Chapter 30

1. in the case in question to remove the confusion, resulting from the measures indicated above, by suitable countermeasures

2. to take steps that such occurrences altogether incompatible with the administration of criminal law and the public security guaranteed by the state are avoided.

I would respectfully request your comments and information with regard to any action in this direction. Considering the importance of this case, I would be obliged if you would reply as early as possible.

Heil Hitler!Signed: Dr. Guertner.

2. A letter to the Chief of Staff of the SA of the NSDAP with a copy of the following accusation enclosed.

In regard to:—to enter on page 1— ConfidentialEnclosed 1 loose leaf PersonalChief of Staff:

Sir:

In the penal case, indicated above, which involved serious maltreatment of prisoners in the protective custody camp at Hohenstein in Saxony, the main trial was held in Dresden from 20th March to the middle of May 1935 before the 12th Criminal Division of the Supreme Court. In regard to the details of the incidents, may I refer to the enclosed copy of the Bill of indictment of October 1934 and particularly may I call attention to page 21 of the results of the inquiry. On May 3, 1935 the assistant prosecutor Staatsanwalt Dr. Walther imposed the following punishment:

Here has been received that it has been put to the assistant prosecutor Staatsanwalt Dr. Walther, who is a storm trooper, after pronouncing of the verdict on his Obersturmbannfuehrer, that he should resign from the SA. The fact that this measure was undertaken at the same time as the verdict referred to above was pronounced, gives rise to the assumption that here also then is something below the surface. However this would represent an extremely serious and highly undesirable conclusion to the legal & fully binding penal proceedings. The officials would have to battle with their conscience when carrying out their duties, if such procedure was in force. In this way the orderly official work of the authorities for the administration of criminal law would be so seriously endangered, that I would find myself obliged to consider the question whether in the face of such a state of affairs Staatsanwaelte could still be members of the SA at all.

Hence it appears to be necessary:

1. In the case in question to remove the confusion resulting from the measures indicated above, by suitable counter-measures.2. To take steps that such occurrences altogether incompatible with the administration of criminal law and the public security guaranteed by the State, are avoided.

1. In the case in question to remove the confusion resulting from the measures indicated above, by suitable counter-measures.

2. To take steps that such occurrences altogether incompatible with the administration of criminal law and the public security guaranteed by the State, are avoided.

I would respectfully request your comments and information with regard to my action in this direction. Considering the importance of this case, I would be obliged if you would reply as early as possible.

3. to the Minister, confidential

4. 2 weeks.

Heil Hitler!Signed: Dr. Guertner.

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 785-PS

Z Stg. 10-9-35

Subject: Suit against Rudolf Jaehnichen and others for Mistreatment of Inmates of the Hohnstein Concentration Camp.

A further investigation which was ordered as well as a new verification of already known facts showed that the mistreatment of inmates which has led to the conviction of the accused were not carried out for any political purposes (to obtain a confession, to punish disciplinary infractions, etc.) or in response to previously suffered wrongs inflicted by Communists but were merely malicious torture or expressions of sadistic brutality.

A few cases of mistreatment occurred, however, where enemies of the State were involved. The Court in its sentence, however, considered that mistreatments in such cases to a certain extent were justified or at least understandable. But it expressly stated further that the mistreatments which occurred during interrogations had taken on proportions which were in no accord with the desired objective and that the defendants not only attempted to wring confessions from the inmates but that they acted in sheer lust for torture. (Compare Page 100 of the Sentence Document.)

The overwhelming majority of Cases, however, over which sentences were pronounced, represent mistreatments which occurred when the inmates first entered the institution, when they received their prison clothing, or during drill hours. These mistreatments were carried out without rhyme or reason. The fact that the defendants in these cases were motivated neither by political purposes nor by personal revenge against outrages suffered formerly can be learned from the following circumstances.

1. Amongst the mistreated persons there were quite a number that never belonged to any parties of the left. Some of them were even old members of the movement. The following cases are proof of that:

2.Case Prueger

On 6.3.1934 the Kreisleiter of the German Labor Front for the food industry, member of the Nazi Party, was brought in for offending the Kreisleiter and two other persons. When being brought in, Turke beat his face with his fist and subsequently, in a small room, he was heavily beaten with sticks, whips and other instruments. * * *

* * * 2. The methods as well as the detailed circumstances of mistreatment show that lust for torture was the only motivation in a great number of cases. The following case illustrates that fact especially well.

The defendant Schupp frequently had to supervise the drill of inmates. On 5 or 6 March 1935 he called the inmate Lindner out of formation without any apparent reason and asked him for his name and domicile. Then he pressed, without any cause, his burning cigarette upon the end of Lindner's nose with the result that the latter received a burn for which he later required medical treatment. The court in this case, as in several others, expressly maintains that Schupp only acted out of sheer lust of torture. * * *

* * * Furthermore, may I state as far as the question of further mitigation of sentences are concerned that the court in pronouncing sentence has already weighed to the fullest extent all possible mitigating circumstances, the awful consequences of cruel mistreatment of human beings should otherwise result in a far more severe judicial expiation. Also it must not be over-looked that altogether only those members of the concentration camp staff were brought into court who took an especially active and cruel part in the mistreatments. Furthermore, the sentence was not aggravated by the fact that the Court affirmed, for purely judicial reasons, that the defendants were officials and sentenced them for committing bodily harm while carrying out a public office. The sentence expressly states that the court did not stress the fact that the accused SA men were officials in determining the punishment because they had not received proper training as officials and they probably do not wish to be referred to as such. (Compare page 144 of the Sentence). In these circumstances the mitigation of sentences already granted in the decree of 31 October 1935 seem an extensive favor. If, nevertheless, I suggest subsequently a further reduction of sentence, based upon new evidence of some of the defendants, I can only justify my action because I believe that, according to circumstances, the defendants in one or the other case of mistreatment may have partly acted out of revolutionary motives.

As to what parts the individual defendants played in these criminal acts I refer to the last two columns in the table handed over with the report of 28 August 1935. The following statements as to the individual defendants may be made.

1.Jaehnichen:

Sentence: 6 years imprisonment.Reduction of Sentence: to be released on probation after 4 years 6 months.

Sentence: 6 years imprisonment.

Reduction of Sentence: to be released on probation after 4 years 6 months.

Jaehnichen is an old member of the S.A. who through his bad example has fostered the increase of excesses, but at first he was motivated undoubtedly by a certain revolutionary anger and by the fact that he wanted to maintain exemplary discipline amongst the inmates. A further mitigating fact is that his participation in the unusually serious mistreatment of the Jew Ambross, who later committed suicide, was inspired by the belief that he was dealing in this case with a despoiler of German girls. With these facts, being what they are, a further reduction in sentence, amounting to one year, seems justifiable.

2.Putzler:

Sentence: 3 years 9 months imprisonment.Reduction of Sentence: to be released on probation after 2 years 6 months.

Sentence: 3 years 9 months imprisonment.

Reduction of Sentence: to be released on probation after 2 years 6 months.

His sentence is based essentially on the especially cruel mistreatments during questionings of inmates. Even though his acts in this connection seem to be pure vindictive torture, as for example the use of the dripping device, one may, nevertheless, say that at least at first he was motivated by the desire to obtain truthful statements. On the other hand, Putzler participated in serious excesses also during times other than the questioning periods and played a leading part in them. To give an example, he tore out inmate Ricke's beard. A further reduction of the sentence by 6 months seems under these circumstances a far going favor * * *

* * * I want to remark, in conclusion, that the defendants as well as the defense, believe since 29.11.1935 that all defendants had been finally pardoned by the decision of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. It is further to be learned from remarks by defendants not in custody that in case of a complete pardon those still in custody would leave prison under the accompaniment of a band or would be solemnly received by a band on return to their home town.

Appendix

Upon application of the Reich Minister of Justice I hereby grant in the case against Rudolp Jaehnichen and others, for mistreatment of persons committed to protective custody in Hohnstein Concentration Camp (16. St. A. 3431 34 Dresden prosecutor) the following mitigation of sentences as enumerated in Column 6:

Berlin December 1935THE FUEHRER AND CHANCELLOR

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 786-PS

Note

1. Just now, at 1030, State Secretary Dr. Meissner telephoned and asked me to deliver the following message to the Minister, whom he had been unable to contact:

Concerning the pardon of those sentenced in connection with the maltreatment in the Hohnstein Concentration Camp, Herr Bouhler informed him yesterday that he had reported to the Fuehrer on the result of the fresh inquiries, which he and Reich Governor Mutschmann had instituted. The Fuehrer has now decided to remit all other sentences remaining. State Secretary Meissner wished to inform the Ministry of Justice of this, so that it might be made the subject of corresponding decrees. He, State Secretary Meissner, mentioned that the Minister of Justice had likewise been commissioned by the Fuehrer to carry out special inquiries, to determine in which cases the motives for maltreatment had been sadistic and therefore a pardon would be out of place. The Minister of Justice would have to be given the opportunity of reporting to the Fuehrer his ideas, based on his still inconclusive investigations. Herr Bouhler also stated that the Minister of Justice was still at liberty to do so. The Fuehrer merely desired that his inquiries be hastened as much as possible so that the statement could be made within the next few weeks and that, in any case, he submit a decree granting full pardon.

State Secretary Meissner, when finally summing up, therefore requested that, should the Minister not approve of a total pardon, a double decree be submitted.

2. The Minister for his favourable consideration.

Berlin, 29th November 1935[Signature illegible]

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 787-PS

Berlin, 18 June, 1935The Reich Ministry of JusticeZ.F. g 10 390/35

1. Communication to the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor with addition of a certified copy of B1. 9-10 d.A., thus far

Subject: Motion of the Reich deputy in Saxony concerning the nolle-prossing of the criminal procedure against Oberregierungsrat Vogel in Dresden on account of bodily injury while in office.

16 St.A 107/34 (StA.Dresden)Inclosure: 1 loose sheet.

The prosecuting authority in Dresden has indicated Oberregierungsrat Erich Vogel in Dresden (case designation 16 STA. 4 107/34) on account of bodily injury while in office. The following subject matter is the basis of the case:

Vogel belongs to the Gestapo office of the province of Saxony since its foundation and is chief of Main section II, which formerly bore the title Zub [Zentralstelle fuer Umsturzbekaempfung] (Central office for combatting revolt). In the process of combatting efforts inimical to the State Vogel carried out several so called borderland actions in the year 1933 in which a large number of politically unreliable persons and persons who had become political prisoners in the border territories were taken into protective custody [Schutzhaft] and brought to the Hohnstein protective custody camp. In the camp serious mistreatment of the prisoners has been going on at least since summer of 1933. The prisoners were not only, as in protective custody camp Bredow near Stettin, beaten into a state of unconsciousness for no reason, with whips and other tools but were also tortured in other ways, as for instance with a drip-apparatus especially constructed for the purpose, under which the prisoners had to stand so long that they came away with serious purulent wounds of the scalp. The guilty SA-leaders and SA-men were sentenced to punishments of 6 years to 9 months of imprisonment by the main criminal court of the provincial court in Dresden of 15 May 1935 (16 StA. 3431.34). Vogel, whose duties frequently brought him to the camp, took part in this mistreatment, insofar as it happened in the reception room of the camp during completion of the reception formalities, and in the supply room, during issuing of the blankets. In this respect it should be pointed out that Vogel was generally known to the personnel of the camp—exactly because of his function as head of the Zub—and his conduct became at least partly a standard for the above-named conduct of the SA-leaders and men.

One of the border actions took place on 3 August 1935. Vogel had ordered the arrest of the persons who were brought to the camp at that time, and therefore also had responsibilities relative to their proper treatment. On account of the large number of those who were brought in, a pay office of the administration building in the lower castle yard was adapted as a makeshift reception room to help dispose of the formalities. The reception was being taken care of by Truppfuehrer [T/Sgt] Felix Sikora. He hit every incoming person without cause violently across the face with a steel ruler, so that it resounded loudly. In addition the prisoners, when brought in, were spoken to roughly and at the same time beaten, partly even literally pushed into the room. Vogel stayed in the reception room a long time and watched these proceedings without doing anything about them. In his presence, for instance, the SA-man Mutze dealt such blows to one man, without provocation, that he turned around on himself. As already stated, Vogel not only took no steps against this treatment of the prisoners, but he even made jokes about it and stated that it amused him the way things were popping here.

In the supply room Vogel himself took a hand in the beating amid the general severe mistreatment. The SA-man there employed whips and other articles and beat the prisoners in such a manner that serious injuries were produced, the prisoners partly became unconscious and had to lie in the dispensary a long time. Vogel was often present in the supply room during the mistreatment. At least in the following cases he personally laid violent hands upon prisoners.

a. On the occasion of the borderland action of 3 August 1933 Vogel was in the chamber in the rear portion of the area, where the prisoners as a rule do not enter. At first Vogel observed from there the severe mistreatment which was administered to the prisoners at the counter where the blankets were issued. Then he had a prisoner brought to the rear chamber and swung several blows of his fist at his head.

b. On 12 November 1933 Vogel arrived at the camp together with Regierungsrat Dr. Wolf from Leipzig and again entered the chamber. On this day several prisoners were brought in. Vogel pointed out one of the prisoners to the SA-men present in the room, among whom were Sturmmann Walter Rohmkopf, Truppfuehrer Herbert Meier, and Truppfuehrer Georg Lehmann, and declared, in effect, that this man "should get his ass particularly full". He also stated that the prisoner had offended or threatened one of his people. Upon this invitation the prisoner was laid across the counter in the usual manner, held fast by the head and arms, and then beaten for a considerable time by the SA men with whips and other articles. Along with this Vogel himself took part in the beating for a time, and after this mistreatment slapped him again, so that the prisoner appeared green and blue in the face. The prisoner is the tinsmith Hans Kuehitz, who bore the nickname Johnny. Upon his departure Vogel gave the head of the supply room, Truppenfuehrer Meier from 5 to 6 reichsmarks with the stated reason that the SA men "had sweated so". The money was then distributed by Meier to those SA-comrades who had taken part in the mistreatment.

Under the date of 20 May 1935 the Reich Deputy in Saxony forwarded to me with a recommendation Vogel's petition for nolle prossing dated 10 May, 1935, which was addressed to him, and a copy of which is attached.

I do not wish to approve this petition. The mistreatments which took place in the camp of Hohnstein are more numerous and in their fashion more serious than the cases of mistreatment in the well-known protective custody camp Bredow, near Stettin. As in the case of Bredow an authoritative official of the State Secret Police, in like manner as SS-Sturmfuehrer Dr. Hoffmann, shot on 30 June, 1934, knowing of the mistreatment and for the most part instigating it himself, Oberregierungsrat Vogel, as an authoritative member of the supervisory agency of the camp for the State Secret Police of Saxony, knew of the mistreatment and to an extent even took part in it. By his actions he supported the convicted SA-leaders and men in their deeds and thereby bears the largest part of responsibility for the criminal acts committed there. It would not be right to let this participant, who in view of his training, his position of leadership, and his office, must have recognized the objectionability of the proceedings in the camp with particular clarity, go unpunished while the SA-leaders and men received considerable sentences—even if not very severe in comparison with their deeds. A nolle prossing of the case against Vogel would represent unearned granting of favors to a more highly placed participant, and therefore one endowed with more responsibility, and would be considered as such by all persons involved. It would stand in starkest irreconcilable contradiction to the treatment of the Stettin cases.

Signed: Dr. Guertner2. To the Minister, respectfully3. 1 month.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 788-PS

The Secretary of the State and Chief of the Office of the President.

Berlin W8, 25 June 1935Voss-Strasse 1RP 3/52/35Your Nr. Z.F. g 10 398/35 of 18 June 1935

Subject: Nolle-Prosse of Criminal Proceeding against Oberregierungsrat Vogel for committing bodily injury while in Office.

Before making a decision, the Fuehrer and Reich-Chancellor wants to discuss personally with the Reich-Governor of Saxony the complaints brought forward against Oberregierungsrat Vogel and the events connected with them. Therefore I shall withhold further information and request that until then further action on this procedure be also withheld.—

/s/ Dr. Meissner.

To the Reich Minister of Justice, Berlin W 8.

The Secretary of the State and Chief of the Office of the President

Berlin W8, 9 Sept 1935Voss-Strasse 1

RP 3125/35 Your Nr. Z.F. g 10 398/35 of 18 June 1935

Subject: Nolle-prosse of Criminal Proceedings against Oberregierungsrat Vogel for committing bodily injury while in Office.

With reference to my letter of 25 June 1935—RP 3152/35—I am able to inform you that the Fuehrer and Reichs-Chancellor has decided for annulment of the criminal proceedings against Oberregierungsrat Vogel for his having committed bodily injury.

On the Fuehrer's behalf I request presentation of the draft of the decree for annulment.—

/s/ Dr. Meissner

To the Reich Minister of Justice, Berlin.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 789-PS

[Penciled note:] Duplicate

Nov. 23, 1939, 1200 hours. Conference with the Fuehrer, to which all Supreme Commanders are ordered. The Fuehrer gives the following speech:

The purpose of this conference is to give you an idea of the world of my thoughts, which governs me in the face of future events, and to tell you my decisions. The building up of our armed forces was only possible in connection with the ideological [weltanschaulich] education of the German people by the Party. When I started my political task in 1919, my strong belief in final success was based on a thorough observation of the events of the day and the study of the reasons for their occurrence. Therefore, I never lost my belief in the midst of set-backs which were not spared me during my period of struggle. Providence has had the last word and brought me success. On top of that, I had a clear recognition of the probable course of historical events, and the firm will to make brutal decisions. The first decision was in 1919 when I after long internal conflict became a politician and took up the struggle against my enemies. That was the hardest of all decisions. I had, however, the firm belief that I would arrive at my goal. First of all, I desired a new system of selection. I wanted to educate a minority which would take over the leadership. After 15 years, I arrived at my goal, after strenuous struggles and many set-backs. When I came to power in 1933, a period of the most difficult struggle lay behind me. Everything existing before that had collapsed. I had to reorganize everything beginning with the mass of the people and extending it to the armed forces. First reorganization of the interior, abolishment of appearances of decay and defeatist ideas, education to heroism. While reorganizing the interior, I undertook the second task: to release Germany from its international ties. Two particular characteristics are to be pointed out: secession from the League of Nations and denunciation of the disarmament conference. It was a hard decision. The number of prophets who predicted that it would lead to the occupation of the Rhineland was large, the number of believers was very small. I was supported by the nation, which stood firmly behind me, when I carried out my intentions. After that the order for rearmament. Here again there were numerous prophets who predicted misfortunes, and only a few believers. In 1935 the introduction of compulsory armed service. After that militarization of the Rhineland, again a process believed to be impossible at that time. The number of people who put trust in me, was very small. Then the beginning of the fortification of the whole country especially in the west.

One year later, Austria came, this step also was considered doubtful. It brought about a considerable reinforcement of the Reich. The next step was Bohemia, Moravia and Poland. This step also was not possible to accomplish in one campaign. First of all, the western fortification had to be finished. It was not possible to reach the goal in one effort. It was clear to me from the first moment that I could not be satisfied with the Sudeten-German territory. That was only a partial solution. The decision to march into Bohemia was made. Then followed the erection of the Protectorate and with that the basis for the action against Poland was laid, but I wasn't quite clear at that time whether I should start first against the east and then in the west or vice-versa. Moltke often made the same calculations in his time. Under pressure the decision came to fight with Poland first. One might accuse me of wanting to fight and fight again. In struggle I see the fate of all beings. Nobody can avoid a struggle if he does not want to lose out. The increasing number of people requires a larger living space [Lebensraum]. My goal was to create a logical relation between the number of people and the space for them to live in. The struggle must start here. No people can get away from the solution of this task or else it must yield and gradually die out. That is taught by history. First migration of peoples to the southwest, then adaptation of the number of people to the small space by emigration. In the last years, adaptation of the people to insufficient space, by reducing the number of births. This would lead to the death and weakening of the blood of the people. If a people chooses that course all their weaknesses are mobilized. One yields to the force of the outside and uses this force against one's self by killing of the child. This means the greatest cowardice, decimation of the number, and loss of value. I decided a different way: adaptation of the living space to the number of people. One acknowledgement is important. The state has a meaning only if it supports the maintenance of its population potential. In our case 82 millions of people were concerned. That means the greatest responsibility. He who does not want to assume this responsibility is not worthy of belonging to the mass of the people. That gave me the strength to fight. It is one eternal problem to bring the number of Germans to a proper relationship to the available space. Security of the needed space. No calculated cleverness is of any help, solution only with the sword. A people unable to produce the strength to fight must withdraw. Struggles are different than those of 100 years ago. Today we can speak of a racial fight. Today we fight for oilfields, rubber, treasures of the earth, etc. After the peace of Westphalia Germany disintegrated. Disintegration, impotence of the German Reich was determined by decree. This German impotence was removed by the creation of the Reich when Prussia realized her task. Then the opposition between France and England began. Since 1870 England has been against us. Bismarck and Moltke were certain that there would have to be one more action. The danger at that time was of a two-front war. Moltke was at times in favor of a preventive war. To take advantage of the slow progress of the Russian mobilization. German armed might was not fully employed. Insufficient sternness of the leading personalities. The basic thought of Moltke was the offensive. He never thought of the defense. Many opportunities were missed after Moltke's death. The solution was only possible by attacking a country at a favorable moment. Political and military leadership always declared that it was not yet ready. In 1914 there came the war on several fronts. It did not bring the solution of these problems. Today the second act of this drama is being written. For the first time in 67 years it must be made clear that we do not have a two-front war to wage. That which has been desired since 1870 and considered as impossible of achievement has come to pass. For the first time in history we have to fight on only one front, the other front is at present free. But no one can know how long that will remain so. I have doubted for a long time whether I should strike in the east and then in the west. Basically I did not organize the armed forces in order not to strike. The decision to strike was always in me. Earlier or later I wanted to solve the problem. Under pressure it was decided that the east was to be attacked first. If the Polish war was won so quickly, it was due to the superiority of our armed forces. The most glorious appearance in history. Unexpectedly small expenditures of men and material. Now the eastern front is held by only a few divisions. It is a situation which we viewed previously as unachievable. Now the situation is as follows: The opponent in the west lies behind his fortifications. There is no possibility of coming to grips with him. The decisive question is: how long can we endure this situation? Russia is at present not dangerous. It is weakened by many incidents today. Moreover, we have a pact with Russia. Pacts, however, are only held as long as they serve the purpose. Russia will hold herself to it only so long as Russia considers it to be to her benefit. Even Bismarck thought so. Let one think of the pact to assure our back. Now Russia has far-reaching goals, above all the strengthening of her position in the Baltic. We can oppose Russia only when we are free in the West. Further Russia is striving to increase her influence on the Balkans and is striving toward the Persian Gulf. That is also the goal of our foreign policy. Russia will do that which she considers to benefit her. At the present moment it has retired from internationalism. In case she renounces this, she will proceed to Pan-Slavism. It is difficult to see into the future. It is a fact that at the present time the Russian army is of little worth. For the next one or two years the present situation will remain.

Much depends on Italy, above all on Mussolini, whose death could alter everything. Italy has a great goal for the consolidation of her empire. Those who carry this idea are fascism and the Duce, personally. The court is opposed to that. As long as the Duce lives, then it can be calculated that Italy will seize every opportunity to reach her imperialistic goal. However, it is too much to ask of Italy, that it should join in the battle before Germany has seized the offensive in the west: Just so Russia did not attack until we had marched into Poland. Otherwise Italy will think that France has only to deal with Italy, since Germany is sitting behind its West Wall. Italy will not attack until Germany has taken the offensive against France. Just as the death of Stalin, so the death of the Duce can bring danger to us. Just how easily the death of a statesman can come I myself have experienced recently. The time must be used to the full, otherwise one will suddenly find himself faced with a new situation. As long as Italy maintains this position then no danger from Jugoslavia is to be feared. Just so is the neutrality of Rumania achieved by the position of Russia. Scandinavia is hostile to us because of Marxistic influences, but is neutral now. America is still not dangerous to us because of its neutrality laws. The strengthening of our opponents by America is still not important. The position of Japan is still uncertain, it is not yet certain whether she will join against England.

Everything is determined by the fact that the moment is favorable now; in 6 months it might not be so anymore.

As the last factor I must name my own person in all modesty: irreplaceable. Neither a military nor a civil person could replace me. Assassination attempts may be repeated. I am convinced of the powers of my intellect and of decision. Wars are always ended only by the destruction of the opponent. Everyone who believes differently is irresponsible. Time is working for our adversary. Now there is a relationship of forces which can never be more propitious, but can only deteriorate for us. The enemy will not make peace when the relationship of forces is unfavorable for us. No compromise. Sterness against ourselves. I shall strike and not capitulate. The fate of the Reich depends only on me. I shall deal accordingly. Today we have a superiority such as we have never had before. After 1914 our opponents disarmed themselves of their own accord. England disregarded the construction of her fleet. The fleet is no longer sufficiently large to safeguard the shipping lanes. Only two modern new constructions: Rodney and Nelson. New construction activity only in the cruisers of the Washington class, which were, however, an unsatisfactory type. The new measures can become effective only in 1941. In the Abyssinian war England did not have enough strength to occupy the Tana Sea. At Malta, Gibraltar and London little anti-aircraft protection. Since 1937 a renewal of rearmament. At present however, only a small number of divisions, which must form the nucleus of new divisions. Material for the army being gathered together from all over the world. Not before next summer is a positive action to be expected. The British army has only a symbolic meaning. Rearmament in the air is proceeding. The first phase will end in the spring of 1940. Anti-aircraft has only guns from the last war. A German flyer is safe from English anti-aircraft fire at 6000 meters altitude. The navy will not be fully rearmed before one to two years [1-2 Jahren], I have the greatest experience in rearmament and I know the difficulties which must be overcome therein.

After 1914 France reduced the length of service. After 1914 decrease of military might. Only in some special branches are we inferior. Only the French Navy was modernized. In the time after the war the French army deteriorated. There were no changes until Germany rearmed and announced her demands.

In summary:

1. The number of active organizations in Germany is greatest.2. Superiority of the Luftwaffe.3. Anti-aircraft beyond all competition.4. Tank corps.5. Large number of anti-tank guns, five times as many as 1914 machine guns.6. German artillery has great superiority because of the 10.5 gun.7. French superiority in howitzers and mortars does not exist.

Numerical superiority, but also the value of the individual soldier is greater than for the others. I am most deeply pained when I hear the opinion that the German army is not individually as valuable as it should be. The infantry in Poland did not accomplish what one should have expected from it. Lax discipline. I believe that the soldiers must be judged in their relative value in comparison with the opponent. There is no doubt that our armed forces are the best. Every German infantryman is better than the French. Not the exhilaration of patriotism but tough determination. I am told that the troops will only advance if the officers lead the way. In 1914 that was also the case. I am told that we were better trained then. In reality we were only better trained on the drill field, but not for the war. I must pay the present leadership the compliment that it is better than it was in 1914. Mention of the collapse while storming Liege. There was nothing like this in the campaign in Poland.

Five million Germans have been called to the colors. Of what importance if a few of them collapse. Daring in the army, navy and Luftwaffe. I can not bear it when one says the army is not in good shape. Everything lies in the hands of the military leader. I can do anything with the German soldier if he is well led. We have succeeded with our small navy in clearing the North Sea of the British. Recognition of the small navy, especially the High Command of the Navy.

We have a Luftwaffe which has succeeded in safeguarding the entire living space of the Germans.

The land army achieved outstanding things in Poland. Even in the West it was not shown that the German soldier is inferior to the French.

Revolution from within is impossible. We are superior to the enemy numerically in the West. Behind the Army stands the strongest armament industry of the world.

I am disturbed by the stronger and stronger appearance of the English. The English are a tough enemy. Above all on defence. There is no doubt that England will be very much represented in France at the latest in six to eight months.

We have an Achilles heel: The Ruhr. The progress of the war depends on the possession of the Ruhr. If England and France push through Belgium and Holland into the Ruhr, we shall be in the greatest danger. That could lead to the paralyzing of the German power of resistance. Every hope of compromise is childish: Victory or defeat! The question is not the fate of a national-socialistic Germany, but who is to dominate Europe in the future. The question is worthy of the greatest efforts. Certainly England and France will assume the offensive against Germany when they are armed. England and France have means of pressure to bring Belgium and Holland to request English and French help. In Belgium and Holland the sympathies are all for France and England. Mention of the incident at Venlo: The man who was shot was not an Englishman, but a Dutch General Staff officer. This was kept silent in the press. The Dutch government asked that the body of the Dutch officer be given up. This is one of their greatest stupidities. The Dutch press does not even mention the incident anymore. At a given time I shall use that to motivate my action. If the French army marches into Belgium in order to attack us, it will be too late for us. We must anticipate them. One more thing. U-boats, mines, and Luftwaffe (also for mines) can strike England effectively, if we have a better starting point. Now a flight to England demands so much fuel that sufficient bomb loads cannot be carried. The invention of a new type mine is of greatest importance for the Navy. Aircraft will be the chief mine layers now. We shall sow the English coast with mines which cannot be cleared. This mine warfare with the Luftwaffe demands a different starting point. England cannot live without its imports. We can feed ourselves. The permanent sowing of mines on the English coasts will bring England to her knees. However, this can only occur if we have occupied Belgium and Holland. It is a difficult decision for me. None has ever achieved what I have achieved. My life is of no importance in all this. I have led the German people to a great height, even if the world does hate us now. I am setting this work on a gamble. I have to choose between victory or destruction. I choose victory. Greatest historical choice, to be compared with the decision of Frederick the Great before the first Silesian war. Prussia owes its rise to the heroism of one man. Even there the closest advisers were disposed to capitulation. Everything depended on Frederick the Great. Even the decisions of Bismarck in 1866 and 1870 were no less great. My decision is unchangeable. I shall attack France and England at the most favorable and quickest moment. Breach of the neutrality of Belgium and Holland is meaningless. No one will question that when we have won. We shall not bring about the breach of neutrality as idiotically as it was in 1914. If we do not break the neutrality, then England and France will. Without attack the war is not to be ended victoriously. I consider it as possible to end the war only by means of an attack. The question as to whether the attack will be successful no one can answer. Everything depends upon the favorable instant. The military conditions are favorable. A prerequisite however, is that the leadership must give an example of fanatical unity from above. There would not be any failures if the leaders always had the courage a rifleman must have.

Individual acknowledgments: The enemy must be beaten only by attack. Chances are different today than during the offensive of 1918. Numerically we can use more than 100 divisions. With respect to men, reserves can be supplied. The material situation is good. Moreover that which is not ready today must be ready tomorrow. The whole thing means the end of the World War, not just of a single action. It concerns not just a single question but the existence or non-existence of the nation.

I ask you to pass on the spirit of determination to the lower echelons.

1. The decision is irrevocable.

2. The only prospect for success, if the whole armed forces are determined.

The spirit of the great men of our history must hearten us all. Fate demands from us no more than from the great men of German history. As long as I live I shall think only of the victory of my people. I shall shrink from nothing and shall destroy everyone who is opposed to me. I have decided to live my life so that I can stand unshamed if I have to die. I want to destroy the enemy. Behind me stands the German people, whose morale can only grow worse. Only he who struggles with destiny can have a good intuition. In the last years I have experienced many examples of intuition. Even in the present development I see the prophecy.

If we come through this struggle victoriously—and we shall come through victoriously—our time will enter into the history of our people. I shall stand or fall in this struggle. I shall never survive the defeat of my people. No capitulation to the outside forces, no revolution from the interior forces.

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 795-PS

CONVERSATION WITH GENERAL KEITELon 17 August 1939

Back to Index Next