The first thing which astounded me was the manner in which the President of the Court treated the accused – and that was the reason why I had asked to be present. I have never seen a trial at which the prisoners were treated with such politeness by the president.[487] He was such an actor and obeyed his orders so implicitly that at one time he treated the people in the most cruel and brutal manner; and then he got a tip from higher authority that the report in the newspapers had probably made an extremely unpleasant impression at home and abroad, so he adopted different tactics. To give you an example, how he treated TROTT ZU SOLZ – TROTT ZU SOLZ behaved really admirably; he conducted himself with perfect calm and pride and didn’t deny anything. After he had been cross-examined for about an hour the presiding judge said to him: ‘Well, accused, how do you reconcile that with your obligation of loyalty to the FÜHRER?’ So TROTT ZU SOLZ said: ‘I don’t understand how you can say that. You know perfectly well that I have never been bound by an obligation of loyalty to the FÜHRER.’ On another occasion he said: ‘But don’t you realise – you say that so simply – don’t you realise that you are signing your death warrant?’ Then he said: ‘I know that perfectly well. I can’t think why I’m still being cross-examined here, for I have already admitted everything so often: that I knew of the plot, that I helped in the preparations; that is sufficient grounds for my death sentence; what is the point of my cross-examination being continued any longer?’ Thereupon the presiding judge—
SEVERAL: FREISLER.
KIRCHHEIM: —said in a very courteous way: ‘Well, even if you have given up your case, it remains the business of this High Court to establish the truth down to the last detail, because we might perhaps still find extenuating circumstances.’ Of course that was only a gruesome piece of play-acting on his part, but all the same this trial showed that if it continued to be conducted in that manner at any rate, the fear which I had, which might perhaps have caused me to ask for my release from the Court of Honour, was unfounded, for each of the accused could say what he liked. They were undoubtedly not under pressure. I also believe that as long as the Court of Honour existed, the accused were not put under pressure to force them to make statements which were untrue. The session was not open to the public, but about 250 spectators were admitted, for whom there were seats. Apart from that there were about 50 standing, packed closely together, although admittedly they were only people who had received entrance tickets, but there were, for instance, some twenty tickets placed at the disposal of the OKH in BERLIN, and they were given to the first people who asked for them.
What things were like afterwards we shall admittedly only find out later on, and I believe that when we do find out the fate of the unfortunate people who were sentenced after the Court of Honour had ceased to exist, and compare it with the fate of the others, not all of whom could be saved – that was impossible; when it had been proved and they had admitted that they had taken part in the plot, they could not be saved. But I attended three sessions. At each session several were acquitted, and at each session there was at least one who was not punished in such a way as KEITEL said in his opening speech: ‘The FÜHRER is informed and believes that they are guilty, or wishes that they should be handed over to the People’s Court.’
I will now describe to you the last proceedings against General SPEIDEL, the Chief of Staff to Generalfeldmarschall ROMMEL. At the beginning of the trial we were told that in the FÜHRER’s opinion an investigation must be held in the People’s Court, as he was at any rate guilty of negligence. At the time the Court of Honour consisted of the following: KEITEL, RUNDSTEDT, GUDERIAN, myself, KRIEBEL. The youngest had to speak first, so I had to give my opinion first. I said: ‘The General made his report to his immediate superior. In the case of a personage such as Generalfeldmarschall ROMMEL, he couldn’t have any doubts that the report would be passed on; therefore he is not guilty, not under suspicion.’ Then it was said: ‘But as Chief of Staff he must have known that the report was not passed on.’ I said: ‘Well, the Generalfeldmarschall, in view of his relations with the FÜHRER, might have passed on the information in a private letter.’ Afterwards the sentence read – it was undoubtedly not quite watertight from the legal point of view, because as Chief of Staff he must have known, it was negligence at least – the sentence read: Not guilty! But as he must have known that the report was not passed on an investigation must follow in order that he may be cleared of all suspicion. Therefore a temporary removal from the Army is considered necessary, but the Court of Honour adds a rider that they hope and expect that he would return to the Army with full honours after a short time. I don’t think more could have been done for General SPEIDEL under the circumstances. Just imagine what would have happened if the Court of Honour hadn’t been available; he’d have been handed over the People’s Court.
That sitting was the last one held by the Court of Honour, the reason for the disbanding of the Court of Honour being that all those arrested and under suspicion had been tried and that the task of the Court of Honour was therefore completed. But in actual fact a number of arrests were still made and a number of sentences were also passed. But how these sentences were arrived at we don’t know. We don’t know before what court they were brought and we don’t know whether a different authority sat and dealt with the matter from their point of view. It may be that they were simply handed over to the People’s Court.
PFUHLSTEIN: As regards the SPIEDEL matter I would just like to say that my impression is that the decision as to who was to appear before the Court of Honour was made entirely by the ‘Reichssicherheitshauptamt’, that is to say, by HIMMLER and KALTENBRUNNER. Because it was like this: I was arrested on 1 September and was immediately taken to the ‘Reichssicherheitshauptamt’ where those people were kept whom they considered the most compromised. The next place of imprisonment was MOABIT, and then came a much better camp – a long way outside – I don’t remember the name at the moment – where the arrested officers concerned were far better off and could come and go in freedom. There, for instance, were HEUSINGER and General FALKENHAUSEN, and there were also SPIEDEL and a whole lot of other people who were far less compromised. I was very deeply compromised; I was chained and was with all those who were most deeply compromised, 90 per cent of whom were hanged. I was lucky in that I had extricated Herr KALTENBRUNNER from a nasty dilemma only a short time before[488] and that turned the scales; he told me himself – he got me out on 5 January – that as he knew me personally and that as I had rescued him from a very unpleasant situation he had decided not to bring me before the Court of Honour, nor hand me over to the hangman.
KIRCHHEIM: How was he going to save you?
PFUHLSTEIN: He simply dropped the charge entirely, reported to the REICHSFÜHRER about it, and the REICHSFÜHRER accepted his suggestion that I—
KIRCHHEIM: Was he above suspicion?
PFUHLSTEIN: Not above suspicion. That is to say, the charge against me was quite enough to send me to the gallows. But by reason of that personal matter I had the man’s goodwill. ‘We’ll wash that out because we know each other; you helped me out of a difficulty, now I’ll help you.’
KIRCHHEIM: You would have come before the People’s Court?
487
The fragmentary remains of the recording tapes do not support the idea that Freisler behaved himself any better in the third session of the People’s Court on 15.8.1944. ‘Also in this principal trial he was unrestrained and tyrannical.’ Wagner, ‘Volksgerichtshof’, p. 684.
488
Pfuhlstein reported in captivity that he had shared a ticklish situation with Kaltenbrunner when Hungarian soldiers attempted to take them both prisoner. It was only Pfuhlstein’s determined reaction that avoided their being shot. This must have occurred on 19.3.1944 upon the German occupation of Hungary. GRGG 286, 19–21.4.1945, TNA, WO 208/4177. Black, ‘Ernst Kaltenbrunner’, does not mention the affair.