Q You were not acquainted with a letter of Hitler's of the 19th of January, 1939, which was sent to Schacht upon his being relieved of a function as president of the Reich Bank? I would like to remind you of the contents of this letter.
In this letter Hitler wrote to Schacht:
"In connection with your leaving the post as president of the Reich Bank, I wish upon this occasion to express to you my sincere and hearty gratitude for the service which you have rendered Germany and for the help which you have given me while in this particular pest in these years. Your name will always be connected with the first phase of the national armament. I am happy to be able to count upon your help for the solution."
THE PRESIDENT: This was all gone over yesterday by the witness.
MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Well, then I beg to be forgiven, but in this connection I have a question to put to the witness about this letter. BY MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDROV: January, 1939--and I stress this date, witness--Hitler appreciated the attitude of Schacht. How can you explain this diversion between this fact and your statement that Schacht was in opposition to the Hitler regime at the end of 1937?
A I should like to answer that I am not accustomed to consider any written or oral proclamation by Hitler as truthful.
That man has always said only that which seemed opportune to him to deceive the world or Germany. In this particular case Hitler intended to avoid the impression as if Schacht's resignation would cause a difficult economic crisis, but I am only saying now what Hitler could have had in his mind. Yesterday I described with what indignation Schacht received that letter. He considered it pure irony.
QQuite right. Then I will refer to another document, which is a letter of Schacht himself addressed to Hitler. This is a memorandum dated the 7th of January 1939. Schacht wrote to Hitler:
"Ever since the beginning of the Reichsbank I have realized that a successful foreign policy can be carried out only by a transformation of the German armed forces. I undertook to finance a program of rearmament, notwithstanding the factthat it was connected with a danger of devaluation. This necessity obscured all other arguments against it in order to render possible the carrying out of a foreign policy which was rendered necessary by the general situation." End of quote. oppositional attitude of Schacht? 1934; is that correct?
Q No. This is a letter of the 7th of January 1939.
A Yes. Then will you please excuse me. I can only say that which I have said yesterday already, that all these letters were very carefully written to make sure that they would not be considered a provocation, and the factual context of the letter was made illusory by the fact that Hitler simply said here "I am being attacked, personally." I have said yesterday already that it was the problem to make sure that the other ministers who were not so much in the opposition, to convince them about the fact and to bring them on our side. Anschluss? of the Fritsch crisis, probably the dramatic climax of it, and that is why we were very indignant about it.
There was no doubt for us that here the German Army ---
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Witness, wait a minute. You were asked if you knew what the attitude of Schacht was to the Anschluss at that time. You are not answering that question. Do you or do you not know?
THE WITNESS: I could not give a definite answer about that, because all of us saw clearly that the problem of Austria had to be solved in a legal way sooner or later. There were differences of opinion in our group, but most of us hoped that the independence of Austria could be preserved. Especially from the German point of view, it was desirable that another independent German state should exist, if at any later time there would be a league of nations or diplomatic negotiations, but I cannot state under oath whether Schacht personally was of that opinion or whether he was for an outright annexation. BY MAJ. GEN. ALEXANDROV: in March 1939.
"Thank God, this could not prevent the German people from continuing on its way, because Adolf Hitler has reinforced the German will and the German thought by armed forces and has given a foreign form to German unity." opposition toward the Hitler Regime?
A I would have to be able to read the entire speech. I personally would not have held it, but I do not know whether pure judgment on my part here serves any purpose. Why don't you ask Schacht what he meant?
THE PRESIDENT: The speech can be put to Schacht when he goes into the witness box, if he does. BY MAJ. GEN. ALEXANDROV:
Q All right. Tell me, witness, you are residing actually in Switzerland; isn't that true? Which town?
Q How long have you lived in Switzerland?
Q Did you know about Schacht's visit to Switzerland in 1942?
A No. In 1913 he did not come to Switzerland.
Q Then Schacht was not in Switzerland in 1942 or 1943?
A That's right.
Q And while you were in Switzerland did you ever meet Schacht?
A Yes, repeatedly. I was at least every four weeks or eight weeks in Berlin, and until 1943 -
Q (Interposing) No. I am asking you about Schacht's visit to Switzerland. Schacht, on the occasion of his wedding trip, and then I saw him.
Q That was in 1941?
Q On the 14th of January, 1946, in the Newspaper "Baseler Nachrichten", an article was published, entitled "How Schacht Thought". Did you have anything to do with that article?
Q What do you know about that article?
I have tried to find out who was the American with whom Schacht had the conversation.
And my last question: Did you know anything about a conference which took place at Berchtesgaden in Hitler's house in the summer of 1944, where the extermination of the workers deported to Germany, in case the Allies continued their advance, was discussed? Did you hear about this conference? were proceedings against me, and I did not hear anything about that.
MAJ. GEN. ALEXANDROV: I have no further questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then do you wish to re-examine, or does any other member of the defendants' counsel wish to ask questions of the witness?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Attorney Pannenbecker, for the defendant Frick. BY DR. PANNENBECKER: prosecutor submitted to you a letter by the Reichs Minister for Justice of the 14th of May 1935 to the Reich Minister of the Interior. In that letter there is also an appendix which is a copy of a letter by an inspector of the Secret State Police. Witness, did I understand you correctly to say that you personally assisted in writing that letter? had horizontal channels, and at times it was desirable, if from another ministry a very strong letter came, that I could present it to my minister. And I do not doubt that Frick also liked it if he received a strong letter that he could fight for something before the Cabinet. Thus I remember that that letter and the sending of that letter before had been discussed with several gentlemen of the Ministry of Justice and with myself. effort of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior to do something against the Gestapo terror?
AAs for myself, I can certainly agree to that. I was at that time a member of the Ministry of the Interior.
Of course about that point I have not spoken to my chief. sentence. I quote:
"In the concentration camp at Hohenstein in Saxony, inmates had to be on their stripping machinery, which has been constructed for that purpose, until the skin of their skull by the drops of water got serious injuries, infected injuries," End of quotation. that incident?
Q Witness, then I have one more question. That is in connection with your statement which you have just made which was made before, that there was an atmosphere of hostility in the room of the attorneys. A number of colleagues, and they are not few, are deeply shocked by that statement of yours, and these colleagues of mine were glad that so openly you described conditions in Germany. Could you tell me whether that statement you made concerns all of the defense counsel? apparent misstatement or misunderstanding which was created by my statement. I meant a different incident which occurred as I entered the counsel room, about which I do not want to speak any further here. I want to state, I want to emphasize, that I know about the difficult task of the defense counsel, and I want to apologize if in any way the impression was created that I had reproached the majority of the defense counsel, in view of their difficult task.
Q I thank you. I have no more questions.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Dr. Gisevius, I want to ask you some questions to try and get clear what your various positions were and where you were at various times.
As I understand it, in 1933 you were a civil servant, is that right?
Q And then you became a member of the Gestapo? Political Police. In Germany one is a civil servant even in the stage of pre-training. Therefore I have to say that my first real position as an official I received in August of 1933 when I entered the Gestapo.
Q And when did you leave that position?
Q And to what position did you go?
A Then I entered the Ministry of the Interior; that is to say, the Prussian Ministry of the Interior. During the year 1934, at the same time, I came into the Reich Ministry of the Interior. In May of 1935 I was dismissed from the Ministry of the Interior. Office, which, in its beginnings, was with the Police Presidium in Berlin. On the date when Himmler was appointed Reich Chief of Police, on the 17th of June, 1936, I was finally dismissed from the police service. price control supervision, and, in the middle of 1937, I took an unpaid vacation, allegedly to make studies in economics. That vacation, in the beginning of 1939, was cancelled by the Ministry of the Interior, and I was attached to the Government Office in Potsdam near Berlin. There I had to do with road-building. economics, I think you said, or an unpaid vacation.
Q You still remained a member of the Civil Service then, did you?
A Yes; until the 20th of July I was continuously in the Civil Service. That is, the 20th of July, 1944.
the Interior and attached to Potsdam?
Q Well go on; after that? order and, on the other hand, my friends wanted to see me in the OKW. From the date of the outbreak of the war until the 1st of October, 1940, I only worked with a forged mobilization order, and every day I expected to be found out, at which time I would have had to take the consequences. have to now ask them to release me from that somewhat complicated situation. At that time the position of Canaris, temporarily, was so strong that he placed me in an intelligence position with the Consulate General in Zurich. There I received the title of a Vice Consul with the Consulate General in Zurich, and I stayed there as an intelligence man, without belonging to Intelligence formally, until the 20th of July. and I don't even know whether I have been denaturalized; I did not find out about that. you returning to Germany from time to time? to time Oster and Canaris sent me to Switzerland as a courier, or as a tourist. Schacht was quite helpful at that time in getting a Swiss visa, through the Swiss Legation.
1933 what was your actual job or function? I was attached to the Chief of the Executive Department, Oberregierungsrat Nebe, for the purpose of getting training. After the decree of the arresr warrant, at the end of October 1933, I was sent as an observer and a reporter to Leipzig, to the Reichstag fire trial.
Q What was his position? fore 1933. As a National Socialist, in July of 1933, he was called in to the Gestapo and was promoted there, until the beginning of 1934, to Oberregierungsrat. Then we were successful, with the aid of the defendant of the Interior. He then became the founder in chief of the Reich Office of Criminology. On the day of the appointment of Himmler as Chief of police of the Reich, he was put into the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Reich Security Main Office. In the course of time he was ask taken over into the SS; he became SS Gruppenfuehrer, SS General, and until the 20th of July, he was one of the closest subordinates of the defendant Kaltenbrunner. The defendant Kaltenbrunner was Chief of the Gestapo as well as of the Criminal Police and the Information Service. Nebe became the subordinate of Kaltenbrunner and received official orders from him, the same as the Gestapo Chief Mueller.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you wish to ask any questions, Dr. Dix?
DR. DIX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps we had better do that after the adjournment, at a quarter past two.
(A recess was taken until 1415 hours) Military Tribunal in the matter of:
The BY DR. DIX:
Q Dr. Gisevius, the Soviet Prosecutor put a question to you in connection with the Anschluss of Austria. During the answering of the question you were interrupted. You had just said verbatim, "But the form. . ." and I am asking you to complete your answer at this time. the form of the Anschluss as it had taken place. lating to the so-called incident of day before yesterday. Yesterday I discussed this incident with you and clarified the situation regarding my colleague Stahmer, and gave you permission to use this clarification. Tribunal at this time.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May I interpose an objection. I think that is a most irregular way to inform the Tribunal, if there is anything the Tribunal should be informed about, that Dr. Dix should tell the witness what the witness should tell the Tribunal. anything that he knows of his own knowledge. I do object to the witness being asked to relate what Dr. Dix has told him he may tell the Tribunal I think that is a most irregular way of clarifying it.
DR. DIX: Mr. President, that really wasn't the point. I made a remark about Dr. Stahmer and made this remark to Dr. Gisevius. It was a happening between the witness and myself, and it is important to me that this remark of mine be told and testified to by the witness. This is a happening which the witness experienced, and I prefer that the witness testify that I made this explanation, and I cannot see anything irregular about this pro-cedure, and I ask for a decision by the Tribunal.
Otherwise I could make the explanation myself, but I consider it better that the witness tell what I told him immediately after this incident.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that you may properly put the question to the witness -BY DR. DIX: time.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite sure now -
DR. DIX: Would you have the kindness to repeat it.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you hear now?
DR. DIX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite sure how what your question was, but the Tribunal thinks that you may put the question: Was there anything in connection with the incident which the witness has not already told us, which he wishes to say?
DR. DIX: Yes. The question relates to a conversation between the witness and myself. BY DR. DIX:
Q Mr. Witness, what did I tell you yesterday? colleague Dr. Stahmer did not wish to put undue pressure upon me and that the pressure would come from Goering. BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendants Hess and Frank):
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Dr. Seidl, are you attempting to reexamine?
DR. SEIDL: I wanted to put a single question.
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't thinking of the time which you would take up, but the question of whether you wanted to be allowed to put any questions.
Yes, go on, Dr. Seidl. BY DR. SEIDL: intelligence service of a foreign power?
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): That is not a question which you ought to put to this witness in re-examination.
DR. SEIDL: But, Mr. President, it is a question that relates to the credibility of this witness, and if it should happen that it could be shown there this witness who is a citizen of the German Reich, or at least was a citizen of the German Reich, was within the intelligence service of a foreign power, that is a fact which is important and significant to the credibility of this witness.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should like to be heard, on that. In the first place, I don't think that this witness should be subjected to any attacks. In the second place, I respectfully submit that it does not militate against the credibility of the witness that he should have opposed this kind of an organization. I think that the attack upon the credibility this witness, if there were one to be made -- he is sworn on behalf of the defendants and is not the Prosecution's witness.
The attack is not timely, is not a proper attack, and the substance of it does not go to credibility.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will allow you to put the question. BY DR. SEIDL:
A Mr. Attorney, it is not at all necessary for you to remind me of my oath. I have said that I was never in the service of a foreign power. I was in the service of a good, clean German service.
Q During the war did any power at war with Germany submit to you or had you received funds from them?
Q Do you knew what the three letters OSS mean?
Q What do they stand for?
Q And you were not connected with that organization? of this organization.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions to put to the witness.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Dr. Kubuschok, representing von Papen.
THE PRESIDENT: I hope the defendants' counsel will remember that they have all had a free opportunity to cross-examine this witness already and have not.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The personality of Mr. von Papen was mentioned by the Chief American Prosecutor and therefore I could not ask before this time. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: Chief American Prosecutor, that the defendant von Papen at any time protested. Of course, you did point out that somehow or other a written statement of von Papen's had not been directed to the Ministry of the Interior. assertion is to be limited only to the Ministry of the Interior. On page 133 of your book you pointed out that one of the chief activities of the defendant von Papen as vice-chancellor was to submit protests and he wrote protests and that he put those protests above all to von Hindenburg and Goering. today. Any protests by von Papen to the competent police minister after the 30th of June, 1934, is not known to me officially. I can only say it would have been an extra-ordinary support if a protest of that nature, describing the murders of the closest collaborator of von Papen had reached the Ministry of Interior.
Then this rumor about the suicide or tather the doubtful death of these two men would not have reached the public.
position of Frick, that is the rather small position of Frick, that protests should have been brought to a higher officer if such a possibility existed? could protest only to the higher officers, that is to the dictator himself of their own accord they destroyed the constitutional province of the Reich Ministers and the cabinet. It would have been of tremendous significance if Mr. von Papen at that time had used the formal way. in other questions as well sent many protests to the higher officials? an unfavorable characterization of the defendant von Papen. This character sketch coincides with the one you gave in your book. In your book you go into detailandupon these details you base your conclusions. your book and you had very little connection with him and no connection at all in your official capacity, you must surely have been relying upon the information of a third party in making your statement and the statements as far as they refer to von Papen are wrong and I refer to them briefly. of the 30th of June von Papen did not protest. But it is historically correct that von Papen, after the prohibition of his speech at Marburg, had protested and negotiations between Hitler and von Hindenbrug were to take place and that Hitler directly after von Papen's liberation on the 3rd of July again entered into this matter. Is it possible that this domestic problem was not known to you in its correctness? internal happenings but I would like to emphasize that a Minister or vicechancellor is obligated to assert publicly his opinion. I can say no matter what Schacht said to Hitler in private as far as his intentions and decisions were concerned, it was always possible for him in a masterly fashion to conceal his intentions and that is the important point.
the defendant von Papen some months before had a very bad experience when his own opinion as expressed in the speech at Marburg was not made public and that anyone who tried to dominate was to be punished? chancellor of the German Reich could be silenced in such a way. I do believe that the 30th of June would not have been as bloody as far as the citizenry was concerned if at the time the vice-chancellor von Papen had given a manly "no" and an obvious "no". von Papen because of what happened with reference to his speech, wanted to resign.
Point two: You make the assumption that von Papen took part in the cabinet session of the 3rd of July, in which the laws were made that measures in line with the 30th of June had been taken for the purposes of the state. Is it known to you that von Papen did not participate in this session; that he came into the Chancellery while the session was taking place? Hitler left the session and von Papen asked him to step into an anteroom; that he asked for his resignation; that he was granted this resignation; that von Papen immediately left the Chancellery without having participated at this session at all.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know whether it is possible for the witness to follow your questions but they are so long and contain so many statements of fact that it is very difficult for anybody else to; it is very difficult for the Tribunal to.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The nucleus of my question was that von Papen did not participate in the cabinet session on the 3rd of July.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, why do you not ask the witness whether he did participate or not? If that is the question you want to ask why don't you ask it?
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: ory assertion in the book is to be traced back to an error in information because of a third party. the silence of Mr. von Papen and through the silence of von Papen I myself was misled as well as the German people.
Q Point three: You stated the fact that von Papen later on traveled to von Hindenburg and there did not protest sufficiently against the measures taken. Is it not known to you that von Papen tried everything within his power to reach von Hindenburg but that he was kept away from Hindenburg and that for the first time after the 30th of June he came to the estate of Hindenburg after the death of von Hindenburg? Can the contradictory assertion in your book be traced back to an error in information? could not reach the President of the Reich and that he remained in office nevertheless, even though there were foreign journalists, even though there was a diplomatic corps and sufficient German people who heard and saw, if you tell me all these things, then I would take cognizance of the behavior of the German Vice-Chancellor. had been without office.
Point four: You start with the premise that von Papen did participate--I would like to finish my question--did participate in justifying the measures of the 30th of June. Do you know that von Papen, despite the demands on Hitler's part, did not participate in that session? Could you be misinformed on that point?
Q No, this is a different matter; it is not a Cabinet session, it is a Reichstag session.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, it seems to me that the defense has had every opportunity to interrogate this witness. The defense have already examined this witness, and the witness was cross-examined by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks, at any rate, that it is perfectly able to manage its own proceedings without any interruptions of this sort. We can deal with Dr. Laternser when he makes his application to crossexamine.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I understand, Mr. President. I merely wanted to say that we would like to shorten the duration of the proceedings as much as possible.
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff and the OKW): I have several questions which I would like to put to the witness, which result from the cross-examination to which he has been submitted, and I assume there is no objection to my questioning him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you have a right to cross-examine him. BY DR. LATERNSER: prosecutor, you uttered the opinion that a putsch against the then existing regime would have been possible only in connection with or the workingtogether of the generals, but that the many persuasions which took place did not bring about a working-together. I would like to ask you, witness, with which generals did you personally speak about the intended putsch plans?
THE PRESIDENT: You aren't concerned with every general in the German Army; you are only concerned with those who are charged with being a criminal group.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Your question must be addressed to them, or with reference to them.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Mr. President. Then I ask that I may describe to the witness the circle of the OKW and of the General Staff so that he may be able to answer my question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can put to him, I think, whether he had contact with any members of the General Staff who are charged with being a criminal group. You know who the generals are.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes. I would like to make a preliminary remark to the witness and then put the question in that connection.
THE PRESIDENT: Now what is the question you want to put?
DR. LATERNSER: So that the witness can answer the question in the limits prescribed by the High Tribunal, I would like to give the witness a brief description about the circle of these people who actually belonged to this group, and ask him, in connection with that, with which of these people he talked personally in order to win them over for the putsch intentions of his group.
THE PRESIDENT: If you do it shortly. BY DR. LATERNSER: incumbents of certain offices, beginning with February of 1938 until May of 1938. These officers and ranks are as follows: The Commanders in Chief of the various branches-
THE PRESIDENT: You are not going through the whole lot, are you, 130 of them?
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, the series is rather brief. On the other hand, I cannot limit my question asis desired by the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know what you mean. What I said was, are you proposing to go through the whole 130 generals, or officers?
DR. LATERNSER: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, go on.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q In the group there are the incumbents of certain ranks and offices; briefly, those who, in the period of time from February 1938 until May 1945, were commanders in chief. Now, I would like to ask you, with which generals of this group did you speak personally? And I am referring to discussions with the intention of your gaining them for your side.
A You mean commanders in chief of group? neral Staff of the Wehrmacht.
Q One question, witness; did you speak with Field Marshal von Brauchitsch about the intention of a putsch against the regime or against the Gestapo only?
A I talked about both with him, yes. So far as both topics are concerned, he said "yes" and first, and then acted with "no". Kluge as well. I had known him for many years. I do not know at what period he entered into the category which I mentioned, but my connection with Kluge was never cut short. It may be that I talked with one or another which fall into your category. the intention of a putsch, and you would recall it if you had talked with another Field Marshal, say about this matter.
A It wasn't as large an event as all that, Mr. Attorney. Field Marshal weren't such important people.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser the fact that these generals were spoken to and refused to join a putsch is not a crime within the meaning of the Charter.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, yesterday I set forth that this point is very important because it would exclude the assumption of a conspiracy.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid, Dr. Laternser, it is no good answering me that a point is very important. What I asked you was, how is it relevant to show that these generals discussed a revolt against the regime? That, I am putting to you is not a crime within the meaning of the Charter.