Until 1938 independence.
It will be my object to show that, despite his In the submission of the Prosecution, the key to von Papen's the Nazis when it suited him.
He was not unpractised in duplicity, and viewed with an apparent indifference the contradictions and betrayals which his duplicity inevitably involved.
One of his chief weapons was fraudulent assurance. 2902-PS, which is on page 38 of the English document book, and I put it in as GB Exhibit 233. This is von Papen's own signed statement showing his appointments. It is not in chronological order, but I will read the relevant parts as they come, I need not read the whole of it. Beginning with paragraph 1 the Tribunal will note that this statement is written by Dr. Kubischok, Counsel for von Papen, although it is signed by von Papen himself.
Paragraph 1: "Von Papen many times rejected Hitler's request -
THE PRESIDENT: Don't go too fast. Better wait until they say they have got the documents.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: "Von Papen many times rejected Hitler's request to join the NSDAP. Hitler simply sent him the golden Party badge. In my opinion, legally speaking, he did not thereby become a member of the Party." as having become a member in 1938 will be shown by a document which I shall refer to later.
Going on to paragraph 2: "From 1933 to 1945 von Papen was a member of the Reichstag."
Paragraph 3: "Von Papen was Reichschancellor from the 1st of June, 1932, to the 17th of November, 1932. He carried on the duties of Reichschancellor until his successor took office, until the 2nd of December, 1932."
Paragraph 4: "On the 30th of January, 1933, von Papen was appointed Vice-Chancellor. From the 30th of June, 1934" -- which was the date of the blood purge -- "he ceased to exercise official duties. On that day he was placed under arrest. Immediately after his release on the 3rd of July 1934, he went to the Reichschancellory to hand in his resignation to Hitler." The rest of that paragraph I need not read. It is an argument which concerns the authenticity or otherwise of his signature as it appears in the Reichsgesetzblatt to certain decrees in August, 1934. I am prepared to agree with his contention that his signature on those decrees may not have been correct and may have been a mistake.
He admits holding office only to the 3rd of July, 1934. chancellor, a member of the Reichscabinet.
Going on to paragraph 5: "On the 13th of November, 1933, von Papen became Plenipotentiary for the Saar. This office was terminated under the same circumstances described under paragraph 4."
The rest of the document I need not read. It concerns his appointments to Vienna and Ankara, which are matters of history. He was appointed Minister to Vienna on the 26th of July, 1934, and recalled on the 4th of February, 1938, and he was Ambassador in Ankara from April 1939 until August 1944. his personal influence to promote the accession of the Nazi conspirators to power. From the outset von Papen was well aware of the Nazi program and Nazi methods. There can be no question of his having encouraged the Nazis through ignorance of these facts. The official NSDAP program was open and notorious: it had been published in Mein Kampf for many years; it had been published and republished in the Yearbook of the NSDAP and elsewhere. The Nazis made no secret of their intention to make it a fundamental law of the state. This has been dealt with in full at an earlier stage of the trial. position to understand the Nazi purposes and methods, and, in fact, he publicly acknowledged the Nazi menace. Take, for instance, his Muenster speech on the 28th of August 1932. This is Document 3314-PS, on page 49 of the English document book, and I now put it in as GB Exhibit 234, and I quote two extracts at the top of the page;
"The licentiousness emanating from the appeal of the leader of the National Socialist movement does not comply very well with his claims to governmental power. I do not concede him the right to regard the mere minority following his banner solely as the German nation and treat all our fellow countrymen as free game."
Take also his Muenster speech of the 13th of October, 1932. That is on page 50 of the English document book, Document No. 3317-PS, which I now put in as GB Exhibit 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 own their followers body and soul and which want to put themselves as a party or a movement over and above the whole nation." he had, in 1932, clearly addressed his mind to the inherent lawlessness of the Nazi philosophy. Nevertheless, in his letter to Hitler of the 13th 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 PRESIDENT: Where is this?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: This is in a letter which I shall quote in a few minutes, My Lord, a letter to Hitler of the 13th of November, 1932. He wrote:
"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 are 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 the Party. It then becomes clear that he threw himself, if not wholeheartedly, yet with cool and deliberate calculation, into the Nazi conspiracy. with the Nazi conspiracy. Chancellor rescinded, on the 14th of June, 1932, the decree passed on the 13th of April, 1932, for the dissolution of the Nazi para-military 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 GB-236. It is an extract from the Reichsgesetzblatt, which was an omnibus decree. The relevant passage is in paragraph 29:
"This order comes into operation from the day of announcement. It takes the place of the order of the Reich President for the safeguarding of the state authority."
The date there is a mistake. It should be the 13th of April, 1932.
THE PRESIDENT: Which page of the document is it?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I am sorry, sir; 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 paramilitary organisations under the government of Chancellor Bruening. At the bottom of the page the Tribunal will see the decree -- the relevant parts of the decree of the 13th of April reproduced.
At the beginning of paragraph 1 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 storm detachments SA and the protective detachments SS." with Hitler which is mentioned in a book called "Dates from the History of the NSDAP" by Dr. Hans Voltz, a book published with the authority of the NSDAP. It is already an exhibit, US Exhibit 592. The extract I want to quote is on page 59 of the document book, and it is Document No.3463-PS. I quote an extract from page 41 of the little book:
"28th of May" -- that was in 1933, of course. "In view of the imminent fall of Bruening, 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." 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. 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. accomplished his famous coup d'etat in Prussia which removed the BraunSevering 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 GB 237. It is on page 65 of the document book. This document is, I think, a semi biography on a series on 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, which I shall come to later. 65 of the document book, the last four or five lines at the bottom of the page, was 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 and strengthened enormously the NSDAP, so that von Papen offered to the leader of the now stronger party his participation in the government as Vice-Chancellor Adolf Hitler rejected this offer on the 13th of August. 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. but it is a mere catalog of events. Perhaps Your Lordship would allow me to return to it at an appropriate time or convenient time. Hitler, they involved an exchange of letters in which von Papen wrote to Hitler, on the 13th of November, 1932. That letter is Document D-633, on page 68 of the English document book, and I now put it in as GB 238. I propose to read a part of this letter, because it shows the positive effort 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 all nationalist elements to be concentrated anew. The Reich President has instructed me to find out by conversations with the leaders of the individual parties concerned whether and how far they will be prepared to support the carrying out of the political and economic program on which the Reich Government has embarked.
In spite of the National Socialist press calling it a naive attempt for Reichschancellor von Papen to confer with the people concerned in the nationalist concentration and that there can only be one answer, namely, no negotiations with Papen, I should consider it neglecting my duties, and I would be unable to justify it to my own conscience, if I did not approach you in this matter. I am quit 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 reason for the decision of August the 13th. I need not assure you again that I myself do not come into this matter at all. All the same, I feel that the leader of so great a national movement, the merits of which for people and country I have, always recognized, in spite of necessary criticisms, should not refuse to enter into discussions on the situation and the decisions required with that German politician who at present bears the full responsibility. We must attempt to forget the bitterness of the elections and to place the welfare of the country which we, both of us, serve, above all other considerations."
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. house of von Schroeder and Ribbentrop, culminating in von Schleicher being succeeded by Hitler as Reichschancellor 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 in 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 made later 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 Cabint was formed on the 30th January, 1933 as a government of national solidarity. In this cabinet von Papen held the office of Vice-Chancellor and Reich Kommisar 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 GB 130. I now wish to introduce into evidence an affidavit by von Schroeder, but I understand that Doctor Kubuschok wishes to take an objection to this. Perhaps before Doctor Jubuschok takes his objection it might help if I said, quite openly, that Schroeder is now in custody, and according to my informaation heis at Frankfurt; so that physically he undoubtedly could be called. 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. KUBUSCHOK: 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 rules of ordinary court procedure should be modified to some extent. What is most important therefore is the speediness of the trial.
But in this case the reading of the affidavit cannot be approved for that reason. December in the matter of Schuschnigg's affidavit. Schroeder is in the vicinity. Schroeder was apparently brought to the neighbourhood of Nurnberg for the purposes of this trial. The affidavit was taken down on 5 December. He could be brought here at any time. The reading of the affidavit would have this consequence: that I would have to rely on it and on several other witnesses. Schroeder describes a series of facts in his affidavit, which is of such an extent as to be definitive, but which, however, if it is once read into the testimony of the trial, must also be discussed by the defense in the pursuance of their duty. fallaciously. For this reason misunderstandings would be brought up in the trial which would be obviated by the hearing of a witness. I believe, therefore, that the testimony of a witness should be the only way in which Schroeder's testimony is submitted to the Tribunal, since otherwise a large number of witnesses will have to be called along with the reading of Schroeder's affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to make any observation?
MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, I do, my Lord. 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?
MR. BARRINGTON: This is so, My Lord, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: So that the difference between him and Schuschnigg in that regard was very considerable.
MR. 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: (interposing): Which day was this?
MR. BARRINGTON: This was the 28th of November, My Lord. It is on page 473 of the transcript, the Messersmith affidavit, and 523 is the Schuschnigg affidavit:
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 cast of such an important witness, the principle of direct evidence must be adjered 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?
MR. BARRINGTON: Mr Lord, I haven't got that reference.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you call this witness?
MR. BARRINGTON: I say, quite frankly, I was coming on to that. I don't make any secret of the fact that for obvious reasons the Prosecution wouldn't desire to call him as a witness, and I put this affidavit forward as an admission by a co-conspirator. I admit that it is not an admission made in pursuance of the conspiracy, but I submit that the Tribunal, not being bound by technical rules of evidence, may take this.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
MR. BARRINGTON: I submit that as the Tribunal is not bound by technical rules of evidence, this affidavit may be accpeted 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.
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.
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 him questions in the examination, 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.
(Whereupon at 1250 hours the Court adjourned to 1400 hours).
Military Tribunal, in the matter of: The
DR. HORN (Counsel for Defendant Ribbentrop): In the place of Dr. von Rorhscheidt, defense counsel for 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 accused Hess has asked me to notify the Tribunal that from now on until the end of the trial, he will take advantage of his right under the statute to defend himself. The reason that he wants to do it for the whole length of the trial is to be found in the fact that his counsel will not be kept 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. 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.
MR. BARRINGTON: My Lord, I will not introduce this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr. Barrington.
MR. 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 asked 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 that point the defendant von Papen was completely committed to going along with the Nazi Party, and with his eyes open and of hiw own initiative he had helped materially to bring them into power. ticipated 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. has been fully dealt with earlier in this trial. The high position of von Papen must have associated him closely and directly with such legislation. the coordination 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. 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 of the 22nd of November, afternoon session. In all political cases it abolished fundamental rights, including the right of appeal, which had previously characterized the administration of German criminal justice. 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.
MR. BARRINGTON: If your Lordship pleases, I will ask you to take judicial notice of that decree.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. 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. 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 politican 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 of the transcript of the 22nd of November in the afternoon session, and page 257. In this connection I refer the Tribunal to Document 351-PS, which is on Page 1 of the document book. It is US Exhibit 378, and it is the minutes of Hitler's first cabinet meeting on the 30th of January 1933, and I 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 Reichs Chancellor and the Reich Kommissar for the State of Prussia suggested that the Reich Chancellor in an interview should state at the earliest opportunity that the rumors about the danger of inflation and the rumors about the danger to the rights of civil servants are untrue." at the best he emphasizes the indifference with which von Papen later saw the civil servants betrayed. the Reich. These again have been dealt with earlier in the Trial, page 29 of the transcript of 22 November, afternoon session. 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 setp, as well as the role played by Papen, is reflected in the exchange of letters between Hindenburg, von Papen, in his capacity as Reich Commissar for Prussia, and Hitler, in connection with the recall of the Reich Commissar and the appointment of Goering to the position of Minister President of Prussia.
I refer to Document 3557-PS, which is on Page 52 of the English document book, and I now put it in as GB-239. to Hitler, and I read from the document:
"With the draft of the law for the coordination 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 by the Reich Government, which I headed at the time, is now crowned by this new interlocking of the Reich. You, Herr Reich Chancellor, will now, as once Bismarck, be able to coordinate in all points the policy of the greatest of German states with that of the Reich. Now that the new law enables you to appoint a Prussian Prime Minister, I ask you to inform the Reich President that I return to his hands my post of Reich Commissar for Prussia." transmitting this resignation. Hitler wrote:
"Vice-chancellor von Papen has sent a letter to me which I enclose for your information. Herr von Papen already informed me within the last few days that he agreed with Minister Goering 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 coordination of policy in the Reich and the States.
"On the eve of the day when the new law on the institution of Reich governors was adopted, Herr von Papen considered this aim as having been attained and he requested of me to undertake the appointment of the Prussian Prime Minister, when at the same time he would offer his full time services in the Reich Government.
"Herr von Papen, in accepting the commission 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 the Reich and the States. His collaboration in the Reich cabinet, for which he now offers all his strength, 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."
von Papen had warned the electorate at Stuttgart against abolishing federalism. document book, and which I now introduce as GB-240, about the middle of the third paragraph. This is an extract from von Papen's speech at Stuttgart. He said:
"In addition, federalism will protect us from centralism, that organizational form which focuses all living strength of a nation like a burning mirror on to one point. No nation is less adaptable to being governed centralistically than the German nation." as Chancellor, visited Munich. The Frankfurter Zeitung of the 12th of October 1932, commented on his policy. I refer to Document 3318-PS on page 15 of the English document book, which I introduce as GB-241. The Frankfurter Zeitung commented:
"Von Papen claimed that it had been his 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 unitarianism."
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 and 2940.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you say about 2940?
MR. BARRINGTON: Page 2940 of the transcript.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.
MR. BARRINGTON: Only four 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, who had expressed their anxiety to the German Government about the situation.
His assurance -- which I now put in as Document D-635, and it will be 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."
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for von Papen): The article in the New York Times goes back to a telegram of the accused 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: Jewish boycott, which Goebbels then announced for the first of April. The accused von Papen could, therefore, on the 25th of March, not point out these smaller incidents as he does in the telegram. In any case, the conclusion of the indictment follows that the contents of the telegram were a lie.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Barrington, have you got the original of that?
MR. BARRINGTON: The original is here, My Lord, yes. It is quite correct that there are some figures at the top, which, though I hadn't 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?
MR. 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 accused 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 the counsel for prosecution say whether he persists in his allegation or whether he withdraws it?
MR. BARRINGTON: I will say this. Subject to a checking up of 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.
MR. 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 antiJewish, 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. 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, which I now introduce as GB-243. This is the last document in the German document book. I will read at Paragraph 4 in the English text. I think it is paragraph 5 in the German text. It begins:
"The following" -- 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 Freedom Union, the offer, to make available to the Freedom Union every desired amount from the Czech Government, which he would need for the strengthening of his fight against the Heimwehr.