BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Please, Witness, describe the coming about of the Enabling Act of the 23rd of March 1933, the Ermaechtigungsgesetz.
A. The Enabling Act was born out of necessity, the necessity to set up a peaceful era for the carrying out of economic measures. First of all, there were negotiations with the Center Partywhich had taken place,so that we could bring about a period of truce in Parliament, a period of truce to last one year. However, these negotiations had been in vain and were unsuccessful. Therefore, it was necessary to have this law, a law which had some parallels in the past. conspirary. The Prosecution has accused me of this. Therefore, I should like to emphasize that I tried to exert a certain amount of control in that I tried to maintain the veto power of the Reichspresident. From the cabinet records of the 15th of March, you can see that the State Secretary Meissner did not consider the collaboration of the Reichspresident as imperative.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like torefer to Document No. 25, which is identical with USA Exhibit 578. I should like to point out just what view von Papen held in this cabinet discussion, and I should also like to call your attention to the view held by State Secretary Meissner, State Secretary of the minority cabinet, with President Hindenburg and their excellent collaborators. ment 23 for this reason, that in the enumeration of the emergency decrees, we can see that in the state of emergency which obtained then, there was no possibility to govern with actual Reich Party laws, and the Enabling Act was a substitute for these emergency measures which repeatedly became necessary.
I should like to make a correction. The attitude taken by State Secretary Meissner is contained in Document 91, USA Exhibit 578. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. On the 21st of March 1933, there was a decree of amnesty which the Prosecution has referred to. Will you please comment.
A. The Prosecution is calling this law the sanction of political murder.
I should like to make the following comments. It was not issued by the Cabinet, and this was the most natural conclusion for a revolutionary period which had lasted seven weeks. There can be found in the past many, many parallels for this decree of amnesty and period of amnesty, for example, the law of the 21st of July 1922. The young German Republic, in its amnesty measures, is also concerned with murder.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to refer you to Document 28, page 99 of Volume 1. This contains the law of the 21st of July, 1922, which concluded the period of state unrest which obtained in the years 1920 and 1921.
I should also like to refer you to page 100 of this Document No. 28 which contains the Amnesty Act of 1932 which I have mentioned. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. On the 23rd of March, the law dealing with the special courts was issued. What can you say in that connection?
A. These special laws or special courts were not anything new. I, personally, as Chancellor of the Reich, on the 9th of August 1932, issued a law like that, and I was basing my act on a directive of the cabinet Bruening which was dated the 6th of October 1931. In revolutionary periods, punishable acts must be brought to speedy trial.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to point to Document 27, page 89 of Document Book No. 1, and I should like to call your attention especially to the introduction preceding paragraph 1, from which we see that these emergency measures were based on the Bruening Ordinance of 1931. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. On the first of April 1933, the Jewish boycott was carried through. This was a measure taken by the government. Did you participate in any way?
A. The assertion by Dr. Goebbels that the cabinet had acquiesced in this decree was completely wrong. On the contrary, at the suggestion of the cabinet Hitler had made a public announcement of the 10th and 12th of March, a statement which my attorney will submit York on the 25th, calls it a shite lie of the greatest magnitude.
In this case, I can only say that this assertion and accusation is completely unfounded. The public statements made by Hitler gave us, and had to rive us, the assurance that such excesses could no longer take place. In that belief, and in good faith, I sent my telegram. It would have been inconceivable if on the 25th, I should send a telegram to New York -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Dr. Kubuschok, I thought your question was: Did the defendant participate in these measures? I don't know what his answer is. He has been answering fro some minutes, but I don't know what the answer is.
The question was: Did you participate? And I don't know what he has answered.
THE WITNESS: I said the assertion by Goebbels that the Government agreed to this Jewish boycott was a lie.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not answer directly, did you or did you not participate?
THE WITNESS: We did not participate.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I would like to refer to Document 33, page 113, a statement by Hitler on the 10th of March, and I should like to refer to the lost two lines:
"The annoying of individuals, the obstruction of automobiles, or the disturbance of business life must absolutely be discontinued". to the last paragraph of the declaration of Hitler of the 12th of March:
"Whoever, from now on, attempts by individual action t* bring disturbances into our administrative or business life, acts willingly against the national government".
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, I didn't 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. to the New York Times, let him do so. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Will you please go back to this question regarding the New York Times.
A. I can only add, my Lord, that it would have been quite inconceivable and inexplicable if, on the 25th of April, I had sent this telegram to New York with the knowledge that three or four days afterwards a new Jewish boycott would once more arise.
That would have been quite nonsensical. day Mr. von Neurath sent quite a similar wire to Cardinal O'Connel.
Q. Please give us a description of your attitude to the Jewish problem.
A. The view I hold in regard to the Jewish problem can be briefly delineated. In my life I have always held the view which is expected by the Catholic Church of its members. My attitude to the question of race, in so far as it refers to National Socialist doctrine, I laid down in a speech in Gleiwitz in the year 1934, and I made my views known to the public and to the entire world. My attorney will submit that document. basic attitude toward the Jewish problem, was the question of a certain estrangement or the overwhelming influence of the Jewish element in these spheres which influence the public opinion of the people, such as the press, literature, theater, movies, and especially the legal system. unhealthy and that it would have to be corrected in some way, but as I said, we had nothing whatever to do with the racial question.
Dr. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to refer to Document 16, page 68, in which will be found an extract from the speech made in the year 1934 at Gl*iwitz. I quote -- and von Papen is speaking here:
"There are certainly no objections against race research and eugenics which endeavour to maintain the peculiarity of a nation as pure as possible, and at the same time to awaken a taste for nationality.
This love for one's own race will never degenerate into hatred towards other nations and races.
This is decisive and this *ug*nics must never be brought into conflict with Christianity, for race and Christianity are not contradictions but only difference orders. It was Christianity which first made of the German tribes a German nation and certainly it is not necessary first to create a new Nordic Germanic religion in order to be able to give a testimony to our nationalism."
second topic that the defendant has just mentioned, that is on page 103, excerpt dealing with the 4th of July, from the diary of Mr. Dodd.
I should also like to refer to document 35, page 115. There you shall find an article from the "Voelkischer Beobachter", dated 19 August, 1932. The heading of that article is:
"The Papen Government Inscribed the Protection of Jews on its Banner."
THE PRESIDENT: That was August, 1932? Where is it?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 35, page 115. It is the last page in the document book, my lord.
I should like to read the heading of this article found in the "Voelkischer Beobachter", dated 19 August, 1932.
"The Papen Government Inscribed the Protection of Jews on its Banner."
This report deals with the statement of Mr. Kareski from Berlin, as a representative of the Jewish People's Party. Kareski was the director of the Synagogue in Berlin. At that time he stated and I should like to quote the last paragraph of this article:
"Fortunately, he said, 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." BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: dealing with Jews and exceptions which apply. Did you do anything with reference to the fact that these exceptions, as they were originally planned, Were much more extensive and restricted as set down in the law?
A May I just mention one thing? believe you forgot to tell the High Tribunal about and to submit to them the document 33, a document itself with the German, legal system. civil servants, I agree with this law only insofar as Jewish civil servants who were appointed after the year 1918 were concerned with this law and would fall under its regulations.
from the east, especially from Poland, a country which was anti-semitic at the time, an immigration from Poland into Germany, an immigration which started after the war. be concerned with this law or fall under it for I always held the view that a German, no matter what his antecedents, a German who had done his duty to his country in the war, should not be restricted in any way in his rights.
Q I should like to refer to document 33, page 115. It is a report eminating from the Ministry of Justice, from which we conclude that at the issuing of the civil servants' regulation there were more than three thousand Jews who were attorneys -- there were 3,515 Jews and as was just mentioned and because of the mitigating circumstances described by the witness, 735 ex-service men were excluded and also some others, people who had been admitted to the bar before 1918. In all 2,158 Jewish attorneys were admitted. There remained 2,158 Jewish attorneys whereas 523 had to resign from office.
A I believe that this was a completely normal happening. National Socialists, as one of the partners in the coalition government and since they controlled more than fifty per cent of the German vote, felt they should have an part in the filling of official posts. which they had carried on for years, had warred on the so-called "B*nzentum" system and we could not predict the fact that later on they would revert to the same mistake.
THE PRESIDENT: Would this be a convenient time to adjourn?
(A recess was taker.)
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: servants' law. This law in its points which we have discussed was to a certain degree based on the trends of thoughts of the NSDAP. What was the reason that you in these points which were now limited made certain concessions? servants' law, we were creating something basic. I did not anticipate nor could I guess that the Party would later, during later years, introduce new laws again and again and in that manner, the civil service would be totally destroyed.
Q What was your attitude towards the dissolving of the parties? about as amatter of force. Hitler had demanded four years for the the reforms which we intended. The document 26 will show that I had requested Hitler to create a new basic state law and in his speech of the 23rd of March, Hitler did in fact promise that. In that speech, he was talking about a reformed constitution composed through the channels provided for in the constitution. That reform in my opinion, would have given us in a revolutionary way a new and better founded democratic and parliamentary reform. Apart from that, I must say that during the temporary application of the one-party system, I did not see any danger. We had excellent examples for it in ether states. Take Turkey and Portugal, for instance, where this one-party system was functioning excellently. Finally, I should like to point out that in my speech at Marburg on the 17th of June 1934. I referred,to that development and criticized it, saying that one could only regard it as an intermediary state which would have to be terminated by a reconstructed constitution. Please, will you state your views regarding that question. the prosecution and they have accused me of twofold lack of truth or cheating. The prosecution have alleged with reference to the Federalist developments in Germany, that I had changed my mind from the point of view which I had represented in 1932 to another one which I had adopted in 1933; but, then, even if I had then changed my mind in that respect during that year, I still cannot see why the problem of a Federal or central government should be a crime within thisCharter.
Apart from that, I haven't changed my mind at all. The things I said in 1932 were these: I recognized the advantages of a Federal system with respect to Germany and I hoped to maintain it but I always wished even in 1932, that there would be joint aims in the bigger political line in Germany; that for a Federal country was a matter of course, namely, that it would be run on unified principles and that was the only thing I was concerned with. That, also, i s the problem of my intervention in Prussia on the 20th of July. If you know the history of Germany, then you will know that Bismarck had overcome that same difficulty by combining the office of the Reichschancellor with the office of the Prussian Prime Minister. If therefire, now, in 1933, we appointed governors in the countries, then that was merely meant to achieve it, that they were to take care of bringing about unified political command. Apart from that, the privileges of the countries remained without intervention. They had their own independent financial system and their own legislation, their own Ministry of Culture and their own parliaments.
Q With regard to this governors' law, I draw your attention to document 31, particularly page 111 of that document and I quote: "Only after the activity of the defendant von Papen in 1935, there had been a further Reich Governors' law which transferred the authority." Now, for what reasons did you on the 7th of April 1933 resign as Prime Minister of Prussia? prosecution and the letter shows the reasons for my resignation. In Prussia-and that I had already stated -- in Prussia I had already carried out the coordination of political aims in July. The Reich Governor law enabled the Reichschancellor either to be Prime Minister of Prussiahimself or to nominate a substitute. For th at reason, my task in Prussia had been completed. Apart from that, I should like to draw your attention to the following point: The elections of March 5th had brought aboutin the Prussian Parliament, too, a strong majority for National Socialists. The Prussian Parliament met and desired, of course that a National Socialist should become Prime Minister of Prussia and those are the reasons for which I resigned. Catholic church had been particularly suitable to consolidate the regime as far as the churches were concerned. We must discuss your attitude regarding this church political problem and I want you to describe the church political situation in Germany at that time?
concerned, the most serious point brought up by the prosecution -- the accusation that as a Catholic am supposed to have cooperated to contribute to this conspiracy against world peace. I should like to have permission, therefore, that with a few brief words I may refer to my attitude in the church question. The Catholics in Germany had organized themselves within the central political party. Before 1918, the central party had always established the balance between the left and the right political wings. After the war, that picture altered entirely.
We now find the Center Party mostly in a coalition with the Left. In Prussia, this state of affairs was maintained during all the years from 1918 until 1932 and became a permanent institution. Undeniably the Center Party during the years after the collapse had manymerits regarding the maintenance of the life of the state, but the coalition with the Social Democrats, and in particular as far as the church-political sector was concerned -- had made it impossible for the Center Party to collaborate with the Right. Regarding the important political and personnel political questions, the Center Party there had advocated a policy of compromise, which in turn was achieved by making concessions regarding church politics. That this state of affairs -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, to what is this all relevant?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Prosecution have alleged that Papen, as a prominent Catholic, used that position to consolidate the Nazi regime, that he had worked for two masters, and that this was becoming particularly marked and was throwing light on his character. making now the details of his actions in the church-political sector, the attitude he adopted, and since he was a member of the Center Party, he wants to prove that, as he left it, it was necessary for him to underline the split which developed between him and the leadership of the party.
THE PRESIDENT: Why is it necessary to go into this extreme detail? Surely the thing that he wants to show is that he was not assisting the Nazi Party. He was undoubtedly a Catholic, and he wants to show that he was not assisting the Nazi Party. He does not want to go into all of these details about Catholic influences and his part in Catholic influences.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, I have already finished, but, Mr. President, quite generally, with reference to the case of Papen, I should like to say that the difficulties are due to the fact that we are trying to prove that right from the beginning he adhered to principles. It is essential in this connection that the conditions at a certain period should be elucidated, and we are not very far from the point where we can leave the internal political circumstances. The other subjects that I shall come to will be very much briefer, but I do think that for the sake of completeness and for the purpose of painting the picture of the personality of the defendant, certain details will have to be gone into, in which connection we shall be anxious to dispense with any avoidable and superfluous details.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, we are perfectly well aware that the case of every one of these twenty-one defendants is different from the others. We are perfectly aware of that, but what we desire is that their cases should be put forward fairly but without unnecessary and burdensome detail. They hope that you will try to confine the defendant to the really essential matters will you go on?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Very well, Mr. President. We shall do our best. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q Please, will you continue? within the party, in favor of using conservative forces, got me the reputation of being a bad Catholic. Something that a non-German judge can not possibly know is that in those years a Catholic who was not a member of the Center Party but who belonged to the Right wing parties was regarded as a bad and inferior Catholic, and this is the thing that I always fought against.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In his official statement of 4 June 1932, von Papen referred to the fact that the entire public life in Germany in those days had to be regarded as the outcome of the previous coalition policy in Prussia. In that connection I refer you to Document 1, Page 2, and I quote the last part of the first long paragraph:
"The disintegration of atheistic-marxist thoughts have already too deeply invaded all the cultural fields of public life, because the Christian forces of the State were all too easily ready for compromises. The purity of public life cannot be maintained or re-established by way of compromises for the sake of parity. A clear decision must be made as to what forces are willing to help reconstruct the new Germany on the basis of the unchangeable principles of the Christian ideology."
I also refer to Document No. 37 on Page 119, where in a speech at Munich on 1 March 1933 the witness refers to the points of view which he has just now mentioned.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q Mr. Witness, did you think that the position of the churches was secure in the new government, and what did you do in that respect? regard to this problem, and he did, and he did it in a positive manner. In the preamble to my speeches held in those days, there is the remark that it was the first and most important task that there should be corrections of the Nazi program with reference to the religious problem, because that was a prerequisite for a united front of the two Christian confessions in that coalition. guard it, by giving it a certain foreign political meaning through the Concordat.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In this connection, I refer to Document 37 on page 119 and 120. It contains extracts from several speeches delivered by the witness, and I draw your attention to Volume 1, page 38, and I shall begin about one-third from the beginning of page 119. It was a speech made at Dortmund in February 1933. The defendant von Papen said -
THE PRESIDENT: We have that document before us.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 37, page 119.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have got that, yes. All I was suggesting was that it was sufficient to refer us to the document. As a matter of fact, you have already got to the time when he resigned his post as Prime Minister of Prussia in 1934, and now you are going back to 1933.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: He retired, in Prussia, in 1033. At any rate, I shall refer to the speeches which are contained in that document, and I should like to draw your attention to page 120.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he resign in 1033 or 1934?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 1933. of the Reich Government of the 1st of February, 1933. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. How was that agreement achieved?
A. I shall reiterate. I regarded a Christian basis for the Reich as an absolute necessity with which to safeguard it. For that reason, I suggested to Hitler, in April of 1933, that the rights of the churches should be safeguarded in a concordate; this concordate with reference to the Protestant Churches. Although there was a certain amount of objection in the Party, Hitler agreed, and thus the concordat was concluded. concordat was supposed to have been a maneuver of deception. Perhaps I may point out in this connection, the fact that those man with whom I signed this concordat--namely, Secretary of State Pacelli, who is now the reigning Pope, as well as Monseigneur Kaas, who was the Chairman of the Central Party for a number of years--had known Germany personally for thirteen years. If these two men were agreeable to concluding a concordat, then one could certainly not say that this was a maneuver of deception.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer now to document 39, at page 121. should like to read. After the conclusion of the concordat, Hitler published a decree, and that decree is worded as follows--I refer to the middle of page 122: "I therefore order:
"1. The dissolution of all Catholic organizations which are recognized by the present treaty and the dissolution of which took place without directions from the Government is to be rescinded at once.
"2. Any measures of coercion against members of the clergy and other leaders of those Catholic organizations are to cease.
A renewal of such measures is prohibited in the future, and will be punished according to prevailing laws". a change of mind on Hitler's part, presumably due to the influence coming from his immediate entourage. addressed to the Bishop of Trier, which appears on the same page. same problem. It is the affidavit of Baron von Twickel, and it is to take the place of an a ffidavit which was meant to be presented and which was to have been signed by the late Cardinal von Galen. The question had already been discussed with von Galen, but before he had a chance to put this in writing, he died. The person who discussed the question with him, Freiherr von Twickel, has now stated the details in his affidavit, document 43, on page 127. 139. This is an affirmation, in lieu of oath, from the Benedictine Abbey at Gruessau, signed by Friedrich Albert Schmitt, who has been the religious advisor to the defendant for a number of years. In the last but one paragraph on page 139, he discusses the question of the concordat, and states as follows:
"Herr von Papen was deeply upset by the illegal attitude adopted by the German Government, which appeared soon after the signing of the concordat. He also discussed with me, in detail, his great worries in this respect, as well as pondering ways and means of fighting against these violations. I can also testify, from my own personal experience, that he personally worked actively in the interests of the church for the loyal observance of the concordat".
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Mr. Witness, did you adopt any measures, apart from view were taken care of?
A. Yes. On the 15th of June, 1933, I created an organ ization in Berlin which we called the "Cross and Eagle". A therein.
This working cooperative of Catholic Germans had the working cooperative of Catholic Germans, you yourself had violated the concordat.
What can you say about that? been described by the Prosecution as "The characteristic development of the church policy of a conspirator, and Papen's participation in it." of the concordat by my own person, is a tremendous accusation. It is connected with the dissilution of that working cooperative which I have just mentioned. The documents show that this working cooperative had already been aimed at on to the occasion of the Roehm revolt, on the 30th of June. 1934, and that its later dissolution, through me, was merely a formal affair. This was a political, working cooperative which never enjoyed the protection of the concordat.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I wish to refer to document number 45, on page 129. It is an exchange of telgrams between Hitler and Hindenburg regarding the pacifying action for the Protestant Church. to in document 74, on pages 130 to 132. This document contains an affidavitI beg your pardon; that has been erroneously quoted. I refer to document 47, at page 130, which is an affidavit from the Manager of the Industrial Association of Catholic Germans, Roderich Count Thun. It deals with the dissilution at page 131, and I quote the second paragraph:
"On the 30th of June, 1934, the Office of the Industrial Association of Catholic Germans was occupied by the Gestapo.
The files were confiscated and taken away. I myself was arrested." other than a declaration is referred to in a statement in the last paragraph of Page 131:
"Even after my release which was effected after a time, the confiscated files were not returned. In view of the attitude taken up by the Party offices, a revival of or any further activity on the part of the organization could not be considered. Furthermore, any further practical activity of the 'industrial Association of Catholic Germans' could no longer be possible, as the only person who could undertake the current interventions, Herr von Papen, having moved to Vienna, was out of the picture. The only question which remained for the management was how to terminate its activities officially. In so doing, it had to be taken into consideration that in the event of an official compulsory dissolution, the large number of Catholics, who had distinguished themselves through their work for the organization, would accordingly be persecuted. In order to prevent this, the dissolution was pronounced by the management of the Industrial Association of Catholic Germans."
Then I quote the last sentence:
"In order to do everything possible to maintain Catholic interests, they did not neglect to point out again in this pronouncement that official authorities, above all, Hitler himself, had solemnly vowed to protect Christian and ecclesiastical interests."
THE PRESIDENT: W ill you remind me of the date when the defendant von Papen moved to Vienna?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On the 15th of August, 1934, he went to Vienna. He was appointed at the end of July, 1934. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: the Condordates, and that Hitler's assurances were not kept. How can you explain Hitler's behavior in this respect?
keep his religious assurances, but that the radical elements in his party did not wish it, and that most of all it was due to Goebbels' and Bormann's influence, who again and again would urge Hitler to violate the interests of the church political sector.
I often and repeatedly spoke to Hitler and objected to these violations. And in my speech at Marburg I branded it publicly. I stated at Marburg: "How can we fulfill our historic mission in Europe if we ourselves erase ourselves from the list of Christian peoples?"
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I draw your attention to Document No. 85 on Page 169, and beg you to take judicial notice of it. It is an affidavit of Dr. Glasebock, the former leader of the Front of Conservative Catholics in Germany. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Mr. Witness, on the 14th of March, 1937, Pope Pious XI spoke about his anxiety and objected solemnly to the violations of this Concordate. The prosecution said that if you had meant to be serious with the assurances contained in that concordate, then you would know, at that point, have handed in your official resignation. What do you have to say to that?
A What could I have improved by taking such action? Apart from the Austrian matters, I had no longer any political influnce on Hitler. And to leave my post in Austria was prohibited me by my own conviction thatin critical times particularly asthey were in 1937, it was anardent necessity for me to remain at work.
Later on, we shall see that, from the developments. But apart from that, may I say that if the Prosecution assumes that I on the basis of that certainly perfectly justified protest from the Pope, should have left my post, then I must ask, what did thechurch do? They did not recall the Papal Nuncius. And Bishop Berning, who was looking afterthe Catholic interests in the state council, did not leave that state council, either. It was all perfectly true, because wehad all hoped at the time that there would be interior changes.
Q I draw your attention to Document 48 on page 133. The document has already been submitted as USA Exhibit 356. It is pay 133 in my document book. It is the allocution of His Holiness Pope Pius XII to the Sacred College on the 2nd of June, 1945, and I quote: