The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-17/tgmwc-17-163.07

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-17/tgmwc-17-163.07
Last-Modified: 2000/07/21

Q. Well, now, just let us deal with one or two other points.
I would just like you to look at what Mr. Messersmith says
at the end of 1935. You remember this statement - I will
give you the reference in a moment - that:

  "Europe will not be able to get away from the myth that
  Neurath, Papen and Mackensen are not dangerous people and
  that they are diplomats of the old school. They are in
  fact, servile instruments of the regime, and just because
  the outside world looks upon them as harmless they are
  able to work more effectively. They are able to sow
  discord just because they propagate the myth that they
  are not in sympathy with the regime''

Now, can you tell us up to the date on which Mr. Messersmith
wrote that - on 10th October, 1935 - of a single instruction
of Hitler's that you had not carried out?

A. I did not quite understand. A single -

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I am sorry; I mislaid the
reference. It is Document Book 12, Page 106. That is the
reference to it.


Q. You see, Mr. Messersmith is there saying that you and the
defendant von Papen and von Mackensen are servile
instruments of the regime. Now, I am just asking you whether
you could tell us up to the date that Mr. Messersmith wrote,
on 10th October, 1935, any instruction of Hitler that you
had refused to carry out.

A. Not only one, but a number. I have testified as to the
number of times I contradicted Hitler, and I have expressed
myself about what Mr. Messersmith is assuming here again -
about the importance of Mr. Messersmith's affidavit.

Q. Defendant, I put it this way: Up to 10th October, 1935,
what did you tell the Tribunal was the most serious thing
that Hitler had ordered you to do and you had refused to
carry out? What was the most serious - the one that mattered

A. At this moment, that is a question that I cannot answer.
How should I know what the most serious question was which I
opposed? I opposed all sorts of things.

Q. If you cannot remember what you think is the most
serious, I shall not trouble you with it any more, but I
want -

A. Well, then, give me an example, but do not produce an
allegation out of a clear sky without giving me the chance
to refute it.

Q. I was asking you to tell us, but I will pass on to what
another American diplomat put. I would like to ask you about
Mr. Bullitt's report, with which I gather you agree.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is Document L-150, and
it is at Page 72 of the Document Book 12.

My Lord, I hope that there is no difference in the paging -
72 of mine.


SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, it is 74. I am sorry, my Lord.

                                                  [Page 178]


Q. Now, it is the second paragraph there. After saying that
he had a talk with you, he says:

  "Von Neurath said that it was the policy of the German
  Government to do nothing active in foreign affairs until
  the Rhineland had been digested. He explained that by
  that he meant that until the German fortifications had
  been constructed on the French and Belgian frontiers, the
  German Government would do everything possible to prevent
  rather than to encourage an outbreak by the Nazis in
  Austria and would pursue a quiet line with regard to
  Czechoslovakia. Von Neurath added: 'As soon as our
  fortifications are constructed and the countries of
  Central Europe realize that France cannot enter German
  territory at will, all those countries will begin to feel
  differently about their foreign policies and a new
  constellation will develop.'"

Q. You agree you said that?

A. Yes, yes, certainly. Yesterday or the day before I
testified in detail about what that was supposed to mean.
Moreover, it does not make any difference.

Q. I would like to see if you agree with the meaning I
suggest. That is, that as soon as you had got your
fortifications in sufficiently good order on your western
frontier, you would proceed to try and secure an Anschluss
with Austria and to get back the Sudetenland from
Czechoslovakia. Isn't that what it means?

A. No, no, not at all. It is quite clear in the document.
What I meant by this, and what I expressed, was that these
countries, particularly Czechoslovakia and France, would
change their policy toward Germany, because they could no
longer march through Germany so easily.

Q. You appreciate, defendant, what I am putting to you? I
think I made it quite clear - that at the time that you were
facing the Western powers with the remilitarization of
Germany and the Rhineland - that is in 1935 and 1936 - you
were giving assurances to Austria, which Hitler did in May,
1935, and you made this treaty in 1936. As soon as you had
digested your first steps, you then turned against Austria
and Czechoslovakia in 1938. I am suggesting, you see, that
you were talking the exact truth and prophesying with a
Cassandra-like accuracy. That is what I am suggesting - that
you knew very well that these intentions were there.

A. Not at all, not at all, not at all! That is an assumption
on your part, for which there is absolutely no proof.

Q. We will not argue it further because we will come on to
just one other point before we proceed to 1937.

You have told the Tribunal, not once but many times, that
you did not support the Nazi attitude toward the Christian
Churches, of oppressing the Churches. I have understood you
correctly, have I not?

A. Yes, indeed.

Q. Now, you say that you resisted and actively intervened
against the repression of the Church. Would you just look at
Document 3758-PS.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that will become GB 516.
Your Lordship will find it in Document Book 12-A, Page 81.


Q. This is an entry which must have been fairly early in
1936 in the diary of the Reich Ministry of Justice:

  "The Reich Foreign Minister sent over, with a personal
  note for confidential information, a letter from Cardinal
  State Secretary Pacelli" - that is the present Pope - "to
  the German Ambassador in the Vatican, in which he urges
  an act of pardon for Vicar-General Seelmayer. He, the
  Reich Foreign Minister, remarks that after the heavy
  attacks on the German Administration of Justice by the
  Holy See in the note of 29th January, there is no reason
  in his opinion to show any deference to the Vatican. He
  recommends it, however, since for foreign policy reasons
  it is to our interest not to let our good personal
  relations with Pacelli cool off."

                                                  [Page 179]

Now, defendant, will you tell me anything that showed the
slightest personal interest in the fate of Father Seelmayer,
or were you only concerned with showing a firm front to the
Vatican and not endangering your good relations with
Cardinal Pacelli?

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, the document has just
been submitted to me; I have had no opportunity whatsoever
to look it over and inform myself about it. Likewise, I do
not know of there having been any talk about a diary of the
Reich Minister of Justice up to now in this trial.
Therefore, I am not in a position to judge how the Reich
Minister of justice could have made this entry in his diary
at all.

Since these notes have apparently been taken out of their
context, it is not possible for me to form any kind of a
picture of the significance of the entry as a whole, and
naturally it is even less possible for the defendant to do

Therefore, I must protest against the admissibility of this
question and against the submission of this document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: This is a perfectly good captured
document. It is a copy of the original diary of the Reich
Minister of Justice, and it is therefore admissible against
the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Ludinghausen, you can see the
original document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, actually, I am just told by
my American colleagues that this diary has been used before,
that extracts were put in in the case against the defendant
von Schirach.

THE WITNESS: Mr. President, I have no objection -

THE PRESIDENT: One moment.

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: I could not understand a word, Mr.
President. I am sorry, I could not understand. I can hear

THE PRESIDENT: When you make an objection, you should see
that the instrument is in order.

What I said was that you can see the original document. And
I am told now that the original document has been used
before, and that therefore there is nothing to prevent its
being used in cross-examination. It is a captured document,
and you can see the original.

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: I did not know that, Mr. President.


Q. What I am putting to you, defendant, is that your
statement to the Minister of Justice shows no concern for
the individual priest about whom the complaint had been
made; it is merely concerned with your relations with the
Vatican and with Cardinal Pacelli, as he then was. Is that
typical of your interferences? Is this typical of your
interferences for the sake of ill-treated priests?

A. I naturally cannot remember this case any more, but as it
stands there in the entry I was perfectly justified.
According to the entry, I said that we had no reason to show
any special consideration after the then Cardinal-State
Secretary had attacked German justice, but that, as Foreign
Minister, I considered it important not to disturb our
relations with Pacelli.

I cannot see what conclusions you want to draw from this.

Q. Well, I do not want to trespass on the ground of my
Soviet colleagues, but you know that the Czech report
accuses you, with complete impartiality as far as sect is
concerned, that your Government persecuted the Catholics,
Protestants, Czech National Church and even the Greek Church
in Czechoslovakia. You know that all these Churches suffered
during your protectorate. Do you agree that all these
Churches suffered under your protectorate?

A. No, not at all.

Q. All right, I will not go into the details, but I am
suggesting to you that your care about the various religious
confessions did not go very deep.

                                                  [Page 180]

A. That is again an assertion on your part which you cannot

Q. Well, I would just like to put one thing. You remember
telling the Tribunal this morning of the excellent terms
that you were on with the Archbishop of Prague?

A. I said that I had good relations with the Archbishop.

Q. I would just like you to look at this copy.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, this is a copy, but General
Ecer assures me that he can get the original from the Czech
Government files. I only received it a half-hour ago.
General Ecer, who is here from Czechoslovakia, says that he
can vouch for the original.

Q. (continuing): I would like the defendant to look at it.
Is that a letter which you received from the Archbishop?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is Document D-920, and
it will be Exhibit GB 517.

  Q. (continuing): "Your Excellency, very esteemed Herr
  Reich Protector:
  Your last letter has filled me with much sorrow because I
  had to assume from it that not even you, your Excellency,
  are willing to believe that I fell unconscious and had to
  call the Professor of the University, Dr. Tirasek, who
  remained at my bedside for an hour. He will come again
  today, together with a specialist for internal diseases."

And then he gives his name.

  "Your Excellency may be convinced that I shall always do
  what I can to please you. Pray, however, have compassion
  on me and do not ask me to act against the laws of the
  With the greatest esteem,
  Karl Kardinal Kaspar, Prince Archbishop."

Do you remember that?

A. I cannot say what this refers to. I have no idea; there
is nothing in it, and I cannot tell you what it referred to.

Q. You cannot remember this occasion when the Prince
Archbishop wrote to you and told you the effects of the
illness from which he had suffered, and beseeched you not to
ask him to do something against the laws of the Church? It
does not remain in your mind at all, does it?

A. No.

Q. All right, we will leave that. Well, now, I want you just
to tell me this, before we pass on to the later occurrences
in 1937. You remember you dealt yesterday with your speech -
I think it was to the German Academy of Law. You remember
the speech, in August of 1937? I can give you a reference.
Would you like to look at it?

A. I only need the reference to where I spoke.

Q. You remember it, I only wanted to save time. Do you not
remember? I will put it to you if you like. It is the
speech of 29th August, 1937, and I will give you the
reference in one moment.

What I wanted to ask you was this. You said: "The unity of
the racial and national will created through Nazism with
unprecedented elan has made possible a foreign policy by
means of which the chains of the Versailles Treaty were

What did you mean by "the unity of the racial will,"
produced by Nazism?

A. By that I probably meant that all Germans were unified
more than ever before. However, at this date I can no
longer tell you exactly what I meant at the time. But in
any case I was merely establishing a fact.

Q. I see. Now tell me. That was in August, 1937. You told
the Tribunal the effect that the words of Hitler, on the 5th
of November, 1937, had upon you, and your counsel has put in
the statement by Baroness von Ritter. After these words

A. (interrupting): In November?

Q. Yes, November, 1937.

A. Yes.

                                                  [Page 181]

Q. Now, after these words had had that effect, with whom did
you discuss them among the people who had been present at
the Hoszbach interview?

A. This speech was not made at Berchtesgaden at all. That is
a mistake; it was at Berlin, this address.

Q. I did not say Berchtesgaden; I said at the Hoszbach
conference. We call it the Hoszbach conference because he
took the minutes.

A. I told you yesterday with whom I spoke, General von
Fritsch, and with Beck, who was at that time Chief of the
General Staff, and I also testified that we agreed at that
time jointly to oppose Hitler and the tendency which he had
revealed in this speech.

Q. Did you speak about it to Hitler?

A. Yes. I testified yesterday in detail that I did not have
a chance to speak with Hitler until 14th or 15th January,
because he had left Berlin and I could not see him. That was
the reason why I asked for my resignation at that time.

Q. Did you speak about it to Goering or Raeder?

A. No.

Q. Now I want you just to tell me one word or two about this
Secret Cabinet Council to which you were appointed after you
left the Foreign Office.

Would you look at the first sentences of the report of that
meeting on 5th November?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is Page 81 in the
English Document Book 12 , and Page 93 of the German
Document Book.

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.