BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q Didn't you explain to Hitler that it was not your fault that von Hindenburg had refused to discuss the question of making Hitler Chancellor in August of 1932-
Q When Hitler had met von Hindenburg?
A No, that is not right. According to the historical documents, Hitler had a talk on the 13th of August with von Hindenburg, and Hindenburg explained to him the reasons why he refused the Chancellorship for Hitler. the 4th of January, when you had that talk with von Hindenburg: "I want you to understand it wasn't my fault that von Hindenburg wasn't ready to discuss the question of you being Chancellor." Didn't you tell him that, that it wasn't your fault, that you thought von Hindenburg would have been ready?
A No, no; that is what Mr. von Schroeder says, but that is not right. Hindenburg and Hitler? If you don't accept what I suggest to you. What do you say? That is a matter of history.
Q No, no. What we want to know--if I may say so, with great respect to the Tribunal--is what you told Hitler on the 4th of January. What did you tell him, if you told him anything, about the position between President von Hindenburg and himself? about the course of the talk, I would have already explained that In the course of this talk I did nothing but call Hitler's attention to the fact of how necessary it was to reach an agreement with Mr. von Schleicher, how necessary it was to enter his government.
In other words, I continued my efforts, which I had made in 1932, to induce the Nazi Party to cooperate.
Hitler that he should go into a Schleicher Cabinet?
A On the contrary. I told him he should enter the Schleicher Cabinet.
Q That is what I put to you. I am suggesting that is entirely wrong. What you suggested to Hitler was that it would be a sound thing for the conservatives and nationalists, whose political views coincided with yours, to join with Hitler in forming a government, that you put to him what actually happened on the 30th of January, you suggested it to him at this meeting. Do you say that is untrue?
A Not one word is true; that is absolutely false. As proof of this, I state the following: Schleicher; that was on the 4th of January, in the afternoon, and he probably received it on the morning of the 5th. However, before Mr. von Schleicher received this letter of mine on the actual content of the talk, the morning papers of the 5th of January started a campaign against me, asserting that this talk with Schroeder contained disloyalty to Schleicher. I returned to Berlin and went to see von Schleicher immediately, and I explaine to him what the content of our talk had actually been. Mr. von Schleicher then published a communique on this subject.
Q But he wasn't the only person, you know, that published a communique. You and Hitler published a communique. suggestion from you was that you and Hitler would form a coalitio with the conservative forces behind you and the National Socialis forces behind Hitler. Now just look at the communique that you and Hitler issued.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: We will give the defendant document 637. My Lord, this is a new document, which will become GB-496 BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:
Q Look at the foot of it, defendant, the end of the document:
"Adolf Hitler and Herr von Papen publish the following combined declaration:
'Against false deductions which are in many cases being circulated in the press regarding Adolf Hitler's meeting with the former Reich Chancellor von Papen, the undersigned declare that the conversation dealt exclusively with the possibility of creating a great national political United Front, and that in particular the opinions of both parties on the Reich Cabinet at present in power were not touched on at all within the framework of this general discussion."
Now, defendant, when you have been reminded of what you published yoursel* is it not correct what I have put to you, that you suggested to Hitler that you should form this coalition of conservatives and nationalists who agreed with you, and the Nazi Party under Hitler?
A No. This communique states two things: In the first place, I observe that the overthrowing the Schleicher cabinet or the replacing of it by another government, as the press asserts, was not discussed at all. Then I state that it is necessary to create "a great national political United Front". Mr. von Schleicher headed the same cabinet that I headed, with the same political forces. So if I celled on Hitler to enter this cabinet, then, that is exactly the same combination as if I had asked him to join my cabinet.
Q Defendant, I am not going to argue with you. If you say that that communique is your way of expressing that you had asked Hitler to take the Nazis into von Schleicher's government and that you had not discussed forming the coalition; if you say that that is what that communique expresses, I have no further questions, and I will passon to another point. I have made my suggestion, and I suggest the communique bears it out.
But now, let us come to the next action of yours. Do you deny that during January you were active in making contact with Hitler, and on Hitler's behalf with President von Hindenburg, in order to bring Hitler into the government? Or do you agree with that?
A That is true, and I will say in what respect. I had two official talks with Hindenburg.
On the 9th of January, when I returned to Berlin, I went from Reich Chancellor von Schleicher to Reich President von Hindenburg. Reich Chancellor von Schleicher, in the opinion that in the Schroeder talks I had been disloyal to him, had asked von Hindenburg not to receive me any more. I reported to von Hindenburg on the actual content of the Schroeder tall and after I had reached an agreement with von Schleicher, Hindenburg was also convinced that the whole thing had a big misunderstanding. talked to Hindenburg about these matters. Chancellery says about it, and see whether he con reinforce your memory. Would you look at Herr Meissner's affidavit, at the second part of Paragraph 6:
(A document was handed to the witness.)
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is 11-A, Page 45, about seven lines from the foot of the page. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: second part, it begins:
"Schleicher first made these suggestions to Hindenburg in the middle of January . . .".
Then the next sentence is:
"In the meantime Papen had returned to Berlin, and through arrangements with Hindenburg's son, had several interviews with the President. When Schleieher renewed his demand for emergency powers, Hindenburg declared that he was unable to give him such a blank check and must reserve for himself decisions on every individual case. Schleieher, for his part, said that under these circumstances, he was unable to stay in government and tended his resignation on the 28th January 1933."
Then, Paragraph 7:
"In the middle of January, when Schleicher was first asking for emergency powers, Hindenburg was not aware of the contact between Papen and Hitler -particularly the meeting which had taken place in the house of the Cologne banker, Kurt von Schroeder. In the second part of January, Papen played an increasingly important role in the house of the Reich President, but in spite of Papen's persuasions, Hindenburg was extremely hesitant -- until the end of January -- to make Hitler Chancellor.
He wanted to have Papen as chancellor once more. Papen finally won him to Hitler with the argument that the representatives of the other right wing parties which could belong to the Government would re*---*ict Hitler's freedom of action. In addition Papen expressed his misgivings that, if the present opportunity should again be missed, a revolt of the National Socialists and civil war were likely."
Is that right?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I make a comment on the affidavit of Meissner? The case is similar to, but not quite the same as, the Schroeder case. The Meissner affidavit was not offered to the court during the proceedings. But during the prosecution's case it came to my knowledge that the Meissner affidavit was to be used. I talked to the prosecution and pointed out that I would not be satisfied with submitting the Meissner affidavit, but would insist on calling Meissner as a witness.
The reason is the same. The personality of the witness Meissner, who had a large part in these affairs, makes extreme caution advisable. The prosecution told me that they would not use the affidavit, and finally told me that they would not call Schroeder as a witness.
I had no reason to call the witness myself. Now I am in a position where in cross examination the affidavit is being employed without my having an opportunity to question the suspected witness Miessner before the court.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, concerning out position with regard to this affidavit, Major Barrington tells me that he did not have it when he presented the individual case against von Papen. I am using it now. If the Tribunal thinks there is sufficient divergence between what the witness accepts and the affidavit to justify it, I have not the slightest objection to Dr. Kubuschok's making application for Miessner to be cross examined.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say to the allegation of Dr. Kubuschok that the prosecution says they were not going to use the affidavit?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: My Lord, I did not say that. Major Barrington who was with me, had no recollection of my saying that at all. Major Barrington certainly never said that. It was never our intention, because it clearly was a most important document for us to use.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The 28th of November. We gave a copy to Dr. Kubuschok.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
Mr. President, may I explain? An obligatory statement by the prosecution not to submit the affidavit and not to call the witness was not given. If an affidavit was used, I said I would call the witness. I asked the prosecution repeatedly, "Are you going to call the witness or not"?
They said, "No".
Then I said, "Then I have no interest in it. We will drop this whole subject. I will not call the witness."
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit seems to have been made a long time ago.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, Mr. Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, it was almost as soon as the Tribunal began. I think that perhaps you ought to use the facts and not use the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am perfectly prepared to do whatever the Tribunal wants. It there is any question and Dr. Kubuschok wants Meissner for cross examination, as far as I am concerned, he can have him. I mean, I am in a slightly different position from that with respect to von Schroeder. As far as fairness is concerned, I want your lordship to understand that certainly none of my staff thought for a moment that the defense understood we were not going to use it, because we always intended to use it. We have a copy of this affidavit to the defense so that there would be ample notice of this affidavit.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes; that was done, and I was grateful.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I run really anxious not to occupy too much of the Tribunal's time.
I would rather go on and put the facts in and save any discussion about it.
A THE PRESIDENT: Very well, do that. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: with President von Hindenburg and then, I think, after the 18th of January, you had meetings with Hitler and after the 22nd of January, you had meetings with the defendant Goering, as he said in his evidence, isn't that so? the 22nd of January. that you began negotiations on the 18th but we won't quarrel about a day or two. The crucial meeting was the meeting which was arranged with Oskar von Hindenburg at the defendant von Ribbentrop's house, wasn't it?
A It was a preliminary talk; it was the first contact with the National Socialists, with Hitler, and with Goering. which lasted for about an hour, at that Meeting at von Ribbentrop's house; isn't that so?
A That is possible. I don't recall. come Chancellor in the new government and that he would bring into the government the defendant Frick as Minister of the Interior and the defendant Goering as Minister without portfolio and he, himself, would head the government as Chancellor?
A No; on the 22nd, we did not reach any agreement. hadn't it? began these talks after it was certain that Mr. von Schleicher could not form a government after the attempt of the split of the Nazi party had failed--that is very important.
Q Now, are you telling the Tribunal that at this time you did what you have agreed you hare done, to bring Hitler into power simply because he was head of the biggest party in the Reichstag or because you thought he was the most suitable man to be Chancellor of Germany at that date; which was your motive?
A My native was very simple. In the situation existing after the 23rd of January, there were only two possibilities, either to violate the constitution which would result in civil war or to form a government headed by Hitler I believe I explained that in great detail to the Court. had these contacts with Hitler. You have been Chancellor Of Germany yourself. At this time, did you think that Hitler personally and Hitler's aims and intentions and personality were a good thing for Germany to have as Chancellor? It is a perfectly simple question. I want a straight answer. Did you think it was a good thing to have Hitler as you knew him then, as Chancellor of Germany?
A Yes- what can I say? The coalition which I endeavored to form on behalf of the president was a coalition of necessity. There is no question of whether or not it was good or bad. We had to accept it.
Q Well, now, just let us see. I think you said that you were not certain that Hitler would eliminate opposition before he came into power. How long did it take you, after Hitler became Chancellor, to find out that his desire was to eliminate all opposition? speech to establish a joint program.
Q That was eighteen months later, on the 17th of June, 1934. Are you telling the Tribunal that it took you eighteen months to realize that Hitler wanted to break down the opposition?
Q Just let me remind you of one or two things. Do you remember Herr Ernst Heilmann who had been the leader of the Social Democrats in the Prussian Diet?
Q He was, I think, for ten years a member of the Prussian Diet with you.
He went into a concentration camp at once and was treated with the most terrible cruelty, wasn't he?
A I learned of that later, here. I did not know it at the time.
Q Are you telling the Tribunal that you didn't know in 1933 that Ernst Heilmann went into a concentration camp? Socialists, had been sent to concentration camps by the Gestapo. That, I knew.
Q Now, answer my question. Here was the leader of the Social Democrats in the Prussian Diet, a man who sat in parliament with you for ten years. Do you say that you didn't know that he had gone to a concentration camp?
A I do not recall, no. I believe I learned of it only here. winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, the author and journalist. Didn't you know that he had gone into a concentration camp?
A I recall Mr. Ossietski only as the publisher of a periodical; otherwise I know nothing about him.
Q You didn't knew that he was the 1936 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, did you?
Q No, but you didn't know he won it later on? Didn't you know that he was put in prison?
Q I thought I might have connected his name with you. Let me take somebody else. Take Dr. Ernst Eckstein who had been a Reichstag Deputy, who was a well-known lawyer from Breslau. Didn't you know that he was put in a concentration camp?
A No, I didn't know Dr. Eckstein, unfortunately.
Q Or Dr. Joachim, the Social Democrat from Berlin. Did you know he was put in a concentration camp?
Q Well, now, apart from individuals, didn't you know that within a few months of Hitler becoming Chancellor, that hundreds, if not thousands, of Social Democrats and Communists went into a concentration camp?
A Thousands?
Q Well, let us say hundreds, if you like. That is the figure defendant Goeringagreed to, so let us take as the inside figure--hundreds of Social Democrats and Communists. Minister Severing put it at fifteen hundred of each; didn't you knew that?
A I recall very exactly from the defendant Goering; he came to the cabinet one day after the headquarters of the Communist party, the Liebknecht house, had been taken by the police. He told the cabinet that he had found a great number of documents which showed to what extent the Communists and other elements were trying to disturb public order and overthrow thenew government.
Q Now will you answer my questions. Didn't you know that hundreds of Social Democrats and Communists had been put in concentration camps?
A No, I didn't knew there were hundreds. I knew that individual leaders had been thrown into concentration camps. Amnesty Decree of the 21st of March was only the sort of thing that had happened before; that was a concretely one-sided amnesty, wasn't it? It was an amnesty to those who had fought in the national revolution, that is, an amnesty for Nazis. It wasn't an amnesty for Communists or Social Democrats or anyone who had been on the other side, was it?
A Quite true, yes. It was an amnesty for the people who had worked against the formation of the government.
Q Now, you knew these things. Well, in your speech at Essen, let us just look at it again, your own account of what youhave done. It is page 54 of document book 11. You just told me that it was true what you have said in that speech--this was in November--what you had tried to support with all your strength the work of the National Socialist movement and its leader and if you will notice, you say later on thatyou were "selected by a gracious fate to put the hand of our Chancellor and Fuehrer into the hand of our beloved Fieldmarshal." By November, 1933; you must have had a very good idea about the way that Hitler, your Chancellor and Fuehrer, was dealing with those who were politically opposed to him. Why were you--you told us your point of view-- why were you saying how proud you were to have supported with all your strength the work of the National Socialist party unless you agreed with it?
opposed to the best of our power within the cabinet. We knew if them, it is true; I personally in many speeches which have not been submitted to the Court here, I referred to them, but as long as this coalition pact was in existence I had to hope that we would put our views through and only for this reason did I assure Hitler of my loyalty so that he, from his point, should be loyal toward us.
Q I just give you the last words. Here, you are appealing in a careful and special appeal to your Catholic fellow citizens and y - say "Let us in this hour say to the Fuehrer of the new Germany that we believe in him and his work." Why did you talk like that when you must have known in November, 1933, that his program was to smash opposition, smash his political opponents, smash the trade unions and put himself in complete control of Germany? Why were you making speeches like that unless you believed and agreed with everything Hitler wanted to do?
A I will tell you. You know that in July of last year, I concluded the concordat and that I received the assurances of Hitler to make religious peace the basis of his policy. The mere the conservative element could be brought into the government the better it could be for the fulfillment of my program.
Q If that is yew answer, we will pass to another point. I think you said today or you said a few moments ago that you be&an to realize what sort of team you were running with when you made the Marburg speech on the 17th of June. Now, please don't think I am being offensive -
THE PRESIDENT: The Russian translation is coding through on the same line, and the French. We will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken)
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for the defendant von Neurath): Mr. President, may I request from the Tribunal that tomorrow and the day after tomorrow my client be absent from the session so that he may complete his own defense?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: your Marburg speech. Was one of your associates a gentleman called Jung?
Q And -- believe me I don't mean it in any offensive way -- Herr Jung had helped you considerably with the composition of the Marburg speech, had he not?
A Mr. Jung quite frequently produced sketches for speeches of mine, and the same applies to the Marburg speech.
Q Yes. He was shot after the 30th of June, wasn't he? whose political views -- I think you would call him a progressive conservative you had great respect and agreement, isn't that so?
Q You have told us about Herr von Bose. He was shot. Herr von Chirski was arrested by two different lots of people, wasn't he, after this occasion?
Q Was Herr von Savigne arrested?
A I can't quite remember. I don't think so.
Q Well, in all -- it doesn't matter about the names -- there were two members of your staff who were shot, and three were arrested, were they not?
A One member of my staff was shot, and two were arrested. Mr. Jung was not a member of my staff. associate of yours. Now -
A (Interposing): He was an associate who, as I said, quite often assisted me when I was very busy by making sketches for speeches, and with whom I exchanged my conservative ideas.
his wife were also shot, and -- I think my recollection is right -- that General von Groenau was shot too, wasn't he? days, and I think your files were taken, were they not?
Q Did this performance shake your faith in the regime?
A My belief in what? I beg your pardon.
Q Did this performance shake your faith in the regime and in Hitler?
A Quite. I explained to the Tribunal yesterday that by this action the pact of the 30th of January had been broken. affirmed your offer on the 2nd of July.
QQuite right; my mistake. Now, do you tell the Tribunal that you reaffirmed your offer of resignation because you had lost your faith in the regime or because of the insult to your own pride because of your being arrested and having your files taken and your secretaries shot? against my own person and my staff, and secondly because by this action the pact of the 30th of January had been broken by Hitler; also because any political cooperation with him had become impossible for me.
Q I see. Well, just look at Document 714, will you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, this will be GB-497. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: you say:
"Yesterday at 10 in the morning I had the honor of informing you verbally of my attitude towards the events of the last days, after my stretch in police custody had been suspended on the 2nd at 9:00 o'clock.
At this time I pointed out to you that I could not possibly take my seat in the Cabinet until my honor and that of my officials had been restored.
"On the 30th of June, five of my co-workers were arrested; one of them was shot. My files have been confiscated, my office sealed, and my private secretary also arrested. This is still the position at the moment.
"A procedure of this kind against the second highest official of the state could only be justified if he and his officials were guilty of complicity in the plot against Fuehrer and state.
"It is in the interests not only of protecting my personal honor, but even more so of protecting the authority and cleanliness of the state that either the guilt should be proved at once or honor restored."
Then you say:
"The events have become known abroad, and for that reason not a single hour should be lost." should be put in the hands of the Prosecutor General or "a communique be published stating that the investigation had provided no evidence of any complicity in the plot, my honor and that of my officials being thus restored.
"If you do not wish to embark upon the latter path, my remaining in the cabinet any longer would be an impossibility."
"I had placed my position at your disposal already on the 18th and 19th of June. I can ask for my dismissal with an even lighter heart today since it appears that the work mutually commenced by us on the 30th of January 1933 now appears to be secured against further revolts. At the same time, I request to be relieved of my position as Commissioner for the Saar.
"I take it that you will make your decision regarding the restoration of my honor within the next few hours.
"I remain loyally devoted to you and to your work for our Germany." appeared to be secured against further revolts?
A I am afraid I didn't understand. work of Hitler now appeared to be secured against further revolt? which had been suppressed. This letter was written a day after I was released from custody, and I had the feeling there had been a revolution and now it was settled. killed?
A I don't think I know that at that moment, no.
Q You just knew that Herr von Bose had been shot?
Q And you knew there wasn't the slightest reason on earth for General von Schleicher, Jung, and Bose being shot, didn't you?
A No, I didn't know the reason. As far as I remember -
Q (Interposing): No, you knew that there was no reason, didn't you? von Bose had been involved in a matter of giving information to the foreign press.
Q I see. So that we may take it that you were speaking with your head and your heart, and with complete confidence and sincerity when you said: "I remain loyally devoted to you and to your work for our Germany," on the 4th of July 1934, is that right?
A Yes. I had to hope that his further work wouldn't lead to any disadvantages for Germany.
Q You needn't go on with the letters. You may take it that I shall deal with them in time, so don't read the others in advance.
As a result of that, you saw Hitler on that day, did you not?
Would you mind just answering my questions. I assure you I will take you through these letters.
You saw Hitler on that day?
Q Yes, but- you saw him after this letter, and didn't you agree with Hitler to remain vice Chancellor until September and that you would then take employment under the Foreign Office?
A I don't believe that, no.
Q Well, if you don't believe that, look at the next letter which is D-715, which becomes GB-496.
This is a letter of the 10th of July, and it begins:
"Our agreement of the 4th of July" -- which is the date of the last letter -- "to the effect that I was to retain my position as Vice Chancellor until September and was then to be employed in the foreign service, was based between us on the following condition: The immediate and complete restoration of my authority and honor, so as to enable to remain in the service of the Reich in whatever capacity."
Now, do you tell the Tribunal that on the 10th of July you didn't know that General von Schleicher and his wife had been killed and General von Groenau had been killed and that Jung as well as Bose had been murdered? You say you didn't know on the 10th of July?
A. I am not denying that by any means, that is that I knew, but as I have already told the Tribunal I had demanded that an investigation regarding all these matters should be conducted so that we might know the reasons for them. self-defense so that all these matters at the time were not at all clear.
Q. But it is correct, of course, as you write here, that you had agreed with Hitler to carry on as vice-chancellor until September and then to be employed in the Foreign Service on this condition, is that right ?
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. It is your own letter you know.
A. Yes, but this letter was written because Hitler had promised me that investigation and a clearing up of the matter and these points which would enable me a restoration of my honor and a clearing up of all the crimes so that I might remain in the service of the Reich but that was never done.
Q. Von Bose and Jung had been working with you in close cooperation and if anyone knew whether they were innocent men or not it was you. Why did you, with that knowledge, agree with Hitler to carry on as Vice-Chancellor and then to enter the Foreign Service ?
A. I have stated that I had resigned. The sentence dealing with my possibly remaining in office is only a supposition. not exercised any government activities.
Q. Just look at the next words in this letter.
"To this end I submitted to you on the 5th of July my proposals for an official statement explaining why the arrest of several officials of my staff had taken place and how von Bose had lost his life and averring the non-participation of all the members of my staff in the SA revolt. This statement requested by me was only partially passed by you and published inasmuch as the release and innocence of von Tschirschky, von Savigny and of my private secretary, Miss Stotzingen, were announced." he would not pass it, he would not clear the people who were working closely with you and yet you had agreed with him, you had agreed with him to continue as Vice-Chancellor and to go into the Foreign Service.
You see what I am putting to you ? I am putting to you quite clearly being restored. You were prepared to serve these murderers so long as your own dignity was put right.
A. Mr. Prosecutor, a better proof for my intentions to separate myself from the regime then my actual resignation cannot exist. If everything had been made clear, if their innocence had been made clear under which my employees and officials were arrested and murdered, then perhaps the possibility of my remaining in the service might exist but not as Vice-Chancellor which position I had resigned from. But you can see from this letter that Hitler made no attempt to give such a declaration.
Q. And as a result of his making no such attempts you wrote an even more fullsome statement of your admiration for his actions. Look at number 716 which will become GB-499.
"Dear Reich Chancellor:
"I thought for a long time over our conversation of yesterday's date, and the statements made to me and in particular what you told me about your intentions regarding your Reichstag speech -- have occupired me constantly in view of the enormous importance of the speech and its special effect on Germany's position in the sphere of foreign politics also. I therefore feel the urge, in fact I feel it to be my duty, to let you know my opinion, as I have frequently done formerly on other occasions.
"You explained to me yesterday that you intend to publicly accept responsibility for everything that happened, including what happened outside the crushing of the SA revolt. Allow me to say how manly and humanly great of you I think this is. The crushing of the revolt and your courageous and firm intervention have met with nothing but recognition throughout the entire world.
"What are, however, at the moment a burden on Germany are solely those events that took place outside your own initiative and without any immediate connection with the revolt, such as the examples you yourself gave me. This has been given expression particularly in the British and American press."
Then, missing out three paragraphs you say:
"Allow me to assure you once again that my person or my position, except for the restoration of my personal honor, do not matter at all, and are only at issue insofar as the events in the Vice-Chancellory on the 30th of June are being regarded by the public as being the consequence of a breach between you and me."
Then, after some more of the same you finish up:
"With unchanged admiration and loyalty --." dignity cleared it did not matter whether your collaborators were shot or the government of which you had been a member had adopted murder as an instrument of policy ? These things did not matter to you so long as you kept your own dignity and the chance of a future job in the Foreign Service.
A. No.
Q. Well, why did you write stuff like that to the head of a gang of murderers who had murdered your collaborators ? Why did you wirte to him:
"The crushing of the revolt and your courageous and firm intervention have met with nothing but recognition throughout the entire world."
Why did you write it ?
A. Because at that moment it was my opinion that in fact there had been a revolt and that Hitler had stopped it; that on the other hand numerous people had been murdered, members of my own office, friends. That was something about which Hitler was to ascertain the truth. that this was an excellent act on his part but not in the sense as was done afterwards by Hitler, by his stating before the Reichstag that these events were right. I understood it to mean that if he himself would assume responsibility for these events that he would clear them to the world, not through a law however and state that they were right without any investigation.
Q. Would you tell the Tribunal that on the 12th of July you thought there was any doubt or any possibility that your friend Jung could be guilty of treason against the Reich or of a plot against Hitler ? Did you believe that for an instant ?