dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is- on Page 50 of the English document book, Document Number 3317-PS, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-235, and I will simply read the last extract on the page: "In the interest of the entire nation, we decline the claim to power by parties which want to bind their followers body and soul and which want to identify their party or movement with the German nation." I do not rely on these random extracts to show anything more than that he had, in 1932, clearly addressed his mind to the inherent lawlessness of the Nazi philosophy. Nevertheless, in his letter to. Hitler of the 13 of November 1932, which I shall quote more fully later, he wrote of the Nazi movement as, I quote: "...so great a national movement, the merits of which for people and country I have always recognized in spite of necessary criticisms ...... So variable and so seemingly contradictory were Von Papen's acts and utterances regarding the Nazis that it is not possible to present the picture of Papen's part in this infamous enterprise unless one first reviews the steps by which he entered upon it. It then becomes clear that he threw himself, if not wholeheartedly, yet with cool and' deliberate calculation, into the Nazi conspiracy. I shall enumerate some of the principal steps by which Papen. fell in with the Nazi conspiracy. As a result of his first personal contact with Hitler, Von Papen. as Chancellor rescinded, on the 14th of June 1932, the decree passed on the 13th of April 1932 for the dissolution of the Nazi paramilitary organizations, the SA and the SS. He thereby rendered the greatest possible service to the Nazi Party, inasmuch as it relied upon its para-military organizations to beat the German people into submission. The decree rescinding the dissolution of the SA and the SS is shown in Document D-631, on Page 64 of the document book; and I now put it in as Exhibit GB-236. It is an extract from the Reichsgesetzblatt, which was an omnibus decree. The relevant passage is in Paragraph 20: "This order comes into operation from the day of announcement.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: It takes the place of the Decree of the Reich President for the Safeguarding of the State Authority The date should be the 13th of April 1932.
THE PRESIDENT: Which page of the document book is it?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I am sorry, My Lord; it is Page 64. And the date shown there should not be the 3rd of May 1932, it should be the 13th of April 1932. That was the decree which had previously dissolved the Nazi para-military organizations under the Government of Chancellor Bruning. At the bottom of the page the Tribunal will see the relevant parts of the decree of the 13th of April reproduced. At the beginning of Paragraph I of that decree it said: "All organizations of a military nature of the German National Socialist Labor Party will be dissolved with immediate effect, particularly the SA and the SS." This rescission by Von Papen. was done in pursuance of a bargain made with Hitler which is mentioned in a book called Dates from the History of the NSDAP by Dr. Hans Volz, a book published with the authority of the NSDAP. It is already an exhibit, Exhibit USA- 592. The extract I want to quote is on Page 59 of the document book, and it is Document Number 3463-PS. I quote an extract from Page 41 of this little book: "28th of May"-that was in 1932, of course-"In view of the imminent fall of Bruning, at a meeting between the former Deputy of the Prussian Center Party, Franz Von Papen, and the Fuehrer in Berlin (first personal contact in spring 1932); the Fuehrer agrees that a Papen. cabinet should be tolerated by the NSDAP, provided that the prohibitions imposed on the SA, uniforms, and demonstrations be lifted and the Reichstag dissolved." It is difficult to imagine a less astute opening gambit for a man who was about to become Chancellor than to reinstate this sinister organization which had been suppressed by his predecessor. This action emphasizes the*. characteristic duplicity and insincerity of his public condemnations of the Nazis which I quoted a few minutes ago. Eighteen months later he publicly boasted that at the time of taking over the chancellorship he had advocated paving the way to power for what he called the "young- fighting liberation movement." That will be shown in Document 3375-PS, which I shall introduce in a few minutes.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Another important step was when, on the 20th of July 1932, he accomplished his famous coup d'etat in Prussia which removed the Braun-Severing Prussian Government and united the ruling power of the Reich and Prussia in his own hands as Reichskommissar for Prussia. This is now a matter of history. It is mentioned in Document D-632, which I now introduce as Exhibit GB-237. It is on Page 65 of the document book. This document is, I think, a semi-official biography in a series of public men. Papen regarded this step, his coup d'etat in Prussia, as a first step in the policy later pursued by Hitler of coordinating the states with the Reich, which will be shown in Document 3357-PS, which I shall come to later. The next step, if the Tribunal will look at Document D-632, on Page 65 of the document book, the last four or five lines at the bottom of the page: "The Reichstag elections of the 31st of July, which were the result of Von Papen's disbandment of the Reichstag on the 4th of June" - which was made in pursuance of the bargain that I mentioned a few minutes ago---"strengthened enormously the NSDAP, so that Von Papen offered to the leader of the now strongest party his participation in the government as Vice Chancellor. Adolf Hitler rejected this offer on the 13th of August. "The new Reichstag, which assembled on the 30th of August, was disbanded by the 12th of September. The new elections brought about a considerable loss to the NSDAP, but did not strengthen the Government parties, so that Papen's Government retired on the 17th of November 1932 after unsuccessful negotiations with the Party leaders." My Lord, I shall wish to quote a few more extracts from that biography, but as it is a mere catalogue of events, perhaps Your Lordship would allow me to return to it at the appropriate time. So far as those negotiations mentioned just now in the biography concern Hitler, they involved an exchange of letters in which Von Papen wrote to Hitler on. the 13th of November 1932.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: That letter is Document D-633, on Page 68 of the English document book, and I now put it in as Exhibit GB-238. I propose to read a part of this letter, because it shows the positive efforts made by Papen *to ally himself with the Nazis, even in face of further rebuffs from Hitler. I read the third paragraph. I should tell the Tribunal that there is some underlining in the English translation of that paragraph which does not occur in the German text: "A new situation has arisen through the elections of November the 6th, and at the same time a new opportunity for a consolidation of all nationalist elements. The Reich President has instructed me to find out by conversations with the leaders of the individual parties concerned whether and how far they are ready to support the carrying out of the political and economic program on which the Reich Government has embarked. Although the National Socialist press has been writing that it is a naive attempt for Reich Chancellor Von Papen to try to confer with personalities representing the nationalist concentration, and that there can only be one answer, 'No negotiations with Papen,' I would consider it neglecting my duties, and I would be unable to justify it to my own conscience, if I did not approach you in the spirit of the order given to me. I am quite aware from the papers that you are maintaining your demands to be entrusted with the Chancellor's Office, and I am equally aware of the continued existence of the reasons for the decision of August the 13th. I need not assure you again that I myself do not claim any personal consideration at all. All the same, I am of the opinion that the leader of so great a national movement, whose merits for people and country I have always recognized in spite of necessary criticism, should not refuse to enter into discussions on the situation and the decisions required with the presently leading and responsible German statesman.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: We must attempt to forget the bitterness of the elections and to place the cause of the country which we are mutually serving above all other considerations." Hitler replied on 16 November 1932 in a long letter, laying down terms which were evidently unacceptable to Von Papen, since he resigned the next day and was succeeded by Von Schleicher. That document is D-634, put in as part of Exhibit GB-238 as it is part of the same- correspondence. I need not read from the letter itself. Then came the meetings between Papen and Hitler in January 1933, in the houses of Von Schroeder and of Ribbentrop, culminating in Von Schleicher being succeeded by Hitler as Reich Chancellor on 30 January 1933. Referring back again to the biography on Page 66 of the document book, there is an account of the meeting at Schroeder's house, the second -paragraph on the page: "The meeting with Hitler, which took place hi the beginning of January 1933, in the house of the banker Baron Von Schroeder in Cologne, is due to his initiative"-that means, of course Papen's initiative "although Von Schroeder was the mediator. Both Von Papen and Hitler later made public statements about this meeting (press of 6 January 1933). After the rapid downfall of Von Schleicher on the 28th of January 1933, the Hitler-Von Papen-Hugenberg-Seldte Cabinet was formed on the 30th of January 1933 as a government of national solidarity. In this cabinet Von Papen held the office of Vice Chancellor and Reich Commissioner for Prussia." The meetings at Ribbentrop's house, at which Papen was also present, have been mentioned by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe (Document D-472, which was Exhibit GB-130). I now wish to introduce into evidence an affidavit by Von Schroeder but I understand that Dr. Kubuschok wishes to take an objection to this. his. Perhaps before Dr. Kubuschok takes his objection it might help if I said, quite openly, that Schroeder is now in custody, and according to my information he is at Frankfurt; so that physically he undoubtedly could be called.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Perhaps I might also say at this moment that there would be no objection from the Prosecution's point of view to interrogatories being administered to Von Schroeder on the subject matter of this affidavit.
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen): I object to the reading of the affidavit of Schroeder I know that in individual cases the Tribunal has permitted the reading of affidavits. This occurred under Article 19 of the Charter , which is based on the proposition that the Trial should be conducted as speedily as possible and that for this reason the Tribunal should order the rules of ordinary court procedure in that' respect. Of decisive importance, therefore, is the speediness of the Trial. But in our case the reading of the affidavit cannot be approved for that reason. Our case is quite analogous to the. case that was decided on the 14th of December with regard to Kurt Von Schuschnigg's affidavit. Schroeder is in the vicinity. Schroeder was apparently brought to the neighborhood of Nuremberg for the purposes of this Trial. Theaffidavit was taken down on 5 December. He could be brought here at any. time. The reading of the affidavit would have the consequence that I would have to refer not only to him but also to several other witnesses, because Schroeder describes a series of facts in his affidavit which -in their entirety are not needed for the finding of a decision. However, once introduced into the Trial, they must 'also be discussed by the Defense in the pursuance of its duty. The affidavit discusses internal political matters, using improper terms. For this reason misunderstandings would be brought into the Trial which could be obviated by the hearing of a witness I believe, therefore, that the oral testimony of a witness should be the only way in which Schroeder's testimony should be submitted to the Tribunal, since otherwise a large number of witnesses will have to be called along with the reading of Schroeder's affidavit and his personal interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to make any observation?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes, I do, My Lord. The Tribunal has been asked to exclude this affidavit, using as a precedent the decision on Von Schuschnigg's affidavit. I think I am correct in saying that Von Schuschnigg's affidavit was excluded as an exception to the general rule on affidavits which the Tribunal laid down earlier the same day when Mr. Messersmith's affidavit was accepted. Perhaps Your Lordship will allow me to read from the transcript the Tribunal's decision on the affidavit of Messersmith.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Messersmith was in Mexico, was he not? MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is so, My Lord; yes.
THE PRESIDENT: So that the difference between him and Schuschnigg in that regard was very considerable.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: In that regard, but what I was going to say was this, My Lord: In ruling on Messersmith's affidavit Your Lordship said: "In view of those provisions" - that is Article 19 of the Charter - "the Tribunal holds that affidavits can be presented and that in the present case it is a proper course. The question of the probative value of the affidavit as compared with the witness who has been cross-examined would, of course, be considered by the Tribunal, and if at a later stage the Tribunal thinks the presence of a witness is of extreme importance, the matter can be reconsidered." And Your Lordship-added: "If the Defense wish to put interrogatories to the witness, they will be at liberty to do so." Now in the afternoon of that day, when Schuschnigg's affidavit came up ...
THE PRESIDENT: Which day was this?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: This was the 28th of November, My Lord. It is on Page 473 (Volume' IL Page 352) 'of the transcript, the Messersmith affidavit; and Page 523 (Volume 11, Page 384) is the Schuschnigg affidavit. Now, when the objection was taken to the Schuschnigg affidavit, the objection was put in these -words: "Today when the resolution was announced in respect of the use to be made of the written affidavit of Mr. Messersmith, the Court was of the opinion that in a case of very great importance possibly it would take a different view of the matter."-And then defense counsel went on to say-"As it is a case of such an important witness, the principle of direct evidence must be adhered to."
THE PRESIDENT: Have you a reference to a subsequent occasion on which we heard Mr. Justice Jackson upon this subject, when Mr. Justice Jackson submitted to us that on the strict interpretation of Article 19 we were bound to admit any evidence which we deemed to have probative value?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, I haven't got that reference.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you call this witness?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I say, quite frankly-and I was coming on to that-this witness is in a position of being an alleged coconspirator, and I do not make any secret of the fact that for obvious reasons the Prosecution would not desire to call him as a witness, and I put this affidavit forward as an admission by a coconspirator. I admit that it is not an admission made in pursuance of the conspiracy, but I submit that by technical rules of evidence, this affidavit may be accepted in evidence as an admission by a co- conspirator; and as I said before, there will be no objection to administering interrogatories on the subject matter of this affidavit, and indeed, the witness would be available to be called as a defense witness if required. That is all I have to say on that, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: There would be no objection to bringing the witness here for the purpose of cross-examination upon the affidavit?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I don't think there could be any objection if it were confined to the subject matter of the affidavit. I would not like ...
THE PRESIDENT: How could you object, for instance, to the defendant himself applying to call the witness?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: As I said, I don't think there could be any objection to that, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: The result would be the same, wouldn't it? If the witness were called for the purpose of cross-examination, then he could be asked other- questions which were not arising out of the matter in the affidavit. If the defendant can call him as his own witness, there can be no objection to the cross-examination going outside the matter of the affidavit.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Of course he couldn't be cross-examined by the Prosecution in that event, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you would ask his questions in reexamination, but they would not take the form of cross- examination?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is what I mean, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you would prefer that he should be called for the defendants rather than be cross-examined outside the subject matter of the affidavit?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything you wish to add or not?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: There is nothing I wish to add.
THE PRESIDENT: It is time for us to adjourn. We will consider the matter. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session
DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): In the place of Dr. Von Rohrscheidt, counsel for Defendant Hess, I would like to make the following declaration. Dr. Von Rohrscheidt has been the victim of an accident. He has broken his ankle. The Defendant Hess has asked me to notify the Tribunal that from now on until the end of the Trial, he desires to make use of his right under the Charter to defend himself. The reason that he wants to do that for the whole length of the Trial is to be found in the fact that due to his absence his counsel will not be informed of the proceedings of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the oral application which has just been made to it on behalf of the Defendant Hess. As to the objection to the affidavit of Von Schroeder which was made this morning by counsel for the Defendant Von Papen, the Tribunal does not propose to lay down any general rule about the admission of affidavit evidence. But in the particular circumstances of this case, the Tribunal will admit the affidavit in question but will direct that if the affidavit is put in evidence, the man who made the affidavit, Von Schroeder must be presented, brought here immediately for cross-examination by the defendant's counsel. When I say immediately I mean as soon as possible.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, I will not introduce this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Major Barrington.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, before coming on to that affidavit, I last read a passage from the biography about the meeting at Von Schroeder's house, and I ask the Tribunal to deduce from that extract from the biography that it was at that meeting that a discussion took place between Von Papen and Hitler, which led up to the government of Hitler in which Von Papen served as Vice Chancellor. So that now at the point the Defendant Von Papen was completely committed to going along with the Nazi Party, and with his eyes open and on his own initiative he had helped materially to bring them into power. The second allegation against the Defendant Von Papen is that he participated in the consolidation of Nazi control over Germany. In the first critical year and a half of the Nazi consolidation Von Papen, as Vice Chancellor, was second only to Hitler in the Cabinet which carried out the Nazi program. The process of consolidating the Nazi control of Germany by legislation has been fully dealt with earlier in this Trial. The high position of Von Papen must have associated him closely with such: legislation. In July 1934 Hitler expressly thanked him for all that he had done for the co-ordination of the government of the National Revolution. That will appear in Document 2799-PS. In fact, although I shall read from that document in a minute, the document has been introduced to the Court by Mr. Alderman. Two important decrees may be mentioned specially, as actually bearing the signature of Von Papen. First, the decree relating to the formation of special courts, dated the 21st of March 1933, 'for the trial of all cases involving political matters. The Tribunal has already taken judicial notice of this decree. The reference to the transcript is Page 30 (Volume II, Page 197) of the 22d of November, afternoon session. This decree was the first step in the Nazification of the German judiciary. In all political cases. it abolished fundamental rights, including the right of appeal, which, had previously characterized the administration of German criminal justice.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: On the same date, the 21st of March 1933, Von Papen personally signed the amnesty decree liberating all persons who had committed murder or any other crime between the 30th of January and the 21st of March 1933 in the National Revolution of the German people. That document is 2059-PS, and is on Page 30 of the English document book. I read Section 1.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think you need read the decrees if you will summarize them.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: If Your Lordship pleases, I will ask you to take judicial notice of that decree.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: As a member of the Reich Cabinet, Von Papen was, in my submission, responsible for the legislation carried through even when the decrees did not actually bear his signature. But I shall mention as examples two categories of legislation in particular in order to show by reference to his own previous and contemporaneous statements that they were not matters of which he could say that. as a respectable politician he took no interest in them. First, the civil service. As a public servant himself, Von Papen must have had a hard but apparently successful struggle with his conscience when associating himself with the sweeping series of decrees for attaining Nazi control of the civil service. This has been dealt with on Page 30 (Volume 11, Page 197) of the transcript of the 22d of November in the afternoon session, and Page 257 (Volume II, Page 207). In this connection I refer the Tribunal to Document 351-PS, which is on Page I of the document book. It is Exhibit USA-389, and it is the minutes of Hitler's first Cabinet meeting on the 30th of January 1933. 1 read from the last paragraph of the minutes, on Page 5 of the document book in the middle of the paragraph: "The Deputy of the Reich Chancellor and the Reich Commissioner for the State of Prussia suggested that the Reich Chancellor should refute, in an interview at the earliest opportunity, the rumors about inflation and the rumors about infringing the rights of civil servants." Even if this was not meant to suggest to Hitler the giving of a fraudulent assurance, at the best it emphasizes the indifference with which Von Papen later saw the civil servants betrayed. Secondly, the decrees for the integration of the federal states with the Reich. These again have been dealt with earlier in the Trial, Page 29 (Volume II, Page 196) of the transcript of 22 November, afternoon session. The substantial effect of these decrees was to abolish the states and to put an end to federalism and any possible retarding influence which it might have upon the centralization of power in the Reich Cabinet.