862.00/2542
The Chargé in Germany ( Gordon ) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 10.]
Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 505 of September 25, 1930, reporting on the current political situation in Germany, I have the honor to report that the outstanding development of the intervening week was the testimony given by Hitler, the leader of the National Socialist Party, as a witness at the trial for treason of the three young Reichswehr officers before the Supreme Court at Leipzig.
Called to give evidence as to whether the National Socialist Party pursued its aims exclusively by legal means and whether it intended to overthrow the Constitution by force, Hitler stated under oath that he had been a soldier too long not to realize that illegal organizations could not cope with an army and police force. The Nazi organizations, which later were designated “Sturm Abteilungen”, [Page 87] had been called into being to afford protection against the Left. It was at no time the purpose of these organizations to fight against the State as, declared Hitler, “we are convinced that when an idea is sound, it will conquer the State by itself. The only thing amiss is that at present thirty million Germans do not yet know what we want.”
In 1923, he continued, developments had taken place which had not been in line with his ideas. The conversion of the Sturm Abteilungen into fighting bodies had not been initiated by him (Hitler), but at official (presumably Bavarian) government suggestion. In the fall of 1923 war seemed imminent between Bavaria and the Reich, according to Hitler. In 1925, recognizing the change in circumstances, he had decreed a return to the original status and had categorically ordered disarmament. Exclusion from the party was decreed as the penalty for the possession of weapons or for military exercises. (It may be observed in passing that the conduct of the party organizations throughout the recent electoral campaign certainly does not lend verisimilitude to these latter statements.)
Hitler then went on to say that he had always taken the point of view that any attempt to tamper with the Reichswehr would be lunacy. “We are not interested in disintegrating the Reichswehr and I would regard that as the greatest possible crime. I have never issued a pamphlet or handbill advocating anything of the sort. I have never sought connections with the Reichswehr, and would immediately have expelled from the party anybody who did so.”
In reply to a question of the presiding judge as to whether there were not, in addition to the official program, secret aims of the party, Hitler stated that that would be impossible in view of the size of the party. No party order was ever issued which was contrary to the laws. Asked as to how it was then possible that prominent Nazis had stated that it would be necessary to employ violence, Hitler, perhaps carried away by his own grandiloquent oratory, dropped into his old spellbinding tone and asserted: “When our movement is victorious, it will establish a High Court before which the November criminals of 1918 will be tried, and this crime will be expiated. I freely admit that then heads will roll in the sand.” Asked as to how he intended to do away with the treaties, he answered: “Of course, only through diplomatic negotiations, and, if it cannot be accomplished in any other way, by complete circumvention of these treaties by legal, and if needs be, by illegal means.”
It may be of interest to report an incident in connection with these sensational utterances of Hitler’s. On the day in question I happened to be at a small luncheon given by Dr. Luther in the board room of the Reichsbank. Just before luncheon the noon editions of the newspapers had blazoned forth Hitler’s oratorical bombshell, and its [Page 88] unpleasant effect in that atmosphere can well be imagined. A Cabinet minister who was present maintained that as soon as the telegraphic news agencies had thus reported Hitler’s statements, the Cabinet had telephoned to government officials participating in the trial to ascertain if the quotation were correct and had been told that Hitler did not use the phrase “heads will roll in the sand.” However, as this version was broadcast to the world and as Hitler has not seen fit to repudiate it, the result is the same.
Paradoxical as it may seem after the event, I think it is fair to assume that Hitler’s object in having counsel for the defence summon him into court was not only to seize an unparalleled opportunity for party propaganda, but also to take another occasion to tone down his preelection utterances so as to make them more closely approximate the possibilities of present action. In fact, the bulk of his testimony, it seems to me, may be thus interpreted, and is in contradiction with his more excited utterances concerning the eventual establishment of a High Court for the trial of those chiefly responsible for the creation of the Republic and with respect to the repudiation of treaties. The latter declarations, however, were so much more striking that they riveted world attention and consequently overshadowed the remainder of his statements.
There is no doubt that for some days preceding Hitler’s appearance on the witness stand increasing pressure from various quarters had been brought to bear on the Chancellor at least to take into consideration the possibility of cooperating in the Reichstag with the Nazis. Thus, among other forces working to that end, one of the most overt was a resolution recently adopted by the Economic Party rejecting the possibility of collaboration with the Social Democrats, and apparently clearly aimed at making it appear that the only alternative was cooperation with the Nazis. However, I think it is equally true that Hitler’s ill-advised exuberance has necessarily abated to a considerable degree, for the time being at any rate, the tendency above noted.
Incidentally, in connection with the action of the Economic Party just referred to, the representative of that party in the Cabinet, Minister of Justice Bredt, has been assailed on the ground that he not only neglected the opportunity of, but also sought actively to prevent, the controverting of Hitler’s testimony as to the legality of the Nazi movement by means of documentary evidence in the possession of officials in the Ministry of the Interior.
Respectfully yours,