I complained, however, about that apparent demotion to State Secretary Grauert, since he and Daluege knew about my quarrels with the secret state police. They got me into the Ministry of the Interior and assigned to me the task to receive all these reports, which still come by error to the Ministry of the Interior, to collect them, and to forward them to the Prussian Prime Minister and to the secret state police. my presence in the Ministry, but the Minister of the Interior intervened and was successful in keeping me in that post. immediately. I was quite a subordinate official there. But I assume that the defendant Frick knew about my activity and about my opinions, my point of view, because now I was encouraged to continue to collect all those requests for help which came to the Ministry of the Interior, and a large part of these reports I sent through official channels to Daluege, Grauert, and Frick. There was, however, the difficulty that Goering in his capacity of Prime Minister of Prussia had prohibited Frick, as his Minister of the Interior, to take cognizance of such reports. Frick without commentary was supposed to forward them to the Gestapo. I saw no reason to keep me from turning then over to Frick just the sane and since Frick at the same time was Reich Minister of the Interior, and in that capacity could give directives through the provinces, that is to say, also to Goering. Frick accepted these reports, took cognizance of them in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and tolerated the fact that they were sent by me with the request for a report to Goering. Goering intervened repeatedly, and I know that it came to severe disputes between him and Frick on that account.
the Reichsminister of the Interior certain directives were issued to limit protective custody?
A That's correct. It is correct that at that time quite a number of such directives were issued, but if I am to say that a great number of such directives were issued, that already includes that by way of principle they were not heeded by subordinate authorities. power, and as an impression from my education as a civil servant, I will never forget that at that time in the Secret state police we officials Were directed principally not to answer any requests from the Reichsminister of the Interior. Of course at certain intervals the Reichsminister of the Interior sent requests. The cleverness of an official in the Gestapo was measured by the number of such protests which were received from the Ministry of the Interior in order to prove that he had not paid any attention to them.
Q On the 30th June 1934 it came to the so-called Roehm Putsch. Can you give us a short description of the conditions which preceded that Putsch? On the 30th of June there was only a Goering-Himmler Putsch. I am in a position to give some information about that dark chapter, because I was at the Police Department of the Ministry of the Interior, and I had to deal with that case and to see how at least the radiograms which were sent on that day by Goering and Himmler to the Police Offices of the Reich came into my hands. The last one of these radiograms said "Upon order from Goering all material about the 30th June has to be burned immediately." day I do not know whether they survived the attempts of Kaltenbrunner or not. I still hope to find these papers, but if I do, I can prove that on that entire 30 th June not a single shot was fired by the SA. The SA did not commit a Putsch, whereas I do not wish to say a single word of excuse for the leaders of the SA. On the 30th June not a single SA leader died who had not deserved death a hundred times, but in a regular court proceeding. June on one side the SA, headed by Roehm, was standing, and on the ether side confronted by Goering and Himmler.
sent on a vacation. The SA leaders were precisely for that 30th of June called by Hitler to a meeting at Wiessee, and it is not common that people who want to march to a coup d'etat go to a meeting in sleeping cars. They were surprised at the railroad station and brought to the execution.
The so-called Munich Putsch happened in the following manner. The Munich SA did not rally at all, and at a distance of one hour by car from Munich the socalled traitors, Roehm and Heines, slept into their death without having the slightest idea that, according to the descriptions of Hitler and Goering on the previous evening, a Putsch alledgedly had occured at Munich.
The Putsch at Berlin could be observed by me very closely. It occured absolutely under exclusion of the public by the SA. We in the police offices did not notice anything. However, it is true that in one of the alleged main Putsches, I the Berlin SA Obergruppenfuehrer Karl Ernst, four days before the 30th of June came, very much worried, to the Ministerial Director Daluege, saying there were rumors flying around in Berlin that the SA contemplated a Putsch, He asked for an interview with Minister of Interior Frick so that he could assure Frick that there was no such intention. strange conversation where an SA leader assured a Minister of Interior that he did not intend to make a Putsch.
Ernst went on a recreation trip to Madeira. On the 30th of June he was taken from the steamer to Berlin for his execution, and I witnessed his arrival at the airport at Tempelhof, which seemed to me very interesting, because a few hour before I had already read the official report about his execution in the newspapers. ceal anything, I just have to add I was present when the defendant Goering informed the press about these events. At that occasion the bad word was uttered. He, the defendant Goering, for had waited for a signal which he had arranged with Hitler, and then he had hit of course with lightning speed.
But he also had increased the scope of his mission. This increase of the scope of his mission caused the lives of a large number of innocent people. May I remind you only of the names of General Schleicher, who was killed, together with his wife; von Bredow, Klausner, Edgar Jung, and many others. In what manner did Frick find out about these measures, and was he himself in any way active in the combatting of that so-called Putsch?
A I have experienced personally how at half past 9:00, Daluege came, pale, from Goering after he had been told what had happened. Daluege and I myself went to Gravert. We drove to the Reichsminister of Interior Frick.Frick jumped out of the room -- it may have been about 10:00 o'clock -- in order to drive to Goering and to find out there what had happened in the meantime, and at the same time to find out that he, as Police Minister of the Reich, was supposed to go homo now and not to worry about anything further. In fact, Frick returned home, and during those two dramatic days he never set foot in the Ministry.
Once Daluege drove to him with me. For the rest, it was up to me as the youngest official of the Reich Ministry of the Interior on that Saturday and Sunday to inform the Ministry of the Interior of the Reich what atrocious events in the meantime had happened in Germany. received not to bother about these things. him about it. I do not know whether there was a written directive. Neither do I know whether Krick has asked about one. I should think that Frick at that time, on that day, thought it would be wise not to ask too many nosey questions.
the consequences in any way? to say first that on Saturday, the 30th of June, we at the Ministry of the Interior knew very little about what had happened. On Sunday, the first of July, we found out much more, and doubtlessly Frick, when these days had passed, had a clear picture of what had happened. He also, during these days, made no secret of his indignation that apparently murder and arrests had taken place. question by saying that the first reaction of the defendant Frick of which I was to know, was that Reich law in which the Reich Ministers determined that the events of June 30 had been right. That law had extraordinary psychological consequences for further developments in Germany which cannot be separated from the history of German terror. On the other hand, much happened in the Third Reich that cannot be understood by a normal human being, and could only be understood in the regions of minister and state secretaries. attempted seriously to modify the most apparent hardships. Maybe he thought that in the Reich Cabinet other ministers should rather open their mouths. generals who were shot, and who, in spite of it, had signed that law. I want to mention the name Blomberg with emphasis and ask to be permitted to interrupt myself in order to give information about an incident which occurred this morning. I was in the room of the defendants' counsel, speakto Dr. Dix. Dr. Dix was interrupted by Dr. Stahmer, counsel for Goering. I heard what Stahmer told Dix.
DR. STAHMER: May I ask whether a personal conversation which I had with Dr. Dix has anything to do with the proceedings?
THE WITNESS: I am not speaking -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing): Don't go on with your evidence whilst the objection is being made.
Yes, Dr. Stahmer
THE WITNESS: I didn't understand you.
DR. STAHMER: I do not know whether this is part of the proceedings, to speak here about a conversation which I had personally with Dr. Dix.
THE WITNESS: I -
THE PRESIDENT: will you kindly keep silent.
THE WITNESS: Only one can speak at the sane time. May I finish my information?
THE PRESIDENT: Keep silence, sir.
DR. STAHMER: This morning, in the room of the defense counsel, I had a personal conversation with Dr. Dix concerning the case Blomberg. That conversation was not intended to be heard by the witness. I do not know the witness, didn't even see him then, and I do not know whether this is part of those proceedings, if such a conversation should be made public.
MR JUSTICE JACKSON: This incident has been reported to me and I think it is important that this Tribunal know the influence, the threats that were made at this witness in the courthouse while waiting to testify here, that is, not only against him, but against the defendant Schacht.
Now, the affair was reported to me. I think it is important that this Tribunal know it. I think it is important that it come out. I should have attempted to bring it out on cross examination if it had not been told, and I think that the witness should be permitted to. These other parties have had great latitude here. This witness has been subjected to threats, as I understand it, which were uttered in his presence, whether they were intended for him or not, and I ask that this Tribunal allow Dr. Gisevius, who is the one representative of democratic forces in Germany, to take this stand to tell his story.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal would like to hear, first of all, anything further you have to say upon the matter. They will then hear what Dr. Dix has to say if he wishes to say anything, and they will then hear whether the witness himself wishes to say anything in answer.
DR. STAHMER: I have no reservations about telling the Court clearly what I have said. Last night, I discussed the case with the defendant Goering and told him that the witness Gisevius -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): We don't want to hear any communications which you had with the defendant Goering, other than those you choose to make in support of your objection to this evidence that has been given.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President, but it belong to it; if is part of it. interest to him, but he did hot want that Blomberg, who had recently died -and I assumed it was only the question of the marriage of Blomberg -- he, Goering, did not want these facts concerning the marriage of Blomberg to be discussed here in public. If that could not be prevented, then of course Goering, for his part -- and it is only the question of Schacht because Schacht was expected to speak about these things -- would drop any consideration for Schacht.
That is what I told Dr. Dix this morning, and I am sure Dr. Dix can confirm that.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear you in a moment, Dr. Dix.
DR. STAHMER: I said -- and that was neither referring to Schacht nor to the witness nor to anybody present -- for reasons of professional eithics I would like to tell it to Dr. Dix. That is what I said and what I did. I didn't even know that the witness Gisevius was present at that moment. At any rate, it was not intended for him, and I know that I spoke with Dr. Dix on the side.
THE PRESIDENT: So that I may understand what you are saying, you say you had told Dr. Dix the substance of the conversation you had had with the defendant Goering, and said that Goering would withdraw his objection to the facts being given if the defendant Schacht wanted them to be given. Is that right?
DR. STAHMER: No, I have only said that it didn't matter to Goering what was said about himself, but as for Blomberg who is dead, he would not want that things concerning Blomberg's marriage should be discussed If that could be prevented, if Schacht would not avoid that, then he, Goering, his part, would drop any consideration for Schacht, would not have any consideration for Schacht.
That is what I told Dr. Dix.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: As I said, that is what I told Dr. Dix, and that finished the conversation, and I emphasized to Dix that I only told him that for professional reasons, as one colleague to another.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That is all you wish to say?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
DR. DIX: I believe I remember what happened as follows: This morning I was i the room of the defense counsel speaking to the Witness Dr. Gisevius. I believe my colleague Professor Kraus was there and took part in the conversation. and I said that at the moment I was in an important, hurried conversation with Gisevius, and asked if he couldn't speak to me later. Stahmer said no, that he would like to talk to me at once. Then, I probably stepped five or six paces to the side, leaving the group I had spoken to before, together with Stahmer.
My colleague Stahmer told me the following. It is quite possible -- I don't know whether he introduced what he said with the words that he was telling me the for professional reasons, as one colleague to another. If he says so now, I am sure that is how it was, but I don't remember it any more.
Stahmer told me, "Goering has the point of view that Gisevius may attack him as much as he pleases, but if he attacks Blomberg who is dead, the Goering will disclose everything against Schacht because he knows a lot of things which may disagreeable for Schacht." if the dead Blomberg should be attacked, then he would have to reveal things against Schacht. He said that he would mention things against Schacht.
That was the conversation. I cannot, with absolute certainty, say whether Stahmer told me he wanted Gisevius to know he had said that. If he says he did not say so, then it is certainly true and I believe him, but I could not understand that information any differently than that it meant I should notify Gisev about what Goering had said, and I had no doubt that that represented the intention of Goering and my colleague Stahmer, that, that was the purpose of the whole thing, because why else at that particular moment, should my colleague Stahmer, immediately before the testimony of Gisevius, while I was speaking with Gisevius, tell me that, and say he had no time, he could not wait, and I had to interrupt my conversation?
Why should he tell me that, why else should he tell me of this calimity announced by Goering, except that Gisevius should know and should think it over before he made his statement?
I had no doubt that that was the purpose of Stahmer's information to me. to make this information known to Gisevius. As I said, if Stahmer had not said hereif I had been asked, I would have said bona fide that he had told me,"Tell it to Gisevius," but no, no, I will not say that he told me. At any rate, there cannot be any doubt that that was the conversation, and I believed I acted according to the intentions of Stahmer in telling it immediately to Gisevius. He was only five steps away from me, or less, and I believe I understood him correctly to have said that he heard parts of our conversation, so I also told him about the content of the conversation between Stahmer and me.
DR. STAHMER: May I still say the fallowing: Of course, I neither asked Dr. Dix to tell it to Gisevius, nor did I count upon it, but I just considered that Gisevius would be questioned this morning and that Dr. Dix would question the witness about the marriage relations of Blomberg. As far as I was informed of it before, Dr. Dix intended to put these questions to the witness. Therefore, I pointed out to Dr. Dix that then, when it came to it, he should abstain from such a question concerning the marriage relations of Blomberg.
That was not intended for the witness and I know with all certainty that I told Dr. Dix that for professional reasons as one colleague to another I gave him that information and he said, "I thank you very much, yes."
At any rate if he had told me, "I shall tell that to the witness", I would have said immediately, "Great God, that is only information which is intended for you personally."
I am very much surprised now that Dr. Dix has abused the confidence which I had in him in this manner.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, we have heard the facts and we do not think we need tear anything more about it beyond considering the question as to whether the witness is to go on with his evidence. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, has the explanation which has been given by Dr. Stahmer and Dr. Dix sufficiently covered the matters with which you were proposing to deal with reference to Field Marshal von Blomberg? Is there anything further you need say about it?
A I beg your pardon. I believe I did not quite understand the question. but on the first occasion when the name Blomberg would be mentioned intended to say that according to these conditions I felt put under pressure such as I have experienced, because I was standing so closely that I had to hear what Dr. Stahmer said and the form, in which Dr. Dix told me about it, and I heard almost half of it and it could-not be understood differently than to mean that Dr. Dix in a very loyal manner informed me as a witness for Schacht with reference to a very important point, to be rather reticent with regard to my statements. Herr von Blomberg. It has to do with the part which the defendant Goering played and I know quite well why Goering does not want me to speak about that affair. It is the worst that Goering has done, according to my judgment, and I Goering is justusing the cloak of chivalry with which apparently he wants to I protect a dead man, but in fact wants to prevent me from testifying to an important point, that is as to the Fritsch crisis.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear the evidence then, whatever evidence you wish the witness to give.
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon. What I have to say in this connection as to the case Blomberg is finished.
The first time when that name was mentioned I wanted to -
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, counsel mil continue his examination and you will give such evidence as is relevant when you are examined or cross-examined by Dr. Dix onbehalf of the defendant Schacht. BY DR. PANNENBECKER: of the Gestapo so strong that no measures against it could promise any results?
A I have to say no. The state police doubtlessly gained in power after the 30th of June but because of the many perpetrations committed on the 30th of June the opposition also, in the various ministries, against the Secret State Police had become so strong that in the case of a collective action the majority of ministries could have used that event of the 30th of June to eliminate the Secret State Police. I personally had tried to intervene in that direction repeatedly with the knowledge of the defendant Frick. repeatedly to use the large number of illegal murders as a reason for action against the Secret State Police. I also, personally, went to the Chief of the Armed Forces Office, von Reichenau, and told him the same thing. I know that my friend Oster had brought files in that connection to the knowledge of Blomberg and I wish to testify here that in spite of the perpetrations of the 30th of June it would have been possible quite easily, quite well possible, to return to law and order at that time. thereafter in order to get the Secret State Police into legal channels? at least to block the way of Himmler in the direction of the Reich Minister of the Interior. Shortly before Goering had ceded the Ministry of Interior to Frick he had made Himmler Chief of the Secret State Police in Prussia. Himmler had attempted from that station of power to assume the police power in other provinces. Frick had tried to prevent that by expressing the opinion that as Reich Minister of the Interior he also had a voice in appointing police commissars in the Reach. Likewise, we tried to prevent an increase in power of the Secret State Police by systematically denying all requests for increases in the number of officials for the Gestapo.
Unfortunately Himmler found a detour here also, as always. He went to the Finance Ministers of the provinces and told them that for the guard troops, the so-called Death Head Organization, he needed funds and he was determined that for every one innate five SS men were needed as guards. With these means Himmler financed his Secret State Police, since it was quite up to him as to how many men he wanted to activate. with all means possible, to block the way of the Gestapo but unfortunately despite the many requests we sent to the Gestapo, they remained unanswered. Again it was Goering who covered Himmler whenever Himmler refused to answer our inquiries. in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. We tried to paralyze the Secret State Police generally by introducing the right of supervision and complaint concerning prisoners in protective custody. If we would have achieved that we would have had the possibility of looking into the individual actions of the Gestapo. A law was formulated and this law first was submitted to the Ministerial Council of the largest of the provinces, namely Prussia. Again it was defendant Goering who, by all available means, opposed the passing of such a law. At the end of a very excited session of the cabinet as to that subject there remained only the demand that I should be eliminated from the Ministry of the Interior.
THE PRESIDENT: This will be a convenient time to break off.
(A recess was taken)
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal wish me to say that it anticipates that you will put any questions which you think necessary with relation to the alleged intimidation of the witness when you come to crossexamine.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, sir; thank you. BY DR. PANNENBECKER: by the Ministry of the Interior to fight against the wilful actions taken by the Gestapo, particularly with reference to the concentration camps, and stop them, I am, therefore, asking you to have a look at a memorandum which originates from, the Reich Prussion Ministry of the Interior, and which is document 775-PS, which has been mentioned this morning in connection with the documents for Frick as Exhibit Frick No. 9. It is number 34 in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: What number did you say it is?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Number 34. It is document number 775-PS; Frick Exhibit No. 9. BY DR. PANNENBECKER:
Q Witness, don't you know that memorandum?
A No, I don't. It appears that this memorandum was made after I had left the Ministry of the Interior, something which I gathered from the fact that the Reich Minister had already given up the fight when the memorandum was written. He writes that it was to be principally clarified as to who would be responsible and, if necessary, the responsibility would now -- and I quote -- "have to be borne in all its consequences by the Reichsfuehrer SS who, in fact had already taken over the leadership of the political police." ticularly to prevent Himmler from taking over the political police; it was this last possibility which we wanted to exclude. This is evidently a memorandum written about six months later, when matters had deteriorated still further.
Q Can you say anything about this? What is the Case Buender and the Case Esterwegen?
wegen. It is one of many. So far as I can recollect, an SA or local leader was arrested by the Gestapo because he had complained about the conditions in the concentration campsat Papenbruck, and this wasn't the first time either.
I don't know just how the defendant Frick came to take up this case particularly, but at any rate one day Daluege showed no one of those customary handwrit ten slips of paper(coning from Frick, stating what he had said to Himmler . here was a man, or same official of that type, who had unjustly been arrested, and that this man would have to be released at once. He said if Himmler did that sort of thing once again, he, Frick, would institute proceedings against Himmler for deprivation of liberty. ring the police conditions which existed at the time. It was peculiar that Himmler should be threatened by Frick with a penality, and Daluege made some cynical remarks regarding Frick's action.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the date?
THE WITNESS: This must have happened in the spring of 1935, I should say, perhaps in larch or April. BY DR. PANNENBECKER:
Q Witness, do you know how Himmler reacted to that threat?
A. Yes; there was another case and that is this other matter which is mentioned here. He reacted similarly to both and that is why I first of all, why I first of all mentioned the matter Puender in this case. In connection with Puender, we were concerned with a Solicitor in Berlin, the very respected Solicitor, the legal advisor of the Swedish Embassy. The widow of the Ministerial Director Klausner, approached Puender. She wanted to sue so that . the life insurance companies would Day her her allowance, but since Klausner was supposedly committing suicide on had committed suicide that day, no chief of any insurance company dared to per the money to the widow; consequently, the Solicitor had to sue; but then the Nazis had issued a law according to which all such awkward cases -- awkward for the Nazis -- were not to be heard before any court, and that they were to be taken to a so-called chamber of intervention.
If I am correct in my recollection, then this law was called "the law for the mediation of civil claims;" these governors were never short of names at that time. This law forced the solicitor to submit his claim before the court. He was apprehensive, At that stage, the Minister of the Interior approached the Secretary of State and they said that if I comply with the law and if I sue then I shall be arrested. The Secretary of State and the Minister of the Interior forced him to sue; so the very wise solicitor went to see the Minister of Justice and talked to the Secretary of State Freisler and he told him that he didn't want to sue, since he would most certainly be arrested by the Gestapo. The Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice informed him that he would have to sue, whatever happened, and that nothing would happen, since the court had been instructed to pass the case on without commentary to the chamber of intervention. So, now, the lawyer sued and the Gestapo arrested him forthwith for libel because he had stated that the Ministerial Director Klausner had not lost his life through suicide. This was for us a classical example of where we in Germany were drifting when protective custody was intorduced. I had taken the liberty to take out this case from amongst hundreds, or I should say thousands of similar ones, and to suggest to Frick that this matter should be made the cause of a particular step, particular intervention not only with Goering but in this case even with Hitler.
At that time, I sat down and I wrote a letter or a report from Frick to Hitler, which went to the Ministry of Justice. There were more than five pages and from every possible aspect, I discussed the suicide of Klausner with the assistance of the SS and threw light upon the present suit which was coming up. This report to Hitler found its end when Frick wrote that now the time had come that the problem of protective custody should be examined by the Reich and from the point of view of its legal aspects.
And now I am coming to your question regarding what happened. You see, it was roughly the same time when Frick wrote to Himmler regarding the declaration of freedom. The two letters were taken to a meeting of Kreisleiters. They were the so-called ministers of the movement, and he put the question to them, whether it would be suitable that one Kreisleiter, that is to say, Frick, could write such letters to another Kreisleiter, that is to say, Himmler. The gentlemen present denied that and told him off. Then Himmler joined the meeting of the Prussian cabinet, during which the protective custody law, which I mentioned, was being discussed. a rare thing that Himmler was allowed to join a meeting of Prussian ministers because there was a time in Germany once -- and that lasted quite long -when Himmler was not the powerful man which he became later on because of the cowardice and the retreat of the middle-class ministers and the generals. Thus, it was a rare thing that Himmler could join a meeting of Prussian ministers at all and at the end of that meeting, came my release from, the Ministry of the Interior.
Q. Witness, I should like to quote to you from that memorandum which I have just shown to you; that is, 775-PS, and I shall read to you two sentence I should like you to tell me whether the facts are stated correctly. I quote "In this connection, I draw your attention to the case of the lawyer Puender, who was only taken into protective custody together with his colleague because after inquiries had been made at the Ministry of the Interior and our ministry, he had filed a suit in which he was forced by a law."
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And then the other sentence. I quote: I only quote the case of a teacher and Kreisleiter in Esterwegen, who was kept in protective custody for eight days.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker, where is that sentence that you have just read?
DR. PANNENBECKER: In the document book Frick, under No. 34, second sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: Which page?
DR. PANNENBECKER: In my document book it is page 80.
THE INTERPRETER: It is page 70, my Lord, in the book the translator has
THE PRESIDENT: Are you speaking of paragraph 3 on page 70?
DR. PANNENBECKER: No. Mr. President, I have just discovered that that sentence in particular has not been translated from that document. Perhaps I may read one more sentence which has been translated. It can be found under 3 of the same document. "I cite here only the case of a teacher and Kreisleiter in Esterwegen, who was kept in protective custody for eight days, because he had sent a correct report, as proved afterward, to his district councillor on abuses by the SS".
A. Yes, that corresponds with the facts.
Q Witness, did you personally have any support from Frick for your personal protection?
A Yes. At the time the secret state police suspected me to such an extent that a lot of nasty things werebeing planned against me. Frick gave an order, therefore, that I should be protected in my apartment by the police, of the district, and a direct telephone from my apartment to the police station was established. So that I had only to pick up my receiver if there were sudden visitors; and so that I could inform somebody. Furthermore, the Gestapo used their usual methods against roe by accusing me of having committed criminal acts. Apparently, the files were taken to Hitler in the Reich Chancellery, but Frick intervened and it was soon discovered that this was a namesake of mine. And Frick used an ordinary telephone, saying that the so and so's, as he putit, had once more lied to the Fuehrer. The Gestapo, who were, of course, listening to this telephone call, considered that the signal to no longer use such methods as this.
Then we went one step further. Heydrich was good enough to inform me by telephone that I probably had forgotten that lie would pursue his personal and political opponents to their graves. I made an official report of that threat to Frick and Frick, either personally or through Daluege, intervened with Heydrich, andno doubt, he has rendered me a considerable service in that manner because Heydrich never liked it when his murderous intentions were talked about openly. own personal safety if he tried to fight against the terror of Himmler and the Gestapo? after all, finished up in a concentration camp. But I must, also, say truthfully that we all asked ourselves just how quickly a minister, too, could be moved to a concentration camp. As far as Frick is concerned, as soon as 1934, be talked to me confidentially to tell no that the Reich Governor in Bavaria had given him reliable information, according to which he was going to be murdered on the occasion of a holiday in the country of Bavaria. And he asked me whether I couldn't find out the details. At that time my friend Nebe and I travelled together to Bavaria by car and we made a secret investigation which did, at any rate, prove so much that we knew that such plans had been discussed.