Читать книгу The Nuremberg Trials (Vol.6) - International Military Tribunal - Страница 18

“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. The importance of this step, as well as the role played by Papen, is reflected in the exchange of letters between Hindenburg, Von Papen—in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for Prussia—and Hitler, in connection with the recall of the Reich Commissioner and the appointment of Göring to the post of Prime Minister of Prussia. I refer to Document 3357-PS, which is on Page 52 of the English document book, and I now put it in as Exhibit GB-239.

In tendering his resignation on the 7th of April 1933, Von Papen wrote to Hitler, and I read from the document:

“With the draft of the law for the co-ordination of the states with the Reich, passed today by the Reich Chancellor, legislative work has begun which will be of historical significance for the political development of the German State. The step taken on 20 July 1932 by the Reich Government, which I headed at the time, with the aim of abolishing the dualism between the Reich and Prussia is now crowned by this new interlocking of the interests of the state of Prussia with those of the Reich. You, Herr Reich Chancellor, will now be, as once was Bismarck, in a position to co-ordinate in all points the policy of the greatest of German states with that of the Reich. Now that the new law affords you the possibility of appointing a Prussian Prime Minister, I beg you to inform the Reich President that I dutifully return to his hands my post of Reich Commissioner for Prussia.”

I would like to read also the letter which Hitler wrote to Hindenburg in transmitting this resignation. Hitler wrote:

“Vice Chancellor Von Papen has addressed a letter to me which I enclose for your information. Herr Von Papen has already informed me within the last few days that he has come to an agreement with Minister Göring to resign on his own volition, as soon as the unified conduct of the governmental affairs in the Reich and in Prussia would be assured by the new law on the co-ordination of policy in the Reich and the States.

“On the eve of the day when the new law on the institution of Reichsstatthalter was adopted, Herr Von Papen considered this aim as having been attained, and requested me to undertake the appointment of the Prussian Prime Minister, at the same time offering further collaboration in the Reich Government, by now lending full service.

“Herr Von Papen, in accepting the post of Commissioner for the Government of Prussia in these difficult times since 30 January, has rendered a very meritorious service to the realization of the idea of coordinating the policy in Reich and states. His collaboration in the Reich Cabinet, to which he is now lending all his energy, is infinitely valuable; my relationship to him is such a heartily friendly one, that I sincerely rejoice at the great help I shall thus receive.”

Yet it was only 5 weeks before this that on the 3rd of March 1933, Von Papen had warned the electorate at Stuttgart against abolishing federalism. I will now read from Document 3313-PS, which is on Page 48 of the English document book, and which I now introduce as Exhibit GB-240—about the middle of the third paragraph. This is an extract from Von Papen’s speech at Stuttgart. He said:

“Federalism will protect us from centralism, that organizational form which focuses all the living strength of a nation on one point. No nation is less fitted to be governed centrally than the German.”

Earlier, at the time of the elections in the autumn of 1932, Von Papen as Chancellor had visited Munich. The Frankfurter Zeitung of the 12th of October 1932 commented on his policy. I refer to Document 3318-PS on Page 51 of the English document book, which I introduce as Exhibit GB-241. The Frankfurter Zeitung commented:

“Von Papen claimed that it had been his great aim from the very beginning of his tenure in office to build a new Reich for, and with, the various states. The Reich Government is taking a definite federalist attitude. Its slogan is not a dreary centralism or uniformity.”

That was in October 1932. All that was now thrown overboard in deference to his new master.

I now come to the Jews. In March 1933 the entire Cabinet approved a systematic state policy of persecution of the Jews. This has already been described to the Tribunal. The reference to the transcript is Pages 1442 (Volume III, Page 525) and 2490 (Volume V, Page 93).

Only 4 days before the boycott was timed to begin “with all ferocity”—to borrow the words of Dr. Goebbels—Von Papen wrote a radiogram of reassurance to the Board of Trade for German-American Commerce in New York which had expressed its anxiety to the German Government about the situation. His assurance—which I now put in as Document D-635, and it will be Exhibit GB-242 on Page 73 of the English document book—his assurance was published in the New York Times on the 28th of March 1933, and it contained the following sentence which I read from about the middle of the page. This document is the last but one in the German document book:

“Reports circulated in America and received here with indignation about alleged tortures of political prisoners and mistreatment of Jews deserve strongest repudiation. Hundreds of thousands of Jews, irrespective of nationality, who have not taken part in political activities, are living here entirely unmolested.”

This is a characteristic . . .

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The article in the New York Times goes back to a telegram of the Defendant Von Papen, which is contained in the document book one page ahead. The English translation has a date of the 27th of March. This date is an error. The German text which I received shows that it is a question of a weekend letter, which, according to the figures on the German document, was sent on the 25th of March. This difference in time is of particular importance for the following reason:

In effect, on the 25th of March nothing was yet known concerning the Jewish boycott, which Goebbels then announced for the 1st of April. The Defendant Von Papen could, therefore, on the 25th of March, point to these then comparatively few smaller incidents as he does in the telegram. In any case, the conclusion of the indictment that the contents of the telegram were a lie thereby falls.

THE PRESIDENT: Major Barrington, have you the original of that?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: The original is here, My Lord; yes. It is quite correct that there are some figures at the top, which, though I had not recognized it, might indicate that it was dispatched on the 25th.

THE PRESIDENT: And when was the meeting of the Cabinet which approved the policy of persecution of the Jews?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, My Lord, I can’t say. It was some time within the last few days of March, but it might have been on the 26th. I can have that checked up.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I clarify that matter by saying that the Cabinet meeting in which the Jewish question was discussed took place at a much later date and that in this Cabinet meeting Cabinet members, among others the Defendant Von Papen, condemned the Jewish boycott. I shall submit the minutes of the meeting as soon as my motion has been granted.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know what you mean by your motion being granted. Does Counsel for the Prosecution say whether he persists in his allegation or whether he withdraws it?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: I will say this. Subject to checking the date when the Cabinet meeting took place . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can do that at the adjournment and let us know in the morning.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: If Your Lordship pleases. At this point I will just say this: That it was, as the Tribunal has already heard, common knowledge at the time that the Nazi policy was anti-Jewish, and Jews were already in concentration camps, so I will leave it to the Tribunal to infer that at the time when that radiogram was sent, which I am prepared to accept as being the 25th of March, that Von Papen did know of this policy of boycotting.

I will go further now that I am on this point, and I will say that Von Papen was indeed himself a supporter of the anti-Jewish policy, and as evidence of this I will put in Document 2830-PS, which is on Page 37A of the document book, and which I now introduce as Exhibit GB-243.

This is a letter, My Lord, written by Von Papen from Vienna on the 12th of May 1936 to Hitler on the subject of the Freiheitsbund. Paragraph 4 of the English text is as follows:

“The following incident is interesting. The Czech Legation secretary Dohalsky has made to Mr. Staud, (leader of the Freiheitsbund) the offer to make available to the Freiheitsbund any desired amount from the Czech Government which he would need for the strengthening of his struggle against the Heimwehr. Sole condition is that the Freiheitsbund must guarantee to adopt an anti-German attitude. Mr. Staud has flatly refused this offer. This demonstrates how even in the enemy’s camp the new grouping of forces is already taken into account. From this the further necessity results for us to support this movement financially as heretofore, and mostly in reference to the continuation of its fight against Jewry.”

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I must point out here a difficulty which has apparently been caused by the translation. In the original German text the word “mit Bezug” is used in regard to the transmittal in the following way: “. . . referring to the continuation of its fight against Jewry.” This word “mit Bezug” means here that under this heading the money must be transmitted, although this was not the real purpose, for the Austrian Freiheitsbund (Freedom Union) was not an anti-Semitic movement but a legal trade union to which Chancellor Dollfuss also belonged. This expression “mit Bezug” means only that the transmittal of the money demanded a covering designation because it was not permissible to transmit money from abroad to a party recognized by the state for any party purposes, as is shown by the rejected offer of the Czechoslovaks. I only wanted to point out here that the words “in reference” perhaps give a wrong impression and should rather be translated “referring.” In any case, I should like to point out that this “in reference” was a kind of camouflage for the transmittal of the money.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know to which word you are referring, but as I understand it the only purpose of referring to this letter was to prove that in it Von Papen was suggesting that a certain organization should be financially assisted in its fight against Jewry. That is the only purpose of referring to the letter. I don’t know what you mean about some word being wrongly translated.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is exactly how the error originated. The money was not transmitted to fight Jewry for that was not at all the purpose of this Christian Trade Union in Austria, but a certain designation for the transmittal of the money had to be devised. So this continuation of its fight against Jewry was used. The purpose therefore was not the fight against Jewry but the elimination through financial support of another foreign influence, namely that of Czechoslovakia.

THE PRESIDENT: I should have thought myself that the point which might have been taken against the Prosecution was that the letter was dated nearly 3 years after the time with which you were then dealing.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is so, My Lord; it was not at the time of the previous one.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the previous one was marked 1933, and this was 1936.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: Oh yes. I put it in, My Lord, only to show what Von Papen’s position was by then, at any rate. If Your Lordship has any doubt as to the translation I would suggest that it might now be translated by the interpreter. We have the German text, a photostat.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you can have it translated again tomorrow; if necessary, you can have it gone into again then.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes, My Lord.

I come now to the Catholic Church. The Nazi treatment of the Church has been fully dealt with by the United States Prosecution. In this particular field Von Papen, a prominent lay Catholic, helped to consolidate the Nazi position both at home and abroad as perhaps no one else could have done.

In dealing with the persecution of the Church, Colonel Wheeler read to the Tribunal Hitler’s assurance given to the Church on the 23rd of March 1933 in Hitler’s speech on the Enabling Act, an assurance which resulted in the well-known Fulda Declaration of the German bishops, also quoted by Colonel Wheeler. That was Document 3387-PS, which was Exhibit USA-566. This deceitful assurance of Hitler’s appears to have been made at the suggestion of Von Papen 8 days earlier at the Reich Cabinet meeting at which the Enabling Act was discussed, on the 15th of March 1933. I refer to Document 2962-PS, which is Exhibit USA-578, and it is on Page 40 of the English document book. I read from Page 44, that is at the bottom of Page 6 of the German text. The minutes say:

“The Deputy of the Reich Chancellor and Reich Commissioner for Prussia stated that it is of decisive importance to coordinate into the new state the masses standing behind the parties. The question of the incorporation of political Catholicism into the new state is of particular importance.”

That was a statement made by Von Papen at the meeting at which the Enabling Act was discussed prior to Hitler’s speech on the Enabling Act in which he gave his assurance to the Church.

On the 20th of July 1933 Papen signed the Reich Concordat negotiated by him with the Vatican. The Tribunal has already taken judicial notice of this as Document 3280(a)-PS. The signing of the Concordat, like Hitler’s Papen-inspired speech on the Enabling Act, was only an interlude in the church policy of the Nazi conspirators. Their policy of assurances was followed by a long series of violations which eventually resulted in Papal denunciation in the Encyclical “Mit brennender Sorge,” which is 3476-PS, Exhibit USA-567.

Papen maintains that his actions regarding the Church were sincere, and he has asserted during interrogations that it was Hitler who sabotaged the Concordat. If Von Papen really believed in the very solemn undertakings given by him on behalf of the Reich to the Vatican, I submit it is strange that he, himself a Catholic, should have continued to serve Hitler after all those violations and even after the Papal Encyclical itself. I will go further. I will say that Papen was himself involved in what was virtually, if not technically, a violation of the Concordat. The Tribunal will recollect the allocution of the Pope, dated the 2d of June 1945, which is Document 3268-PS, Exhibit USA-356, from which on Page 1647 (Volume IV, Page 64) of the transcript Colonel Storey read the Pope’s own summary of the Nazis’ bitter struggle against the Church. The very first item the Pope mentioned is the dissolution of Catholic organizations and if the Tribunal will look at Document 3376-PS on Page 56 of the English document book, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-244 and which is an extract from Das Archiv, they will see that in September 1934 Von Papen ordered—and I say “ordered” advisedly—the dissolution of the Union of Catholic Germans, of which he was at the time the leader. The text of Das Archiv reads as follows:

“The Reich Directorate of the Party announced the self-dissolution of the Union of Catholic Germans.

“Since the Reich Directorate of the Party, through its Department for Cultural Peace, administers directly and to an increasing extent all cultural problems including those concerning the relations of State and churches, the tasks at first delegated to the Union of Catholic Germans are now included in those of the Reich Directorate of the Party in the interest of a still closer co-ordination.

“Former Vice Chancellor Von Papen, up to now the leader of the Union of Catholic Germans, declared about the dissolution of this organization that it was done upon his suggestion, since the attitude of the National Socialist State toward the Christian and Catholic Church had been explained often and unequivocally by the Führer and Chancellor himself.”

I said that Von Papen “ordered” the dissolutions, although the announcement said it was self-dissolution on his suggestion; but I submit that such a suggestion from one in Papen’s position was equivalent to an order, since by that date it was common knowledge that the Nazis were dropping all pretense that rival organizations might be permitted to exist.

After 9 months’ service under Hitler, spent in consolidating the Nazi control, Von Papen was evidently well content with his choice. I refer to Document 3375-PS, Page 54 of the English document book, which I put in as Exhibit GB-245. On the 2d of November 1933, speaking at Essen from the same platform as Hitler and Gauleiter Terboven, in the course of the campaign for the Reichstag election and the referendum concerning Germany’s leaving the League of Nations, Von Papen declared:

“Ever since Providence called upon me to become the pioneer of national resurrection and the rebirth of our homeland, I have tried to support with all my strength the work of the National Socialist movement and its Führer; and just as I at the time of taking over the Chancellorship”—that was in 1932—“advocated paving the way to power for the young fighting liberation movement, just as I on January 30 was destined by a gracious fate to put the hands of our Chancellor and Führer into the hand of our beloved Field Marshal, so do I today again feel the obligation to say to the German people and all those who have kept confidence in me:

“The good Lord has blessed Germany by giving her in times of deep distress a leader who will lead her through all distresses and weaknesses, through all crises and moments of danger, with the sure instinct of the statesman into a happy future.”

And then the last sentence of the whole text on Page 55:

“Let us, in this hour, say to the Führer of the new Germany that we believe in him and his work.”

By this time the Cabinet, of which Von Papen was a member and to which he had given all his strength, had abolished the civil liberties, had sanctioned political murder committed in aid of Nazism’s seizure of power, had destroyed all rival political parties, had enacted the basic laws for abolition of the political influence of the federal states, had provided the legislative basis for purging the civil service and judiciary of anti-Nazi elements, and had embarked upon a State policy of persecution of the Jews.

Papen’s words are words of hollow mockery: “The good Lord has blessed Germany . . . .”

The third allegation against the Defendant Papen is that he promoted preparations for war. Knowing as he did the basic program of the Nazi Party, it is inconceivable that as Vice Chancellor for a year and a half he could have been dissociated from the conspirators’ warlike preparations; he, of whom Hitler wrote to Hindenburg on the 10th of April 1933 that, “His collaboration in the Reich Cabinet, to which he is now lending all his energy, is infinitely valuable.”

The fourth allegation against Papen is that he participated in the political planning and preparations for wars of aggression and wars in violation of international treaties. In Papen’s case this allegation is really the story of the Anschluss. His part in that was a preparation for wars of aggression in two senses: First, that the Anschluss was the necessary preliminary step to all the subsequent armed aggressions; second, that, even if it can be contended that the Anschluss was in fact achieved without aggression, it was planned in such a way that it would have been achieved by aggression if that had been necessary.

I need do no more than summarize Papen’s Austrian activities since the whole story of the Anschluss has been described to the Tribunal already, though with the Tribunal’s permission I would like to read again two short passages of a particularly personal nature regarding Papen. But before I deal with Papen’s activities in Austria there is one matter that I feel I ought not to omit to mention to the Tribunal.

On the 18th of June 1934 Papen made his remarkable speech at Marburg University. I do not propose to put it in evidence, nor is it in the document book, because it is a matter of history and in what I say I do not intend to commit myself in regard to the motives and consequences of his speech which are not free from mystery; but I will say this: That as far as concerns the subject matter of Papen’s Marburg speech, it was an outspoken criticism of the Nazis. One must imagine that the Nazis were furiously angry; and although he escaped death in the Blood Purge 12 days later, he was put under arrest for 3 days. Whether this arrest was originally intended to end in execution or whether it was to protect him from the purge as one too valuable to be lost, I do not now inquire. After his release from arrest he not unnaturally resigned the Vice Chancellorship. Now the question that arises—and this is why I mention the matter at this point—is why, after these barbaric events, did he ever go back into the service of the Nazis again? What an opportunity missed! If he had stopped then he might have saved the world much suffering. Suppose that Hitler’s own Vice Chancellor, just released from arrest, had defied the Nazis and told the world the truth. There might never have been a reoccupation of the Rhineland; there might never have been a war. But I must not speculate. The lamentable fact is that he slipped back, he succumbed again to the fascination of Hitler.

After the murder of Chancellor Dollfuss only 3 weeks later, on 25 July 1934, the situation was such as to call for the removal of the German Minister Rieth and for the prompt substitution of a man who was an enthusiast for the Anschluss with Germany, who could be tolerant of Nazi objectives and methods but who could lend an aura of respectability to official German representation in Vienna. This situation is described in the transcript at Pages 478 and 479 (Volume II, Pages 355, 356). Hitler’s reaction to the murder of Dollfuss was immediate. He chose his man as soon as he heard the news. The very next day, the 26th of July, he sent Von Papen a letter of appointment. This is on Page 37 of the English document book; it is document 2799-PS and it has already been judicially noticed by the Tribunal. Mr. Alderman read the letter, and I only wish to refer to the personal remarks toward the end. Hitler in this letter, after reciting his version of the Dollfuss affair and expressing his desire that Austrian-German relations should be brought again into normal and friendly channels, says in the third paragraph:

“For this reason I request you, dear Herr Von Papen, to take over this important task just because you have possessed and continue to possess my most complete and unlimited confidence ever since our collaboration in the Cabinet.”

And the last paragraph of the letter:

“Thanking you again today for all that you once have done for the co-ordination of the Government of the National Revolution and since then, together with us, for Germany . . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: This might be a good time to break off for 10 minutes.