933.
VON PAPEN: The Enabling Act arose out of the necessity to have the economic measures carried out in an untroubled Reichstag session. Negotiations were conducted with the Center Party to obtain a 1-year parliamentary truce, but these negotiations failed. Hence this law which had some parallels in the past became a necessity. The Prosecution has emphasized this law as clear proof for the existence of a conspiracy. May I say, therefore, that I myself tried to provide for a certain check by desiring to maintain the veto power of the Reich President. The Cabinet records of 15 March show, however, that State Secretary Meissner did not consider the participation of the Reich President necessary.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to refer to Document Number 25, which is identical with Exhibit USA-578, to the attitude taken by Von Papen in this Cabinet discussion and to the standpoint just mentioned of State Secretary Meissner. "Meissner, State Secretary of the minority Cabinet, of the Cabinet of the Reich President, and his excellent assistant." I should also like to refer to Document 23, because from the enumeration of the emergency decrees in that document it is clear that in the state of emergency which obtained then it was not possible to govern by means of Reichstag laws and that the Enabling Act was to be a substitute for these emergency decrees which were being repeatedly issued. I must make one correction: The standpoint of State Secretary Meissner is contained in Document 91, Exhibit USA-578. [Turning to the defendant.] On 21 March 1933, an amnesty decree was issued. The Prosecution has described this decree as an unheard-of law. What can you say about it?
VON PAPEN: The Prosecution calls this law "sanction of political murder." I should like to say the following about it: This law was issued in an emergency decree of the Reich President, not of the Cabinet; and it was a natural end of a revolutionary period which had lasted 7 weeks. There are very many historical parallels for this amnesty decree; for example, the law which was issued by the young German Republic on 21 July 1922 and which includes murder in the amnesty measures.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I now refer to Document 28, Page 99 of Document Book 1. This contains the law of 21 July 1922, which concludes "the period of a state of unrest which obtained in the years 1920 and 1921." May I also refer to Page 100 of this Document Number 28 which contains the law of 20 December 1932 which has been mentioned. On 23 March the law dealing with the special courts was issued. What can you say in that connection?
VON PAPEN: These special laws, or special court laws, are also not entirely new. I, personally, as Chancellor of the Reich issued such a law on 9 August 1932; and I based my action then on a directive of the Bruning Cabinet dated 6 October 1931. In revolutionary periods punishable political acts must be brought to speedy trial under the law.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I now point out Document 27, Page 89 of Document Book 1, especially the introduction preceding Paragraph 1, which shows that this emergency decree was based on the Bruning emergency directive of 1931. On 1 April 1933 the Jewish boycott was carried out. Was this a measure taken by the Government? Did you participate in it in any way?
VON PAPEN: The assertion of Dr. Goebbels that the Cabinet had approved this measure was completely false. On the contrary, at the suggestion of the Cabinet Hitler had on 10 and 12 March made public announcements which my counsel will submit. The Prosecution refers to the telegram which I sent to New York on the 25th as a "white lie of the greatest magnitude"; I can only say, however, that this assertion is completely unfounded. The public statements of Hitler gave us, in fact had to give us, the assurance that such excesses would not take place again. In that belief I sent my telegram. It would be inconceivable that on the 25th I should send a telegram to New York...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, I thought your question was: Did the defendant participate in these measures? I do not know what his answer is. He has been answering for some minutes, but I do not know what the answer is. The question was: Did you participate? And I do not know what he has answered.
VON PAPEN: I said that the assertion of Goebbels that the Cabinet had approved this Jewish boycott was a lie.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not answer directly; did you or did you not participate?
VON PAPEN: No, we did not participate.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I refer to Document 33, Page 113, a statement by Hitler on 10 March, the last two lines: "Annoying individuals, obstructing automobiles, or disturbing business life must absolutely be discontinued." On the same page, Page 113, a declaration of Hitler on 12 March, last sentence of the paragraph next to the last: "Whoever, from now on, attempts by individual action to cause disturbances in our administrative or business life, acts consciously against the National Government."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, I did not intend to prevent the defendant telling the Tribunal what he had done with reference to his telegram to the New York Times , but I wanted him in the first instance to answer your question. Now, if he wants to add anything about what he telegraphed to the New York Times , let him do so.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Will you then, please, go back to this point in connection with the New York Times .
VON PAPEN: I can only add, My Lord, that it would be quite inconceivable that on 25 April I should send this telegram to New York knowing that 3 or 4 days later a new Jewish boycott would be carried out; that is completely nonsensical. Moreover, I might point out that on the same day Herr Von Neurath sent a similar wire to Cardinal O'Connell.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Will you now give an account of your attitude to the Jewish problem?
VON PAPEN: My attitude toward the Jewish problem can be briefly delineated; it has always, throughout my life, been the attitude expected by the Catholic Church of its members. I stated my view on the question of race, as regards National Socialist doctrine, quite publicly in a speech in Gleiwitz in the year 1933, and my counsel will submit that speech as evidence. A completely different question not connected with my basic attitude toward the Jewish problem was, however, the kind of foreign monopoly, the overwhelming influence of the Jewish element in the spheres which form the nation's public opinion, such as press, literature, theater, film, and especially law. There seemed no doubt in my mind that this foreign monopoly was unhealthy and that it should be remedied in some way. But as I said, that had nothing whatever to do with the racial question.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer now to Document 16, Page 68, which contains an extract from the speech which, as the defendant mentioned, he made in the year 1934 at Gleiwitz. I quote: "There are certainly no objections to race research and eugenics which endeavor to keep the characteristics of a nation as pure as possible and at the same time to kindle the feeling of a racial community. This love of one's own race will never degenerate into hatred of other nations and races. That is the decisive point. Eugenics must never be brought into conflict with Christianity for they are not opposed, they only differ. It was Christianity which first made of the German tribes a German nation, and it is really not necessary to create a new Nordic-Germanic religion in order to give testimony to our race." May I refer also to Document 29, Page 103, which deals with the second topic discussed by the defendant; it is an excerpt from the diary of Mr. Dodd on 4 July. I then refer to Document 35, Page 115, which contains an article from the Volkischer Beobachter dated 19 August 1932. The heading of that article is: "The Papen Government Has Inscribed the Protection of Jews on its Banner."
THE PRESIDENT: That was August 1932? Where is it?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 35, Page 115. I just read the heading of this article in the Volkischer Beobachter dated 19 August 1932. "The Papen Government Has Inscribed the Protection of Jews on its Banner." The article deals with a statement of Herr Kareski, Berlin, as representative of the Jewish People's Party. Kareski was head of the synagogue in Berlin. He stated at that time-and I quote the last paragraph of this article: "Fortunately, the Constitution of the German Republic still protects the legal position of the Jews and the Papen Government has inscribed the protection of the Jews on its banner." The Civil Service Law of 7 April 1933 contains certain exceptions applying to Jews. Originally these exceptions were planned to be much more extensive; did you do anything to restrict them to the form in which they were then issued?
VON PAPEN: May I just add one thing? I believe you forgot to submit to the Tribunal Document 33, relevant to the question of foreign monopoly in the German legal system.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I shall submit that document after your answer to the question I have just put.
VON PAPEN: I approved of the Civil Service Law of 7 April 1933 only insofar as it applied to Jewish civil servants appointed after the year 1918. For after the war large-scale immigration into Germany had taken place from the east, especially from Poland, a country which was strongly anti-Semitic at the time. I successfully pleaded with Hindenburg that soldiers who had taken part in the war should under no circumstance be affected by this law, for I always held the view that a German, no matter of what race, who had done his duty to his country should not be restricted in his rights.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer now to Document 33, Page 114. It is a report of the Ministry of Justice, which shows that when the Civil Service Law was issued 3,515 Jewish attorneys were practicing. On the basis of the mitigation which the witness has just mentioned, 735 ax-service men and 1,383 other attorneys who had keen admitted to the bar before 1914 were exempted from this law. Thus 2,158 Jewish attorneys remained, whereas 923 had to resign from office. What was your view of the Civil Service Law as a whole?
VON PAPEN: I think it was completely normal that the National Socialists, since they were partners in the coalition government and controlled more than 50 percent of the German people's vote, should have a part in filling civil service posts. I might point out that the National Socialists, in the propaganda which they conducted for years, fought with all means against the so-called "Bonzentum" (boss rule); but one could not, of course, predict that they themselves would later make that same mistake.
THE PRESIDENT: Would this be a convenient time to adjourn? [A recess was taken.]
DR. KUBUSCHOK: We have been speaking of the Civil Service Law, which in the points we have discussed corresponds to some extent to the trend of thought of the NSDAP. Why did you feel impelled to urge certain concessions which were then, in fact, made?
VON PAPEN: I was convinced at the time that with this Civil Service Law we were creating something basic. I did not anticipate, and I could not guess, that the Party would continually in the following years introduce new laws in this field and would thereby completely ruin the civil service.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was your attitude towards the dissolution of the parties?
VON PAPEN: The exclusion of parties was a necessary result of the Enabling Act. For 4 years Hitler had demanded the reforms which we wanted to make. Document 25 shows that I asked Hitler to create a new basic State law, and, in his speech of 23 March Hitler promised that. In that speech he spoke of a reform of the Constitution to be carried through by the appropriate existing constitutional organs. That reform would have given us, in my opinion, in a revolutionary way, a new and sounder democratic and parliamentary form of government. Moreover, I must say that I saw no danger in the temporary use of the one-party system. There were excellent examples for it in other states, for instance in Turkey and Portugal, where this one-party system was functioning very well. Finally, I should like to point out that in my speech at Marburg on 17 June 1934 I criticized this development and said that one could only regard it as a transitional stage which a reconstructed Constitution would have to terminate.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What is your view of the Reichsstatthalter Law of April 1933? Will you also state your attitude to the question of German federation?
VON PAPEN: This question, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, has been brought up by the Prosecution in order to accuse me of duplicity, untruthfulness, or deceit. The Prosecution has alleged that in 1932 my views on the federal character of Germany were different from those I expressed in 1933. But even if I had changed my mind in this respect, I cannot see why the question of a federal or a central government should be a crime within this Charter. Besides, I did not change my mind at all. The view I expressed in 1932 was this: I recognized the advantages of a federal system for Germany, and I wanted to maintain it; but I always wished, even in 1932, that there should be joint agreement on the bigger political issues in Germany. That a federal country is governed on uniform principles is surely a matter of course. That was the only question, and it was also the basis of my intervention in Prussia on 20. July. If one knows the history of Germany, one will be aware that Bismarck overcame that difficulty by combining the offices of the Reich Chancellor and the Prussian Prime Minister. Therefore, when in 1933 we appointed Reichsstatthalter in the various Lander, we merely intended to establish a common political line. Besides, the rights of the Lander remained unaffected. They had their own financial, legal, and educational systems, and their own parliaments.