There wewere handed over without any comment and received the order from the SS men there, on duty, to go ever and sit on a bench against the wall, in the passage. We were then forbidden to talk to each other and so we spent a few hours sitting on the bench. It would go too far to give further details about the events which took place during this time. I will therefore only limit myself to the case of the she ting of a well-known person publicly stated to have committed suicide.
"The person was brought in and taken past us into a cell running parallel to our corridor, escorted by three SS men; the leader of the detachment was an SS Sturmhauptfuehrer, short, dark, and with an army pistol in his hands. I heard the command guard the door'. The door from our corridor to the other was shut. Five shots were fired and immediately after the shots, the Sturmhauptfuehrer came out of the door with the still smoking pistol in his hand, saying under his breath, 'that swine is finished.' Feverish excitement reigned round about; one heard frightened calls and shrieks from the cells. One of the SS men on duty, a comparative youngster, was so excited that he apparently forgot the situation as a whole and informed me, illustrating with his fingers, that the person concerned had been liquidated through three shots in the temple and two in the back of the head." BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: von Tschirschky had given you that report, hadn't you? read, who was the well-known person who was supposed to have committed suicide and who was shot with three shots in the temple and two in the back of the head. Who was it? for several months afterwards and he never told you who this was? Of course, I may have forgotten it, it is quite possible. In any event one of the -
Q Just pause. You say you might have forgotten. Do you mean that dreadful occurrences like this were so familiar to you that you cannot remember the account of the actual shooting of a supposed suicide who was a prominent person?
Have another think. Cannot you tellthe Tribunal who this unfortunate man was?
A If I do recall I would be glad to tell you. I have no reason to conceal this information. Hitler. You believed, did you not, that Herr von Tschirschky was telling the truth? You said so. You believed he was telling the truth, didn't you?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is page 86 of the English version and defendant, it is 58 of the German book, page 58.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, are you going to investigate the facts as to what happened to the man who made this report?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord yes, I will clear that up, I am so sorry. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: report Herr von Tschirschky himself was---I think he went to a concentration camp and had his head shaved and then eventually after a certain period he was released and rejoined your service and was in your service up until February of 1935.
Is not that so, defendant?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I am sorry my Lord. That takes up the story until we come to February 1935. He is then asked to report to the Gestapo and then this correspondence takes place. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: which is document D-684, GB Exhibit 510, you say:
"As already reported yesterday by telegraph, I have conveyed to Herr von Tschirschky the order of the 2nd of this month repeating the demand that he appear on the date fixed by the Gestapo, 5th February.
"He then announced to me officially that he would not comply with this order as he was convinced that he would be killed in one way or another. He will marshal the reasons for this refusal in a report which I will submit as soon as I receive it.
"I yesterday finally relieved Herr von Tschirschky, whom I had already suspended for the course of the proceedings, of his post.
It goes without saying that I shall break off all connections of an official nature as soon as tha handing over of files, etc. has taken place tomorrow." given von Tschirschky leave. Then just look at the last paragraph.
"After I had repeatedly asked that Herr von Tschirschky should be given a chance to clear himself for a regular judge of the charges laid against him. I am naturally exceedingly sorry that the affair is now ending thus. I left nothing undone to induce Herr von Tschirschky to take the course designated to him of letting himself be examined by the Gestapo." in your staff sent to his death to be murdered by the Gestapo? High Tribunal to the other letters which show that I repeatedly, not only once, but repeatedly asked Hitler to have the matter of Tschirschky investigated through a regular judge.
ten to me to have a regular court proceeding. Hitler let me know that he personally would use his influence and that he would assume the personal responsibility that nothing would happen to Mr. von Tschirschky if he was investigated by the Gestapo and that also you will find in this letter. The Fuehrergave him impunity if he were to put himself at the disposal of the Gestapo and be investigated by them. Therefore, after regular court proceedings had been turned down or rejected and Hither had promised that nothing would happen to Mr. von Tschirsch ky I asked Mr. von Tschirschky to submit to the investigation for the charges made against him had to be cleared up in some way. But I believe -will find -
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I think you should read the whole of this letter which you have just been on, the 5th of February, at some stage.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I will. My Lord, I am sorry. My Lord, I do not want to omit anything but I am of course, trying to shorten the matter, but I will read anything your Lordship wants.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal ought to be in possession of the whole letter. You stopped at the word "courier", in the middle with reference to reporting.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, My Lord. With reference to reporting his dismissal to the Austrian Government:
"I am afraid that if I report it abruptly tomorrow, the matter will attract public discussion. I believe that this scandal should be avoided and thave, therefore, given Herr von Tschirschky sick leave for the time being, for the benefit of the public, and shall report his dismissal later.
"I shall return to the Tschirschky affair and its connections with other current Gestapo question in Vienna later in a detailed report."
THE PRESIDENT: You left off after the word "Gestapo" in the next paragraph.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, I will read the whole thing again. "After I bad repeatedly asked--"
THE PRESIDENT: No, you had read that down to "Gestapo", but you did not go on with it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: "But if he remains firm in his resolve to avoid this examination, even though he knows that this means the ruin of his social and material position for himself and his family, and if he has declared to me that, while an emigre he will do nothing which would be harmful to the Fuehrer and the country, I have nothing to add but the wish that everything should be avoided that could make this affair am open scandal." BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: which was five days before, -- page 84 My Lord and the foot of page 55 and the beginning of 56 of the German book -
"Herr Tschirschky, whom incidentally I have, for the time being, relieved of his duties, has not learned from several sources which he and I also, unfortunately, regard as authentic, that sore persons belonging to the Gestapo have for a considerable time been planning to neutralize him."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that will be D-683, GB 511.
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q. You believed that it was authentic on 31 January that the Gestapo wished to neutralize him. On 5 February, in the part that the Tribunal just asked me to read, you say that it will be the ruination of his social and material position for himself and his family, but if the thing is kept quiet, your wish is that everything be done to avoid a scandal.
A. My wish was first of all that everything should be done in order to have the matter cleared in a public and in a regular court proceedings.
Q. That was your first wish, but you very soon gave that up.
A. Just a moment please. After Hitler did not agree to my wish, and after he had determined that von Tschirschky in an investigation by the Gestapo would enjoy the personal protection of Hitler, and after Hitler had agreed to that -- If the head of the State will tell me, "I will be responsible for the fact that nothing will happen to Mr. von Tschirschky," then, naturally, you will grant me that I can not act differently than to tell Mr. von Tschirschky, "Take this course and let yourself be examined, for after all you have to clear yourself of the suspicion which is a shadow on you."
Q. Defendant, let me remind you that there is not a word in your letter of 5 February about any promise from Hitler to give an indemnity to Herr von Tschirschky. All that you are saying is that he will disappear into disgrace. There is nothing in any other letter either.
A. Yes. You can find it in a letter of Tschirscky's, and I will find it. I don't find it at the moment.
Q. Well, if you can find anything about an indemnity, I can only tell you that I have not been able to find it in any of your letters.
A. Yes, there is.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the defendant could look for this document at the recess, at one o'clock.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, very well. My Lord, if there is such a document, I am very sorry; I don't know about it.
Yes, My Lord; I am sorry. I think I have got the reference.
On page 91, My Lord. It is not in the defendant's letter, but there is a reference in Herr von Tschirschky's report. On page 91, My Lord. Page 69. It says:
"In conclusion, the reason why I do not feel obliged either to appear before the Gestapo or to return to the Reich at all, in spite of the extraordinary protection promised me by the Fuehrer and Chancellor, I make the following declaration:
"Already during my activities in Berlin, information has often reached me that there existed in the Reich a Terror organization which has sworn the oath of mutual allegiance until death. The men who are or who may be accepted in this brotherhood are expressly warned and given the obligation that they belong to the F.E.M.E. and that they are in duty bound when carrying out their tasks to feel that they belong in a far greater degree to the brotherhood and are only bound to Adolf Hitler in a smaller degree. I could not have believed this monstrous thing, had the information not been given no about six months previously by a man in the Reich -- I wish to emphasize this explicitly -- who is not opposed to the Third Reich, but quite the opposite, a man who in his innermost convictions believes in Adolf Hitler's mission, a Reich German National Socialist of many years standing, who himself at one time was to be won over into this brotherhood but who was able to withdraw from it cleverly. This man has assured me of his willingness to expose publicly the names mentioned to me of the members of this brotherhood, or to w* swear an affidavit to this effect in case these people should already be dead. He must only be assured that this Terrorist brotherhood can no longer be effective, especially as there are persons belonging to this brotherhood who are among the people who count as being the most trusted of the Fuehrer and the Reichschancellor."
I am sorry; I knew there was nothing in the letters from the defendant, but I had forgotten that there was this passage in the letter. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q Now, that was von Tschirschky. You have told us that Baron von Ketteler was murdered at the end of your time in Vienna. Baron von Ketteler's father was murdered, if my memory is right, and that caused the German expedition against the Boxers in China. That is the family the gentleman belonged to, is it not?
after the experience with von Tschirschky was that you were ready to take new employment under the Nazi government in Turkey.
A May I perhaps make just a few remarks on this point? other reference to Marchionini's affidavit, and then you can make all the other remarks you like.
Why didn't you after this series of murders which had gone on over a period of four years, why didn't you break with those people and stand up like General York or any other people that you may think of from history, stand up for your own views and oppose these murderers? Why didn't you do it?
A Very well. You can see from this report by von Tschirschky about these murders that I submitted this report to Hitler, and I submitted this report in all its details, but what you do not know is the fact that I frequently told Hitler personally that such a regime could not possibly last in the long run, and if you ask me, Sir David, why despite everything I remained in the service of the Reich, then I can say only that on 30 June I personally broke the relations and the agreement which I had entered into on 30 January. From that day onward I did my duty, my duty to Germany, if that matter interests you. the things that we know today about the millions of murders which have taken place, that you consider the German people a nation of criminals, and that you cannot see, that you cannot understand that among these people there are patriots as well. I did these things so I could serve my country, and I should like to add, Sir David, that up until the time of the Munich Agreement, and even up until the Polish campaign, even the major powers tried, even though they know everything that was going on in Germany, they tried to work with this Germany. Why do you wish to hold it against a patriotic German that he did the same thing and that he hoped the same thing -- the same thing that the major powers expected and hoped for?
other, and were not close to Hitler like you. What I am putting to you is that the only reason that could have kept you in the service of the Nazi government when you knew of all these crimes was that you sympathized and wanted to carry on with the Nazis' work. That is what I am putting to you -- that you had this express knowledge; you had seen your own friends, your own servants, murdered around you. You had the detailed knowledge of it, and the only reason that could have taken you on and made you take one job after another from the Nazis was that you sympathized with their work. That is what I am putting against you, Herr von Papen.
A But, Sir David, that perhaps is your opinion; My opinion is that I am responsible only to my conscience and to the German people for the desire to remain, and I shall accept that responsibility.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I have finished.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) (The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 hours, 19 June 1946)
THE PRESIDENT: Had you finished, Sir David ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord, I had finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Did any of the other prosecutors wish to cross-examine ?
(No response)
Dr. Kubuschok ? BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. In the cross-examination yesterday it was pointed out to you that in your report to Hitler of the 27th of July, 1935 -- British document book 11-A, page 79 -- you point out that, according to legal ascertainment, leading Reich German personalities had a part in the violent methods in Austria in July of 1934. In this connection you mentioned the name Habicht. I should like to receive some information about the personality of Habicht. Was Habicht a Reich German ?
A. Habicht was a Reich German and had his headquarters in Munich. He was Provincial Inspector, Landesinspekteur, of all the National Socialist Party in Austria. That means the following: the Reichsparteileitung, the head of the Party, the Austrian Party was directed by a Landesleiter, or by a Landesinspekteur, who was especially appointed for this purpose. This was Habicht. Since this man had charge of the whole Austrian party, his position in the Party was, of course, called a leading position. One could not call him a liaison officer, but a leading Reich German personality.
Q. In corss-examination yesterday various letters were submitted to you, which you wrote to Hitler between the 4th and the 17th of July 1934. These letters should be gone into more closely. What was the purpose of the letters?
A. I am glad to have an opportunity to go into this correspondence once more. One must consider the situation which existed at that time: Bose shot three co-workers arrested; great excitement; every one who was in any way in opposition was under suspicion of being connected with this SA revolt.
It was similar to the situation after the 20th of July 1944. the Bose case, as well as the other cases. I demanded that in my first letter of the 4th of July. I also demanded this rehabilitation in further letters that we were not in any connection with the SA conspirators.
Q. In the letters you assure Hitler of your loyalty. Is this not astonishing after the events of the 30th of June ?
A. It may seem astonishing to an outsider, but not to a person who knew the almost hysterical mood of those days, because at that time everyone who had been in any opposition at all, or who had criticized the system, was branded as a co-conspirator. For that reason, I thought it advisable to establish, by means of such a letter, that I and the Vice-Chancellery
Q. The representative of the prosecution reads in the letters only the wish for the rehabilitation of your own person. What do you have to say about this ?
A. I asked the Tribunal to consider these letters. In them it can be seen that I repeatedly pointed out that my co-workers also had to be absolutely rehabilitated. of my officials is also my own honor, and I repeatedly demanded that the Bose case be cleared up.
Q. What did you believe to be able to achieve through the legal proceeding which you suggested ?
A. Legal proceedings would have had two effects: In the first place, non-participation in the putsch would have been established, and that would necessarily have shown that the arrest of my co-workers and the killing of Bose had been an arbitrary act, an act for which those responsible were to be punished .
Q In a letter of the 14th of July, you welcomed Hitler's speech of justification before the Reichstag on the 13th of July. What comment do you have to make on this?
A I may ask you to look at the text of this letter. I welcomed the expression of the intended second revolution but by no means a recognition of the act of violence carried out against persons outside the circle of the revolution and, however, the following is to be considered. The events of the 30th of June were divided into two parts. In the first place, Hitler himself had turned against the revolting SA; that such a revolt was actually planned seemed incredible to all of us. The rumors of a second revolution had been current for weeks in the country. In Marburg I had already referred to them. The revolt of the SA leaders, who represented in effect a power, could be considered a danger to the State and the executions had been directed against SA leaders who were known to be particularly radical and whose names were connected with the excesses of 1933. The second part of the action had been directed against persons outside of this circle. Slowly the news of the individual cases leaked out. The justification for taking steps against these persons was in part explained by saying that those affected had some sort of connection with SA leaders and that in part they had offered resistance. That had to be cleared up, for here no emergency law could be referred to but an orderly procedure could not be deviated from in this case, hence, my letter to Hitler of the 22th of July, in which I asked him not to deviate from the orderly legal procedure and I warned him against identifying himself with these events and I demanded from him -- referring to the Bose case -- the rehabilitation of the legal proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: We have got the letters, Dr. Kubuschok.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, the purpose of this questioning is to clear up the situation and to explain the form of the letters but I believe the defendant has said enough and we can go on to another question now. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: complimentary closing, also deviates from the other letters in the rest of its form. How do you explain this?
my efforts to achieve legal proceedings to clear up the matter. I had not even received my files back. For that reason, I gave up further efforts and there was no longer any reason to announce my resignation publicly.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: You meant to take it back. Now, I come back to a document which the English prosecution referred to today. It is 2248-PS, in the English document book, 11-A, page 99. I believe there are difficulties in the translation here which make it difficult to understand. I will read the sentence in question once more and ask the defendant to explain this sentence. I will quote on page 99 of the English text, the second paragraph from the top.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, we have had a very long explanation already.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, the explanation suffered from the fact that the defendant did not understand the translation correctly or that the English prosecution did not understand the defendant. The form of the German text is not clear. The defendant will be able to explain it very easily.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, go on. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q "The way in which Germany deals with politico-religious difficulties, the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundation of Germany, will not only have a decisive effect on England," etc. Please explain the sense of this sentence which I have just read.
A I wanted to say to Hitler "You must with a clever hand eliminate political Catholicism but the religious foundation must under no circumstances be touched."
THE PRESIDENT: No question of translation arises. The passage was read to us verbatim as it is before us and it was read by Sir David MaxwellFyfe to the defendant and the defendant has given the same answer over and over again in answer to Sir David.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, may I point out the following: The whole sentence was in the future tense, the whole sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: It was read to us just now by the interpreter verbatim in the words which are before us in the book and the words which were put by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe to the defendant. There is no question of difference of tense at all.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, there is a special language difficulty. With us, in the first part, the first two verbs use the present tense. Later, in German the present is to be understood as meaning the future also. In the opinion of the British prosecution, the first two verbs "deals" and "eliminates" are to be considered past tense.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a matter of verbal argument of the words of the document.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: One last question to the witness. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q The Cardinal Innitzer's talk to Hitler in Vienna was discussed. On what occasion did you arrange this meeting of Hitler with Cardinal Innitzer? Reich, Hitler had joined a Catholic country to Germany and the problem which was to be solved was to win this country internally as well. That was possible only if Hitler recognized the religious basis, recognized what rights Catholicism had in this country and for this reason, I arranged a talk between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler in order to make sure that Hitler in the future in Austria would carry on a policy on a Christian basis. By arranging this interview, I thought I would be able to do one last service for Austria; that was the reason.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is the end of the examination.
Q. THE PRESIDENT: I have just two or three questions I should like to ask you. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. When did you first hear about the murder of Jews?
A. I believe, My Lord, that that was during the war.
Q. The war lasted six years. When during the war?
A. I cannot say with certainty, My Lord.
Q. You cannot say with more certainty than that?
A. No; our general knowledge was that the Jews were sent to camps in Poland. But we knew nothing of a systematic extermination of Jews such as we have heard of here.
Q. The witness whose affidavit your counsel has put in evidence, Marchionini, what do you know about him?
A. Marchionini is a very well known professor who was employed by the Model Hospital in Ankara, and who was also my family doctor.
Q. Do you have your volumes of exhibits before you?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Could the defendant have Volume 3?
(A document was handed to the witness) BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I refer to Volume 3, the last paragraph of the answer to Question 6.
A. One moment, My Lord. I have not found it yet
Q. There is no hurry.
A. I have the affidavit now.
Q. Do you have question 6, or rather the answer to Question 6?
A. The questions are not numbered here.
Q. It is the last question but one.
A. The last question?
Q. The last question but one.
A. Yes.
Q. In the answer to that question, he says this:
"I remember particularly clearly an invident in spring 1944 when I calle upon von Papen at the request of Herr Barlas, the Refugees Commissioner of the Jewish Agency, in order to request his assistance in saving 10,000 Jews in France from deportation to Poland for extermination.
These Jews had formerly held Turkish nationality which they had later renounced".
Then he says, through your intervention" the lives of these Jews were saved". Is that statement true?
A. Yes, certainly.
Q. So at any rate, by the spring of 1944 you knew that 10,000 Jews in France were about to be deported for extermination?
A. Yes. But I believe they were to be deported to Poland, Mr. Lord. But we did not know in 1944 that they were to be exterminated. We wanted to protect them from deportation.
Q. I thought you said the statement was true.
A. For the purpose of extermination -- I believe that we did not know that at the time. The question was only whether I was willing to help keep 10,000 Jews who were in France from being deported to Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. You may return to the dock.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I had three witnesses approved by the Tribunal. The witness Freiherr von Lersner could not come here at the time because of transportation difficulties. He could not be here before the end of July. After the questioning of the defendant, and considering the fact that Lersner has answered an interrogatory, I believe I can dispense with the witness. I regret this, because he is a man who knew the defendant during his whole political career, a witness who would have been especially valuable because of his objectivity in these question. He was president of the German delegation at Versailles.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have the affidavit or the interrogatory, you can put it in. We do not need any further statements about it.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
The second witness was Count Kageneck. Since the questions which were to be asked of Kageneck have been covered in the questioning of the defendant and the cross-examination did not touch upon them, I can also dispense with this witness.
There remains only the witness Dr. Kroll, whom I now call to the stand.
HANS KROLL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name, please?
A. Hans Kroll.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me: truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Witness, what was your occupation in Ankara?
A. I was the First Counsellor of the embassy, and later Minister. From the fall of 1936 until April, 1943, I was in Ankara; from April 1939 until April 1943, together with Ambassador von Papen, as his first co-worker. Daily, mostly in the morning and in the afternoon, we conferred together for several hours, so that I believe I know the various phases of his activity during this period in Turkey; that is, of his work during the war.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: These questions will refer mostly to the peace policy of the defendant. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Did you know Mr. von Papen before he became ambassador in Ankara?
A. No. We not in Ankara.
Q. Were you a member of the NSDAP?
A. No.
Q. After taking over the position as ambassador, Mr. von Papen came to Ankara for a short stay. What was the purpose of this visit?
A. Mr. von Papen wanted to present himself to the Turkish government and to gain information on the situation.
Q. Did Mr. von Papen at that time, through his conduct and his statement; express his agreement with German foreign policy, and in particular, with the policy towards Poland? Or did he, as far as he was able, attempt to work against this policy?
A. First, as to the arrival of Mr. von Papen, I was, of course, interested in learning how he felt about the development of the general situation, and, in particular, the Polish question. I assumed, of course, that, as he came from Germany, he knew about Hitler's plans, but I was surprised to find that he knew nothing more than I did, which was to say nothing at all.
Then we discussed the situation in detail, and I observed that Mr. von Papen, who spoke very frankly with me about these things, distrusted Hitler's foreign policy. He was an enemy of war, an honest enemy of war, and, of course, he was also an enemy of war against Poland. He was truly convinced that on the Polish question an agreement could be reached if it could only be made clear to Hitler that a conflict with Poland would, of necessity, lead to a world war. He then endeavored, and I must say in a very sound and clear and courageous language in his reports, to point out this view in his reports. And from his talks with the Turkish statesmen, as well as with the accredited diplomats in Ankara, he attempted to prove that, in fact, a conflict with Poland would of necessity lead to a conflict with England and France. and foreigners, had spoken to Hitler in this clear form, the war would probably have been avoided.
Q After the outbreak of the Polish war, what was the attitude of Mr. von Papen towards the spread of the war to the Nordic states, Holland, Belgium, and finally, Russia?
A Mr. von Papen, of course, hoped that in this winter some agreement would be reached. He knew that if the action spread to the west, a general slaughter would follow and that then it would probably be too late to talk things over. Of course, as far as possible, he looked for mediation in Turkey as well as other places, and he was glad to take any opportunity resulting from talks with his friend, the Dutch Minister in Ankara, Mr. Visser. The motive behind this offer of Visser was Holland's wish to have the war ended before spring and with the fighting in the west, and the aim was to be a talk between Germany and England.
Q We are interested in knowing what Mr. von Papen's opinion of such a peace was. Did he think that he would be able to achieve annexation by way of peace or what was the purpose of this peace which he had in mind?
A I believe it is known from the previous activity of Mr. von Papen that he was a friend of European understanding. He knew that this war had not begun because of a territorial problem but because of a principle; that is to say, so that a future one-sided aggresive war would be prevented and, therefore, in the restoration of the legal status before the war, that is, in the restoration of the status quotante on the basis of 1938, that it had with the restoration of Poland and Czechoslovakia. In this he the prerequisite for instituting talks. The second prerequisite for the successful carrying on of such a talk was for him the restoration of confidence in the German signature, which it is known Hitler's foreign policy had destroyed. The only question was how this confidence could be restored, and he realized that the prerequisite for this was a basic reform of the regime, of the system, with the aim of making Germany a legal state once more. Finally, Mr. von Papen, from his post in turkey, saw the possibility of ending the war by reaching an understanding, for turkey, like hardly any other state of the same-weight in Foreign politics, had the ideal position for mediating. It had the confidence of both belligerent parties and that is the most important thing for arranging a talk. Then He endeavoured, in all his talks with Turkish statesmen, to win Turkey over to mediate. During all his years in Turkey that was the Leitmotif, the leading motive of his work, to bring the war to an end as soon as possible.