Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-115.05
Last-Modified: 2000/01/27

Q. Between the time you went to Zurich and 20 July, did you
return to Germany from time to time?

A. During that time I was mainly in Germany, and only from
time to time, Oster and Canaris sent me to Switzerland as a
courier, on travel orders. Schacht was still quite helpful
to me in getting me a Swiss visa, through the Swiss
Legation.

Q. During the time that you were in the Gestapo from August
to December, 1933, what was your actual job or function?

A. When I received my first Civil Service position I was
only in training, and I was attached to the then Chief of
the Executive Department, Oberregierungsrat Nebe, for
training. After the warrant for arrest was issued, at the
end of October, 1933, I was sent to Leipzig as a reporter,
for the Reichstag fire trial.

Q. You spoke yesterday very often of a man whose name I am
not clear about, Nebe, I believe it was.

A. Yes.

Q. What was his position?

A. Nebe was a well-known criminologist at the Berlin Police
Headquarters before 1933. As a National Socialist he was
called into the Gestapo in July of 1933; early in 1934 he
was promoted to Oberregierungsrat. Then we were successful,
with the aid of the defendant Frick, to have him transferred
for some time to the Ministry of the Interior. Then he
became the founder and chief of

                                                  [Page 289]

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 new Reich Security Main Office. In the
course of time he was taken over into the S.S.; he became a
S.S. Gruppenfuehrer, S.S. General, and until 20 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. So that thereby Nebe became a
subordinate of Kaltenbrunner and continuously received
official orders from him, just like the Gestapo Chief
Muller.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you wish to ask any questions, Dr. Dix?

DR. DIX: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps you had better do that after
the adjournment at a quarter past two.

(A recess was taken.)

BY DR. DIX:

Q. The Soviet Prosecutor put a question to you in connection
with the annexation of Austria. While answering the question
you were interrupted. You had just said, "But the form ...";
would you please complete your answer now?

A. What I wanted to say was that Schacht was undoubtedly
opposed to the Anschluss in this form.

Q. Then I have one last question, which concerns the so-
called incident of the day before yesterday. I discussed
this incident with you yesterday and explained the situation
as regards my colleague Dr. Stahmer. I also gave you
permission to make use of this explanation at any time. I
now request you to give this explanation to the Tribunal.

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.

Now, I have no objection to the witness relating to the
Tribunal anything that he knows from 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: That is not the case. I made a remark about Dr.
Stahmer to Dr. Gisevius. That is a matter between the
witness and myself, I consider it important that this remark
of mine be related and testified to by the witness. It is an
incident which he observed, and I prefer that the witness
should confirm the fact that I explained this to him. I
cannot see anything irregular about this procedure, and I
ask for a decision by the Tribunal. Otherwise I should make
the explanation myself, but I consider it better for the
witness to say what I told him immediately after that
incident.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that you may properly put
the question to the witness ...

BY DR. DIX:

Q. I have already put the question, and you may answer it at
this time.

THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite sure now 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. Witness, what did I tell you yesterday?

A. You told me immediately that, in your opinion, your
colleague Dr.,

                                                  [Page 290]

Stahmer did not wish to put undue pressure upon me, but that
this undue pressure came rather from the defendant Goering.

Q. I have no further questions.

BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendants Hess and Frank):

Q. Witness, were you, during the war ...

THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Dr. Seidl, are you attempting
to re-examine?

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 ought to be allowed
to put any question.

Yes, go on, Dr. Seidl.

BY DR. SEIDL:

Q. Witness, during the war, were you at any time active in
the intelligence service of a foreign power?

A. At no time.

Q. It is also not correct ...

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 affecting the
credibility of this witness. If it should turn out that this
witness, who is or was, a citizen of the German Reich, had
been active in the intelligence service of a foreign power,
that fact would have an important bearing on the credibility
of the 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 organisation. I think that the attack upon the
credibility of 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:

Q. Please answer my question and remember your oath.

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
intelligence service of a foreign power. I was in the
service of a good, clean German cause.

Q. During the war did you receive funds from any power at
war with Germany?

A. No.

Q. Do you know what the three letters O.S.S. mean?

A. Yes.

Q. What do they stand for?

A. They stand for an American intelligence service.

Q. You had nothing to do with that organisation?

A. I had friendly and political contacts with several
members of this organisation.

DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions to put to the
witness.

DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for the defendant 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 person of Herr von Papen was not
mentioned until
                                                  [Page 291]

the cross-examination by the American Prosecutor. Therefore
I could not ask questions before.

BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:

Q. Witness, you replied in the negative to a question put by
the Chief American Prosecutor yesterday as to whether the
defendant von Papen at any time protested. Of course, you
modified this by pointing out that no written communication
by von Papen had been addressed to the Ministry of the
Interior.

In order to clarify this problem, I should like to know
whether this assertion of yours refers only to the Ministry
of the Interior. On Page 133 of your book you pointed out
that one of the defendant von Papen's main activities as
vice-chancellor consisted in handing in protests, and that
he addressed these protests above all to Hindenburg and
Goering.

A. I again emphasised the latter point yesterday or today. I
have no official knowledge of any protest made by von Papen
to the competent police minister after 30 June, 1934. I can
say only that it would greatly have strengthened the
position of the Ministry of Police if a protest of that
nature, describing in detail the murder of von Papen's
closest co-workers, had reached the Ministry of the
Interior. In that case, it is unlikely that this rumour
about the suicide or rather the unconfirmed death of Bose
and Jung would have reached the public.

Q. Do you not think that it is understandable, especially
considering the comparatively insignificant and
uninfluential position held by Frick, that such protests
should have been brought to the notice of higher authorities
if possible?

A. By adopting the standpoint that they could apply only to
higher authorities, that is, the dictator himself, of their
own accord they shattered the constitutional competency of
the individual ministries and the cabinet.

It would have meant a great deal if Herr von Papen at that
time had used the prescribed channels.

Q. In agreement with your book, you do not dispute the fact
that von Papen made many protests to these higher
authorities in respect to other questions as well?

A. No, he did protest frequently.

Q. Yesterday, within the scope of your general statements
you gave an unfavourable estimate of the character of the
defendant von Papen. This character sketch coincides with
the one you gave in your book. In your book you pay special
attention to certain details and draw your conclusions from
them.

Since the defendant von Papen only occupies a comparatively
small amount of space in your book and you probably had
nothing to do with him in your official capacity, you must
have had to base your statements on second-hand information.
Since all these statements, as far as they refer to von
Papen, are incorrect, I refer to them briefly.

(1) You take as your starting-point your statement that, in
spite of the events of 30 June, von Papen did not resign.

From the historian's point of view, it is significant that
Papen sent in his resignation after the suppression of his
Marburg speech, that negotiations about this resignation
were pending between Hitler and Hindenburg, and that Hitler
accepted Papen's resignation immediately after the latter's
release on 3 July, when it was again tendered, but did not
intend to make it public until a later date, in spite of
Papen's request to the contrary.

Is it possible, witness, that you were not correctly
informed of this interval event?

A. It is perfectly possible for me not to have known of
internal events. I should like, however, to stress the fact
that a Minister or Vice-Chancellor is under an obligation to
give a certain amount of publicity to his opinion and to his
decisions; and I can only say that, whatever Papen may have
said to Hitler in private, he contrived with consummate
skill to conceal from the German
                                                  [Page 292]

people the fact that he intended to resign - or had already
resigned; and that is the point.

Q. Are you aware that this same defendant von Papen had had
a very bad experience a few weeks earlier, when the Press
was forbidden to publish his speech at Marburg, which
contained a frank statement of his opinions, and warning was
given that persons found circulating it would be punished.

A. I am aware of it because we were appalled that a vice-
chancellor of the German Reich allowed himself to be
silenced in such a way. I believe that 30 June would not
have involved such a heavy death roll for the middle classes
if Vice-Chancellor von Papen had given a manly "no" - a
definite "no" at the proper time.

Q. Your answer makes no reference to the point which I
raised before that von Papen had actually resigned, because
the publication of his Marburg speech had been prohibited.

(2) You make the assumption that von Papen took part in the
cabinet session of 3 July, in which the law was passed that
the measures involved by 30 June were legal as emergency
measures for the protection of the State. Is it known to you
that von Papen did not participate in this session; that he
had just been released and went into the Chancellery while
the session was in progress; that Hitler asked him from the
session room to go into the adjoining room; that von Papen
again tendered his resignation, which Hitler accepted; and
that he left the Chancellery immediately afterwards, without
participating in the 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 follow them; it is very difficult for
the Tribunal.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The gist of my question was that von Papen
did not attend the cabinet session on 3 July. My question to
the witness ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, why do you not ask the witness
whether he knows whether he did participate or not. If that
is the question you want to ask, why don't you ask it?

BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:

Q. My question is simply an attempt to find out whether the
assertion to the contrary which appears in his book can also
be explained by an error in information obtained from a
third party.

A. It can be explained by inaccurate information, through
the silence of Herr von Papen, which became known to the
public and by which I myself was misled.

Q. (3) You start from your statement that von Papen,
although he went to see Hindenburg afterwards, did not make
a sufficiently strong protest against the measures taken. Is
it known to you that von Papen did everything in his power
to reach Hindenburg but was kept away from him, and that he
did not reach Hindenburg's estate at Nendeck until after 30
June, after Hindenburg's death? Can the assertion to the
contrary contained in your book be traced back to an error
in information?

A. Yes, if you tell me that even in his capacity of Vice-
Chancellor of the Reich he did not have access to the
President of the Reich and still remained in office, in
spite of the pressure of foreign journalists, of the foreign
diplomatic corps and even of a large number of Germans who
heard of this attitude of a German Vice-Chancellor.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor