PART V: THE TRIUMPH OF THE BARBARIANS
23 The War of Extermination – Act Two
1 Schreiber, Gerhard, ‘Politik und Kriegffihrung 1941’, in DRZW, vol 3, part IV, p 540.
2 Lahousen diaries, p 112, entry 19 February 1941, IfZ F 23Α, folio Π5.
3 Halder, War Diary, vol II, p 282, entry 21 Feburary 1941.
4 Lahousen diaries, p 113, entry 25 Feburary 1941, IfZ F 23Α, folio 116. At the end of 1940 a dispute arose regarding the cooperation of the Abwehr with leaders of the Ukraine Nationalist Movement (OUN), who worked as Abwehr agents. Hitler had ordered that anything that might irritate or warn the Soviet Union was to be stifled. Canaris had therefore decided that he should abandon his support for OUN, of which Lahousen advised Melnyk on 3 December 1940. Gestapo Chief Müller even ordered the arrest of a leader of one of the nationalist groups, and an Abwehr man, Ryko Jary, but Canaris intervened to prevent this. In mid-December Lahousen infomed Jary that cooperation had been broken off because of the foreign policy situation. See ibid, p 105ff, entries 30 November, 3 and 14 December 1940.
5 Heinz, Canaris, p 158; Fleischhauer, Ingeborg, Die Chancedes Sonderfriedens. Deutsch-sowjetische Geheimgespräche 1941–194$, Berlin, 1986, p 27f.
6 Also Klink, ‘Konzeption’, p 194ff.
7 Heinz, Canaris, p 158f.
8 From Halder, War Diary, vol II, p 337, entry 30 March 1941; similarly Kershaw, Hitler 19j6–ì94$, p 473.
9 Angrick, Andrej, Besatzungspolitik und Massenmord. Die Einsatzgruppe D in der sddlichen Sowjetunion 1441–1443, Hamburg, 2003, p 42; see also, Angrick, Andrej, ‘Zur Rolle der Militärverwaltung bei der Ermordung der sowjetischen Juden’, in Quinkert, Babette (ed), ‘Wir sind die Herren dieses Landes.’ Ursachen, Verlauf und Folgen des deutschen Uberfalls auf die Sowjetunion, Hamburg, 2002, p 108.
10 From Angrick, Besatzungspolitik, p 42k This account relies on his basic research.
11 Ibid, p 49.
12 Ibid, p 46, with n 49.
13 Kershaw, Hitler 1/436–1/445, p 480.
14 Schramm von Thadden, Ehrengard, Griechenland und die Großmãchte im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Wiesbaden, 1955; Höhne, Canaris, pp 414–16 and 421–6.
15 Lahousen diaries, pp 130–2, entries 15–17 April 1941, IfZ, F 23 /1, o.P.
16 See Krausnick, Helmut, ‘Kommissarbefehl und <Gerichtsbarkeitserlaß Barbarossa> in neuer Sicht’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 25, 1977, pp 658–81; Graml, Wehrmacht im Dritten Reich, p 376f; Kershaw, Hitler 1436–1445, p 474Ą Angrick, Besatzungspolitik, pp 60–8.
17 ‘Aktennotiz über die Besprechung mit dem Reichsleiter Rosenberg am 30. Mai 1941’, Berlin, 31 May 1941, signed Canaris, BA-MA, RW 4/760.
18 Conference note, Chef A Ausl/Abw, Berlin, 4 June 1941, BA-MA, RW 4/578, folios 29–32.
19 Lahousen diaries, p 148, entry 6 June 1941, IfZ, F 23/1, o.P.; Höhne, Canaris, p 443, refers to the file note of Hauptmann Keunes regarding this meeting, which had set down the respective tasks of the Wehrmacht (‘defeating the enemy’) and Reichsführer SS (‘political police combat against the enemy’) as well as the duty of all GFP, SD and SP offices ‘to provide the broadest support on a mutual basis’.
20 Angrick, Besatzungspolitik, p 105.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid, p iiif.
23 Klink, ‘Konzeption’, p 276.
24 Information AST Romania to Abt II Ausl/Abw regarding sabotage and diversionary tactics for Melnyk and Bandera OUN groups in the event of war of the 12 June 1941; Instruction from Lahousen to Abw II liaison officer, Army Groups and armies, to support the non-Russian peoples of the USSR, especially those collaborating with K-Organisations, 19 June 1941; Instruction of Chief Ausl/Abw to AST Romania for the fomenting of an insurrection in Georgia in connection with securing the Caucasian oilfields (‘Tamara I and II’), 20 June 1941; Plan of Abw II liaison officer to commanding officer, ii.Armee for the formation of a Ukrainian unit to support German troops (‘Organisation Roland’), 27 June 1941, all BA-MA, RH 20-И/48, reproduced in: Das Amt Ausland/Abwehr im Oberkommando der Wehrmacht. Eine Dokumentation, bearbeitet von Norbert Müller unter Mitwirkung von Helma Kaden, Gerlinde Grahn und Brün Meyer, Materialien aus dem Bundesarchiv, vol XVI, Bremerhaven, 2005; see also the numerous entries in Lahousen’s diaries on this theme, IfZ, F 23Α.
25 Notes of an address by Reichsleiter Rosenberg, 20 June 1941 (probably written up by Canaris or Lahousen, partially burnt and illegible), copy IfZ, FD 47 (formerly FO Library 1959), folios 29–32. This collection entitled ‘ Canaris-Lahousen Fragments’ contains mainly notes by Lahousen copied from his own and Canaris’s diaries, and the ‘Rarities Folder’ compiled by Dohnanyi and Oster, and given to Marogna-Redwitz in 1943. After the war they were discovered by US Intelligence, acting on information from former Abwehrstelle Munich officers, in the safe of an attorney known to Marogna-Redwitz. See Lahousen’s letter to Dr Anton Hoch, 12 November 1953, IfZ, F 23/1. For another version of Rosenberg’s address in which he spoke of a certain autonomy for White Russia see Gerlach, Christian, Kalkulierte Morde. Die deutsche Wirtschafts- und Vernichtungspolitik in Weißrußland 1941–1944, Hamburg, 1999, p 94, n 351, here pointing to BA-MA, FPF 01/7855, folios 1040–51.
26 Ibid.
27 Lahousen diaries, p 151, entry 21 June 1941, IfZ F 23/1, o.P.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid, entry 28 February 1941, IfZ F 23/1, o.P.
30 Ibid, p 154, entry 29 February 1941, IfZ F 23/1, o.P.
31 ‘Vortragsnotiz fuer Chef OKW ueber bisher vorliegende Ergebnisse des Einsatzes des Amtes Ausland/Abwehr im Kampf gegen Sowjet-Rußland’; Komandos Abw II/Chief, Berlin July 1941; IfZ, FD 47, folios 39–42.
32 Lahousen diaries, p 160, entry 7 July 1941, IfZ F 23/1, o.P. Hitler, who had no interest in an independent Ukraine, refused to support the nationalist leaders, and they were brought to Germany for questioning, including Bandera.
33 Lahousen diaries, p 159, entry 5 July 1941, IfZ F 23/1, o.P.
34 Lahousen’s deputy Oberst Erwin Stolze stated that he had given the instruction to Melnyk and Bandera personally to foment insurrection immediately after the German invasion. In addition to weakening the Red Army, this would have influenced international opinion that an ‘apparently total break-up of the Soviet hinterland’ was in progress. Statement of Erwin Stolze introduced into evidence by Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg, 25 December 1945, IMG, vol VII, p 303.
35 Angrick, Besatzungspolitik, p 137.
36 Ibid, p 138.
37 Ibid, pp 141–5, especially p 145, with n 59.
38 See Streit, Christian, ‘Die Behandlung der sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen und völkerrechtliche Probleme des Krieges gegen die Sowjetunion’, in Ueberschär, Gerd, and Wette, Wolfram (eds), Der deutsche Uberfall auf die Sowjetunion. Unternehmen Barbarossa’ 1941, Frankfurt am Main, 1991, pp 159–89, Order reproduced in ibid, pp 297–300, following quotation here at p 297.
39 Lahousen, statement, IMG, vol II, p 501; Lahousen, affidavit, 8 January 1948, IfZ, ZS 658, folios 22–7.
40 Ibid, IMG, vol II, p 503.
41 Ibid, p 505; Lahousen, affidavit, 8 January 1948, IfZ, ZS 658, folios 22–7.
42 Conference note: ‘Betr.: Anordnung fiar die Behandlung sowjetischer Kriegsgefangener, Berlin, 15.9. 1941’, signed Canaris, reproduced in Ueberschär and Wette, Uberfall, pp 301–5 (with appendix showing Soviet order regarding PoWs), p 301.
43 Ibid, p 302, see also IMG, vol XXII, p 539f.
44 Anonymous document (author probably Lahousen) 20 July 1941, IfZ, FD 47, folio 38.
45 Lahousen, declaration, 23 January 1953, p 2, IfZ, ZS 658, folio 5.
46 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 27.
47 Lahousen, declaration, 23 January 1953, p 2, IfZ, ZS 658, folio 5.
48 Copy, ‘Auf einer Fahrt in das Operationsgebiet im Osten geMächte Beobachtungen und Feststellungen’ (author very probably Lahousen) Berlin, 23 October 1941, IfZ, FD 47, folios 54–9. As there is a gap in the Abwehr service diary before the period, and a little later similar terminology appears in another fragment of his diary, it is very probable that Lahousen was the author of this report
49 Ibid, p 3, folio 56.
50 Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde, p 585.
51 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, pp 27 and p 466, n 94, for the exhaustive account of the report’s history and Lahousen’s role; see also Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde, p 597ff; slightly abridged impression of ‘Bericht über die Judenerschießungen in Borissow’ in Krausnick and Wilhelm, Truppe, pp 576–9.
52 Krausnick and Wilhelm, Truppe, p 578, n 69.
53 Copy ‘Aktenvermerk ueber den Vortrag bei Chef OKW am 23. Oktober 1941’, Berlin, 24 October 1941, IfZ, FD 47, folio 6of.
54 Lahousen diaries, 24–30 October 1941, IfZ, FD 47, folios 62–7. These diary pages are not part of the copy of the service diary at IfZ, F 23/1.
55 Ibid, folio 64f, entry 27 October 1941.
56 Ibid, folio 65.
57 Ibid, folio 66. [Translator’s note: the sardine-tin method involved digging a deep trench in which the bodies were layered.]
58 Ibid, folio 67, entry 30 October 1941.
59 Fleming, Gerald, Hitler und die Endlösung‘Es ist des Fuhrers Wunsch . . .’, Wiesbaden and Munich, 1982, p ioof includes the eye-witness report.
60 Fragment ‘Bericht über die Lage an der Ostfront, Dezember 1941/Januar 1942’, IfZ, FD 47, folios 76–7.
61 Ibid.
62 Lahousen diary, p 187, entry 28 January 1942, IfZ, F 23/1, o.P.
63 Lahousen diary, p 211, entry 25 July 1942, IfZ, F 23/1, o.P.
24 The Struggle for Power with Heydrich
1 Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, p 402.
2 For lengthy coverage of the three cases with the most comprehensive sources: Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, pp 139–77; Lissner, Ivar, Vergessen aber nicht vergeben, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin and Vienna, 1970. For Klaus see also Fleischhauer, Chance des Sonderfriedens. I have mainly followed Meyer’s study.
3 For evaluation of Klaus (also Claus, Clauss and Clauß) see Fleischhauer, Chance des Sonderfriedens, p 30ff; Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 163.
4 Fleischhauer, Chance des Sonderfriedens, p 34k
5 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 163, with n 331.
6 Fleischhauer, Chance des Sonderfriedens, p 43.
7 Ibid, p 45.
8 Ibid, p 45f; Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 164.
9 Fleischhauer, Chance des Sonderfriedens, p 51f; quoted in ibid; it would have been on this visit by Canaris to Copenhagen that the Danish intelligence officer Hans Lunding saw him in a hotel, and was able to recognise him later at Flossenbürg camp, see Part VI, ‘Hitler’s Revenge’.
10 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 164f.
11 Ibid, p 166.
12 Ibid, p 141, see Lissner, Vergessen aber nicht vergeben, and Höhne, Heinz, ‘Fall Lissner’, an epilogue by Höhne to the reprint of Lissner’s memoir entitled Mein gefahrlicher Weg, Munich and Zürich, 1975, p 221ff. I have relied on Meyer’s account, which is based to a large extent on Höhne.
13 Ibid, p 146.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid, p 149.
17 Ibid, p 156. For Kauder’s biography, if with a few differences, see also NA, KV 2/1631.
18 For a discussion on the identities of Kauder/Kauders/Klatt see Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 498, n 287.
19 Ibid, p 156; according to which Turkul set up his espionage service for promonarchist Russian exile groups in the 1930s. Once the finances failed he offered it to the Italians, but eventually gave it to the Germans. Marogna-Redwitz, head of Abwehrstelle Vienna, evaluated the contacts, set up Meldekopf Sofia and appointed Kauder as its head, probably after Barbarossa. The chief of K-Organisation Bulgaria (from 1943) Oberstleutnant Franz Seubert, stated that Kauder had been a worker in Turkul’s organisation and rose to take it over. A third version, in which Turkul and his intelligence chief Ilya Lang played a much greater role appears in the comprehensive Klatt/Turkul and Ira Longin dossier at NA, KV 2/1631.
20 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 155f.
21 Ibid, p 160.
22 Ibid, p 161f.
23 These three spies survived the war. In several other cases Canaris was personally involved in protecting less prominent Jews by appointing them as Abwehr agents. Some Abwehr men on sabotage missions, particularly to the United States, masqueraded as Jewish refugees to gain entry. See Winfried Meyer’s work.
24 Gerhard Engel, letter to Helmut Krausnick, 17 October 1964, IfZ, ZS 222, vol I, folio 98ff; telephone interview with Gerhard Engel, 24 June 1970, p if, ibid, o.P., this was Heydrich Himmler’s source. Engel is the only source for this incident accepted by scientific research. The fact that from the spring of 1943 Himmler more or less took Canaris under his personal protection may seem extraordinary, but by now, following the death of Heydrich and the major defeats, there had been a radical change in the situation for some Nazi leaders.
25 Ibid, IfZ, ZS 222, vol I, folio 99.
26 Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, p 402; scheme of the Ten Points from Schellenberg, Memoiren, p 139f.
27 Ibid, p 402f.
28 Heydrich, letter to Canaris, Berlin 7. 11. 1941, BA-MA, RW 5/v. 690, folios 3–10; reproduced in Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, pp 413–18, document i.
29 Ibid, folios 13–20; reproduced in ibid, pp 419–24, document 2.
30 Bentivegni, note, 12 January 9142, BA-MA, RW 5/v. 690, folios 28–31; reproduced in ΜŰЫ℮ІЅ℮П, ‘Duell’, p 424–7, Doc. 3.
31 Bentivegni, notes on conversation between Canaris and Heydrich, 12 January 1942, BA-MA, RW 5/v. 690, folios 21–7; reproduced in Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, pp 427–33, document 4.
32 BA-MA, RW 5/v. 690, folio 21.
33 Ibid, folio 22.
34 Ibid, folio 23.
35 Ibid, folio 25ff.
36 Draft plan RSHA, ‘Grundsätze für die Zusammenarbeit der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD mit den Abwehrdienststellen der Wehrmacht’, BA-MA, RW 5/v. 690, folios 95–102; reproduced in Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, pp 433–7, document 6.
37 Draft plan Abwehr, ‘Grundsatze für die Zusammenarbeit der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD mit den Abwehrdienststellen der Wehrmacht’, BA-MA, RW 5/v. 690, folios 49–57; reproduced in Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, pp 437–43, document 7.
38 All quotations from Heydrich’s letter to Canaris, 5 February 1941, BA-MA, RW 5/v. 690, folios 85–9; reproduced in Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, pp 443–6, document 8.
39 Ibid, folio 88f.
40 Huppenkothen, copy statement, ‘Canaris und Abwehr’, p 5, IfZ, ZS 249, folio 39.
41 ‘Abschrift eines handschriftlichen Briefes SS-Obergruppenführers Heydrich vom 6. Februar 1942 an Herrn Admiral Canaris’, BA-MA, RW 5/v. 690, folio 93; reproduced in Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, p 446f, document 9.
42 Canaris, letter to Heydrich, [7 February 1941], BA-MA, RW 5/v. 690, Bl. 91f; reproduced in Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, p 447^ document 10.
43 Huppenkothen, copy statement, ‘Canaris und Abwehr’, p 5, IfZ, ZS 249, folio 39; Canaris letter to Heydrich, 8 February 1942, BA-MA, RW 5/v. 690, folio 90; reproduced in Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, p 448f, document ii.
44 Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, p 405.
45 ‘Grundsatze für die Zusammenarbeit der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD und den Abwehrdienststellen der Wehrmacht’, i March 1942, appendix i to the OKW order of 6 April 1941, BA-MA, RW 5/v. 690, folios 160–4; reproduced in Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, pp 451–5, document 14.
46 Angrick, Besatzungspolitik, p 128; Schellenberg, Memoiren, p 255f.
47 Fleming, Hitler und die Endlosung, p 76f, for Wagner’s affidavit.
48 Cave Brown, Secret Servant, p 410f, who relies on Schellenberg’s statements in his postwar interrogations. This quarrel is neither mentioned in his own memoirs nor those of Doerries.
49 Schellenberg, Memoiren, p 255.
50 ‘First Detailed Interrogation Report on SS-Standarten-FThrer Canaris, Constantin’, 12 July 1945, NA, WO 204Α2806, pp i-26; also second interrogation report, 8 August 1945. At the end of the war Constantin Canaris was an SS Standartenführer and Oberst der Polizei. When the Germans withdrew from Brussels in the autumn of 1944, Himmler sent him to Croatia, and from there in April 1945 on a special mission to Italy, where he was captured on 30 April 1945 in Milan. His interrogators did not consider him a Gestapo fanatic, but on 4 August 1951 a Belgian court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. Soon afterwards he was returned to Germany. The Kiel State prosecutor subjected him to inquiry proceedings with regard to the deportation of Belgian Jews to Auschwitz, but he was not found culpable; see additionally Wildt, Generation, p 523, n 118. Extracts from the interrogation of Constantin Canaris appear at NA, KV 3/8.
51 Ibid, p 17. Canaris and his nephew did not cross paths in their service careers. Constantin Canaris mentioned only a single incident after the war. The comte d’Avignon, a close acquaintance of General Falkenhausen, military commander in Belgium, opened an office in Brussels to collect political information for the occupying forces. This amounted to a private intelligence service, and Abwehrstelle Brussels began an inquiry. They quickly found a top-secret document for the OKW that Falkenhausen’s chief of Staff had passed to the count, probably knowing that he would let the king of Belgium know the contents. The matter was reported to Canaris as the betrayal of an official secret, but nothing appears to have come of it.
52 Haasis, Hellmut G, Tod in Prag Das Attentat auf Reinhard Heydrich, Reinbek, 2002, p 97ff.
53 Huppenkothen, copy statement, ‘Canaris und Abwehr’, p 5, IfZ, ZS 249, folio 40.
54 Höhne, Canaris, p 450.
55 Inga Haag, conversation with the author, 20 September 2005.
56 Groscurth, letter to Beck, 25 June 1942.
25 With His Back to the Wall
1 For Leverkühn see primarily Jähnicke, Burkhard, ‘Lawyer, Politician, Intelligence Officer: Paul Leverkuehn in Turkey, 1915–1916 and 1941–1944’, Journal of Intelligence History 2, no 2, pp 69–87; Heideking, Jürgen, and Mauch, Christof, ‘Dokumentation: “Das Herman-Dossier. Helmuth James Graf von Moltke, die deutsche Emigration in Istanbul und der amerikanische Geheimdienst Office of Strategic Services (OSS)” ’ , Vierteljahrsheftefur Zeitgeschichte 40, 1992, p 567–623; for Donovan’s contacts with Leverkühn, Moltke and eventually Canaris in Germany see Cave Brown, Anthony, Wild Bill Donovan. The Last Hero, New York, 1982, pp 129f and 133; for the contacts with Weizsäcker, Hill, Weizsäcker-Papiere 1933–1955, p 382f, note to 26 August 1944; for Leverkühn’s collaboration with Moltke see also Moltke, Freya von, Balfour, Michael, and Frisby, Julian, Helmuth James von Moltke 1905–1945 -Anwalt der Zukunft, Stuttgart, 1975, pp 80 and 261.
2 W inston Churchill expressed surprise, although he had already agreed to the demand, see Kershaw, Hitler 1936–1945, p 752.
3 Höhne, Canaris, p 461f; I have followed his version.
4 Ibid, p 462.
5 Heideking, Jürgen, ‘Die “Breakers”-Akte. Das Office of Strategic Services und der 20. Juli 1944’, in Heideking, Jürgen, and Mauch, Christof (eds), Geheimdienstkrieg gegen Deutschland. Subversion, Propaganda und politische Planungen des amerikanischen Geheimdienstes im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Göttingen, 1993, p 42, n 10. The so-called ‘Breakers’ documents are at NARA, RG 226 E 134 B 298.
6 Ibid, quoting Cave Brown, Donovan, p 292Ą cf also Heideking, ‘“Breakers”-Akte’, pp 14 and 42, n 10.
7 Ibid, pp 23 and 42, n ii.
8 NA, KV 3/8: ‘Bibliography of the GIS’ [ie= German Intelligence Service].
9 Ibid.
10 The ‘ Harlequin’ files are at NA, KV 2/268 and also KV 2/274–277, the report of his capture at KV 2/275.
11 Harlequin’s report (in German), NA, KV 2/268, document 4A.
12 Report on meeting, 8 April 1943, NA, KV 2 Α67, document 59K.
13 Reports 22 April, 4 and 19 May 1943, NA, KV 2 /268, document 43B, 45A, 47A.
14 Copy, diary 8–9 Feburary 1943, IfZ, FD 47, folios 120–2.
15 Copy, ‘Reise nach Tunis am 27. 2. 1943’, IfZ, FD 47, pp 123–7.
16 Ibid, folio 124.
17 Ibid, folio 125.
18 Ibid, folio 126.
19 Schlabrendorff, Offiziere, p 68.
20 Fest, Staatsstreich, p 190.
21 Thun-Hohenstein, Verschwörer, p 222.
22 Schlabrendorff, Offiziere, p 69.
23 Hoffmann, Widerstand, p 350.
24 Schlabrendorff, Offiziere, p 70.
25 According to Hoffmann, Widerstand, p 350, Oster was also there although Schlabrendorff, Offiziere, p 69, maintains that Oster and Tresckow never met. The sources below only speak of Lahousen, Dohnanyi and Canaris.
26 Report by Lahousen, ‘Zur Vorgeschichte des 20. Juli 44’, IfZ, ZS 658, folio 9; Lahousen diary, p 247, entry 7 March 1943, IfZ, F 23/1, o.P.
27 Copy, ‘Reise zur Heeresgruppe Mitte nach Smolensk’ (extract from Canaris’s diary 7–9 March 1943), IfZ, FD 47, folios 128–30, Canaris observed the transport of the explosives.
28 Ibid.
29 Lahousen report: ‘Zur Vorgeschichte des 20. Juli 44’, IfZ, ZS 658, folio 10.
30 Schlabrendorff, Offiziere, pp 67–82; Hoffmann, Widerstand, p 352f; Kershaw, Hitler 193Ó-1945, p 870f.
31 Lahousen report: ‘Zur Vorgeschichte des 20. Juli 44’, IfZ, ZS 658, folio 10; more recently Glaubauf and Lahousen, Lahousen, p 47, who write that the Clam mines had proven useless in trials and Schlabrendorffhad made a bomb out of the explosive material supplied; the result looked similar.
32 Hoffmann, Widerstand, pp 355–60; Kershaw, Hitler 1936–194$, p 871f.
33 For the background of the affair leading to the arrest of Dohnanyi and Oster see Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi; Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, pp 336–458; Smid, Dohnanyi – Bonhoeffer, pp 296–305 and 341–476; older versions dealing with it include Hoffmann, Widerstand; Thun-Hohenstein, Verschwörer. Höhne, Canaris, p 465–513, dedicates the affair good coverage. I have relied mainly on Meyer, which is the best in detail and from all aspects, and links the affair extensively to ‘Unternehmen Sieben’. Chowaniec looks closely at the legal aspects of the proceedings and provides both the prosecution statements as well as the defence pleadings in an appendix. Oster’s quote here is from Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 383, n 274.
34 IbiT p 383f.
35 Christine von Dohnanyi, declaration, p 8f, IfZ, ZS 603, folio 69f.
36 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 566, n 274.
37 Cf Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, pp 31–43.
38 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 337.
39 Ibid, p 338. The comprehensive MI5 files on Tricycle’s espionage ring are at NA, KV 2/845–866 (Dusko Popoff); KV 2/867–870 (Ivo Popoff). Dossiers for other ring members (‘Balloon’, ‘Freak’, ‘Gelatine’) are here; Dusko Popoff wrote an autobiography: Spy – Counterspy, New York, 1974.
40 Ibid, p 340; for Unternehmen Pastorius see Lahousens report: Unternehmen ‘Pastorius’, IfZ, ZS 658, folios 29–31; Thorwald, Jürgen, Der Fall Pastorius, Stuttgart, 1953.
41 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 342.
42 Ibid, p 547, note 36.
43 Christine von Dohnanyi, draft, p 2, IfZ, ZS 603, folio 63.
44 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 348ff.
45 Ibid p 353.
46 Ibid p 355f.
47 Ibid, p 360.
48 Ibid, p 363.
49 Müller, Konsequenz, p 166.
50 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, pp 370–5, including individual treatments of each case.
51 Ibid, p 375.
52 Ibid, p 377.
53 Christine von Dohnanyi, draft, p 12, IfZ, ZS 603, folio 73.
54 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 385.
55 Ibid, p 397.
56 Ibid, p 398.
57 Ibid, p 403.
58 Ibid, p 404.
59 Christine von Dohnanyi, draft, p 14, IfZ, ZS 603, folio 75.
60 NA, KV 3/8, extract from interrogation of Constantin Canaris.
61 NA, CAB 154/77, Abwehr Operational Material, no 155, 30 May 1943.
62 Ibid, no 124, 29 May 1943.
63 Ibid, no 458, 9 July19 43.
64 Ibid, no 230, 5 June 1943.
65 Ibid, no 543–550, 18–20 July 1943.
66 Ibid, no 517, 17 July 1943.
67 Ibid, no 490, 13 July 1943.
68 Ibid, no 489, 13 July 1943.
69 Ibid, no 470, 10/11 July 1943.
70 Lahousen diary, p 260, entry 29 July 1943, IfZ F 23/1, o.P.
71 Ibid, p 261, entry i August 1943, IfZ F 23/1, o.P.
72 Höhne, Canaris, p 507.
73 Schellenberg, Memoiren, p 331.
26 The Undoing of Canaris
1 Heideking, Jürgen, and Mauch, Christof, ‘Dokumentation: “Das Herman-Dossier. Helmuth James Graf von Moltke, die deutsche Emigration in Istanbul und der amerikanische Geheimdienst Office of Strategic Services (OSS)”’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 40, I992, p 572.
2 Papen, Der Wahrheit eine Gasse, p 568.
3 Wuermeling, Henric L, ‘Doppelspiel’. Adam von Trott zu Solz im Widerstand gegen Hitler, Munich, 2004, p I52f.
4 The version of the early contacts of the Vermehrens is primarily in: Cave Brown, Secret Servant, p 560 and also Bodyguard of Lies, pp 40I and 455, according to which the couple had attempted unsuccessfully to defect to the British in the spring of I943 from Lisbon. Later they had direct contact through the double-agent Dusko Popoff to the British ‘XX Committee’ which recruited and handled double-agents. Erich Vermehren had the cover name ‘Junior’.
5 Heideking and Mauch, ‘Herman-Dossier’, pp 569 and 573.
6 Hoffmann, Widerstand, p 279.
7 Heideking and Mauch, ‘Herman-Dossier’, p 274, for the ‘Herman Plan, see pp 589–91.
8 Ibid, p 574 with note 38.
9 Moltke, Balfour and Frisby, Moltke, p 288.
10 Telegram Istanbul, no 68, 2 February I944, signed Twardowski, PA/AA, R 29783, folio 4196of.
11 Document, Legationsrat von Trott, Berlin, 5 February I944, PA/AA, R 29783, folio 41985f.
12 Letter, Legationsrat von Grote, eo Pol I M 290 gRs, Berlin, 5. 2. I944, PA/AA, R 101883, folio 311725.
13 Telegram, Istanbul, no 77, 6 February I944, signed Papen, PA/AA, R 29783, folio 41976f.
14 Telegram, Istanbul, no 78, 7 February I944, signed Papen, PA/AA, R 29783, folio 41988.
15 Telegram, Ankara, no I90, 8 February I944, signed Papen, PA/AA, R 29783, folio 41989.
16 Letter, von Papen, Ankara, 22 February I944, Re: Cabled Instr. no 216, 9 February I944, PA/AA, R 101883, folios 311749–311751.
17 Letter, von Papen, Ankara, 17 February 1944, Re: Vermehren, Kleczkowski, Hamburger Cases, PA/AA, R 101883, folio 311765.
18 Telegram, Ankara, no I9I, 7 February I944, signed Papen, PA/AA, R 29783, folio 41990.
19 Telegram, Ankara, no I92, 8 February I944, signed Papen, PA/AA, R 29783, folio 41991.
20 Telegram Lisbon, I0 February I944, signed Huene, PA/AA, R I0I883, folio 311770.
21 Copy draft, envoy Frohwein, 20 February 1944, PA/AA, R 101883, folios 3178893.
22 Telegram, Madrid, no 525, 28 January 1944, signed Dieckhoff, PA/AA R 27815, folios 359213–17. [Translator’s note: In May 1942, Himmler and Canaris negotiated an exception to the ‘Ten Commandments’ Agreement whereby in Argentina the German Foreign Office, SD and Abwehr collaborated as a consortium known as ‘Red Bolivar’ (the Bolivar Network).]
23 Letter, Ribbentrop, 2 February 1944, PA/AA, R 27815, folio 359219.
24 Führer-note of 30 January 1944 regarding incident of the oranges in Spain, Ribbentrop, PA/AA, R 101874, vol 268526–268528.
25 Letter, Canaris to Foreign Ministry, 3 February 1944, PA/AA, R 27815, folio 359226.
26 Telegram, Madrid, no 739, 6 February 1944, PA/AA, R 27815, folios 359220–3.
27 Letter, Legationsrat Grote to OKW Amt Ausl/Abw, 8 February 1944, quoted in Höhne, Canaris, p 521.
28 Telegram eo Pol I M 348 gRs, Berlin 8 February 1944, signed Steengracht, PA/AA, R 101869, folio 302861.
29 Intercepted telegram, 4 February 1944, NA, KV 3/3, p 26.
30 Note of conference, 10/11 February 1944 in Biarritz, PA/AA, R 27815, folios 359254–7.
31 Note re talks in Biarritz, 10 and 11 February 1944, PA/AA, R 27815, folios 35924953.
32 Telegram, Madrid, no 918, 14 February 1944, PA/AA, R 27815, folios 359245–7.
33 Intercepted telegram, 6 October 1943, NA, KV 3/3, p 20.
34 Intercepted telegram, 18 October 1943, NA, KV 3/3, p 21. For the forcible closure of Abwehrstelle Algeciras by the Guardia Civil cf in PA/AA, R 101874, folios 26846488.
35 Grote, jotting, 17 February 1944, PA/AA, R 27815, folio 359262f.
36 Goebbels’s Diaries, vol 5, p 2011, entry 5 March 1944.
37 Huppenkothen, copy statement, Canaris and Abwehr, p 6, IfZ, ZS 249, folio 41.
38 Hitler’s order for the creation of a uniform German secret Intelligence service, 12 February 1944, BA-MA, RH 2/1929, quoted here from Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 442, and Höhne, Canaris, p 528. For this order and subsequent objections and instructions see Bundesarchiv documentation ‘Amt Ausland/Abwehr’ mentioned elsewhere.
39 Höhne, Canaris, p 529.
40 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 442.
41 Letter, OKM, MPA I no 1454, Berlin, 21 March 1944, signed Baltzer, Canaris-IfZ, folio 99.
42 These and the details of Canaris’s stay at Burg Lauenstein are from Höhne, Canaris, p 530f, who relies on information from Otto Wagner.
43 Huppenkothen, copy statement: Canaris and Abwehr, p 7, IfZ, ZS 249, folio 43; Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 442f; Höhne, Canaris, p 531.
44 Ibid, here also are comprehensive descriptions of the negotiations between the representatives of the OKW and KaltenBrünner. The instructions of Keitel and Himmler in BA-MA, RH 2/1929, are reproduced in Abwehr documentation at Bundesarchiv.
45 Buchheit, Geheimdienst, p 432.
46 Canaris-IfZ, folio 100.
47 Cave Brown, Bodyguard of Lies, p 595ff.; same author, Secret Servant, p 584ff.
48 See Part VI, ‘Hitler’s Revenge’.
49 Report, KaltenBrünner to Bormann, 29 September 1944, in Jacobsen, Opposition, p 425.
50 Buchheit, Geheimdienst, p 438.
51 Höhne, Canaris, p 537, from a draft by Huppenkothen.
52 From Abshagen, Canaris, p 373. It can only be assumed from the KaltenBrünner report of 29 September 1944 that Kaulbars and Sack were with Canaris.
53 Höhne, Canaris, p 540.
54 Abshagen, Canaris, p 374f.
55 Report, KaltenBrünner to Bormann, 29 November 1944: ‘Verbindungen zum Ausland’, in Jacobsen, Opposition, vol 1, p 503.
56 Schellenberg, Memoiren, p 334.
57 Ibid, p 335 f. It is not known if this conversation ever took place. That Canaris survived almost to the war’s end is justification in Schellenberg’s mind that it must have occurred.
58 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 450; Höhne, Canaris, p 545.
59 Appendix 1 to report by KaltenBrünner to Bormann: ‘Die geistige Haltung des Offiziers’, 25 August 1944, in Jacobsen, Opposition, vol 1, p 302f.
60 Thun-Hohenstein, Verschwörer, p 263.
61 Report, Müller to Bormann, 8 September 1944, ‘Das Zusammenspiel mit der Abwehr’, in Jacobsen, Opposition, vol 1, pp 369–71.
62 Report, KaltenBrünner to Bormann, 21 September 1944, in Jacobsen, Opposition, vol 1, p 406.
63 Ibid, p 407.
64 Appendix 1 to KaltenBrünner’s report to Bormann of 21 September 1944, in Jacobsen, Opposition, vol 1, p 410.
PART VI: HITLER’S REVENGE
1 Ueberschär, Gerd R, Stauffenberg. Der 20. Juli 1944, Frankfurt am Main, 2004, pp 145–67; Hoffmann, Staatsstreich, pp 623–58; Aufstanddes Gewissens; Kershaw, Hitler 1936–1945, pp 892–907.
2 Arrest list 24 July 1944, in Jacobsen, Opposition, vol 1, p 49; Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 450; Höhne, Canaris, p 543Ą for the proceedings against the principal colleagues in the circle around Canaris and Hans Oster see also: Thun-Hohenstein, Verschwörer; Chowaniec, FallDohnanyi; Meinl, Nationalsozialisten, ch XVI; and most recently Smid, Dohnanyi -Bonhoeffer, ch VII.
3 Letter, Wera Schwarte to Helmut Krausnick, 24 November 1964, IfZ, ZS 2101, folio 1, Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 451.
4 Lahousen, note, Geheimorganisation CANARIS Part II, p 1, BA-MA, MSg 1/2812; see also statement of Lahousen, 30 November 1945, IMG, vol II, p 491f.
5 Lahousen, note, Geheimorganisation CANARIS Part II, p 1, BA-MA, MSg 1/2812.
6 Interrogation Huppenkothen, 28 June 1948, copy, IfZ, ZS 249, folio 124.
7 Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, p 120; Bartz, Karl, Die Tragödie der deutschen Abwehr, Oldendorf, 1972, p 214; for the fate of the diaries see Mühleisen, ‘Duell’, pp 395– 458, here p 396f, with n 5 and 6.
8 Meinl, Nationalsozialisten, p 325.
9 Statement of Heinz to the Gremium der Europäischen Publikation, 11 August 1952, quoted here from Meinl, Nationalsozialisten, p 325. For Oster’s participation see Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, p 123.
10 Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, p 121, with n 115, points out that the statements of Sonderegger and Huppenkothen are contradictory. Both said that Kerstenhahn led them to the files, on another occasion that a search by others had been successful. That does not nullify Kerstenhahn’s treachery, although he may have had honourable motives; Christine von Dohnanyi assumed after the war that Schrader had buried some of the documents at his hunting lodge on Lüneburg Heath – a place which Kerstenhahn knew – while on Beck’s orders a part containing the plans for the 1939/40 coup were left at Zossen for later use. Kerstenhahn betrayed these in order to protect Schrader’s widow and others, which would explain why incriminated members of the Dohnanyi circle were never arrested. Dohnanyi, Christine von, note on the fate of the document collection of my husband, Reichsgerichtrats Dr. Hans von Dohnanyi, IfZ, ZS 603, folios 27–30, copy, folios 3oa-d; printed in Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Munich, 1970, pp 1047–52. According to information from Werner Wolf Schrader the Dohnanyi files, containing a copy of the Canaris diaries, were hidden at Gross-Denkte south of Wolfenbüttel. See Fraenkel, Heinrich, and Manvell, Roger, Canaris. Tatsachenbericht, Munich, 1978, pp 276–9, n 134–7.
11 Bartz, Tragödie, p 214Ą Höhne, Canaris, p 553; see the discussion in Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, p 120f and previous note.
12 Meinl, Nationalsozialisten, p 326.
13 Cf Christine v. Dohnanyi, note, IfZ, ZS 603, folio 35.
14 Dohnanyi, Christine von, Note on the fate of the document collection of my husband, Reichsgerichtrats Dr Hans von Dohnanyi, IfZ, ZS 603, folio 28.
15 Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, p 123; Smid, Dohnanyi – Bonhoeffer, p 431f; Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 451. To attribute the survival of the files to Dohnanyi, as has long been the case, is unrealistic. See the contrary arguments in: Müller, Konsequenz, p 216; Thun-Hohenstein, Verschwörer, p 264.
16 Also Chowaniec, FallDohnanyi, pp 123–6 as per the statements ofHuppenkothen und Sonderegger; Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 451f. See also copy of Huppenkothen’s statement, ‘Canaris und Abwehr’, IfZ, ZS 249, folio 35 and copy statement, Huppenkothen, 20 July 1944, IfZ, ZS 249, folio 152–168, here folios 154–60.
17 Quoted from Meinl, Nationalsozialisten, p 325.
18 Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, p 130.
19 Höhne, Canaris, p 555.
20 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 452.
21 Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, p 130.
22 Quoted from Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 453.
23 For the theory of the planned show trial see statement of Josef Müller, 20 October 1947, p 2, IfZ, ZS 659, vol II, folio 59. For other motives see also Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, p 130 and Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 453.
24 Hoffmann, Widerstand, p 631; for the defensive strategy to distribute the incriminating material as ‘play material’ see copy of Huppenkothen’s deposition, 24 April 1948, p 3, copy at IfZ, ZS 249.
25 Josef Müller, statement, 20 October 1947, p 2, IfZ, ZS 659, vol II, folio 59.
26 Smid, Dohnanyi – Bonhoeffer, p 431.
27 Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p 1015f.
28 Se the compulsive story of a survivor, Schlabrendorff, Offiziere, pp 164–6.
29 Statement by Pfuhlstein in prosecution of Sonderegger, Bergedorf judgment, 12 January 1949, p 9f, copy at IfZ, ZS 659. Statement of Brigitte Canaris, ibid, p 16. See also Abshagen, Canaris, p 377b Karl Heinz Abshagen was a brother of the Abwehr officer Wolfgang Abshagen, who was captured by the Soviets in 1945 and died in captivity. According to Erwin Lahousen the biography was based on information from former Abwehr colleagues, one of whom was Lahousen himself, as confirmed to this author by his wife Stefanie. Unfortunately Abshagen rarely supplied his sources. See opinion of Lahousen, IfZ, ZS 658, folios 1–3. See also letter from Ernst Behrens [former Oberst at OKW Amt Ausland/Abwehr] to Karl Heinz Abshagen dated 30 August 1950 with opinion on the Canaris biography, BA-MA, MSg 1/2813. The circumstances of the arrest are portrayed similarly in Müller, Konsequenz, p 220.
30 Schlabrendorff, Offiziere, p 167.
31 Bergedorfjudgment, 12 January 1949, p 13b copy at IfZ, ZS 659; Höhne, Canaris, p 559.
32 Müller, Konsequenz, p 220.
33 Even the judges at the Bergedorf trial were unable to make sense of Sonderegger’s ambivalent behaviour. On 12 January 1949 he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, but they mentioned the special treatment afforded by Sonderegger to Müller and Dohnanyi. See Bergedorf judgment, 12 January 1949, p 22f, copy at IfZ, ZS 659. After the war Müller interceded for Sonderegger for having saved his life, see statement of Josef Müller, 20 October 1947, p 4f, IfZ, ZS 659, vol II, folio 59 and correspondence Müller-Sonderegger, ibid. In a statement to US authorities on 23 May 1945 Müller stated that his comparatively good treatment was due to his friendship with SS-Gruppenfuhrer Rattenhuber and SS-General Dunkern, of which Sonderegger had been informed. Statement by Müller, Capri, 23 May 1945, NARA, RG 226 E 125 B 29. For the treatment of Dohnanyi, sick with diphtheria and transferred on 1 February 1945 from Sachsenhausen camp to the Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse, see secret messages from Dohnanyi to his wife, 25 February and 8 March 1945, copies at IfZ, ZS 603, appendix, folios 4–10. For the presumption that Sonderegger was protecting his own back for postwar safety see also Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, p 110. Apparently neither Sonderegger nor Huppenkothen mistreated Dohnanyi; it was Kriminalrat Kurt Stawitzki, responsible for his care in Berlin, who refused to continue his medical treatment and left him for weeks lying in excrement in his cell. Müller was also mistreated repeatedly by Stawitzki. See secret message of 25 February 1945; statement of Müller 20 October 1947; Smid, Dohnanyi – Bonhoeffer, p 440.
34 This statement in Höhne, Canaris, p 556f who relies on Huppenkothen’s statement.
35 Report, KaltenBrünner to Bormann, 19 September 1944, in Jacobsen, Opposition, vol I, pp 424–9.
36 This statement in Höhne, Canaris, p 556f who relies on Huppenkothen’s statement.
37 Report, KaltenBrünner to Bormann, 19 September 1944, in Jacobsen, Opposition, vol b p 425.
38 Ibid, p 429.
39 Smid, Dohnanyi – Bonhoeffer, p 433.
40 Report, KaltenBrünner to Bormann, 2 October 1944, in Jacobsen, Opposition, pp 430–4, here p 430.
41 Ibid, italics in original.
42 Report, KaltenBrünner to Bormann, 9 December 1944, in Jacobsen, Opposition, vol I, ΡΡ 517–20, here p 519, italics in original.
43 Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 453.
44 Schlabrendorff, Offiziere, p 177b; Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p 1022.
45 Statement ofJosef Müller, (autumn 1948), IfZ, ZS 659, folio 88.
46 Müller, Konsequenz, p 229.
47 Cf Judgment of Landgericht Augsburg in criminal prosecution of Walther Huppenkothen and Dr Otto Thorbeck, 15 October 1955, reproduced in Justiz und NS-Verbrechen. Nazi Crimes on Trial. Sammlung deutscher Strafurteile wegen nationalsozialistischer Tötungsverbrechen 1945–1999, edited and revised by Christiaan Frederik RMer and Dick W de Mildt, Amsterdam and Munich, 1968 onwards, c 50 vols, still being completed, here vol XIII, lfd no 420a; ibid, confirmation of Court of Revision of BGH, same matter, 25 May 1956, 1 StR 50/⅞6, lfd no 420d. Excerpts are available on Internet at: http://wwwi.jur.uva.nl/junsv/Excerpts/420inhalt.htm.
48 Ibid, lfd no 420a VII, see also Lunding’s hand-drawn sketch in: DieNachhut, 2, 1971, p 13, BA-MA, MSg 3–22/1 (between 1967 and 1974 Die Nachhut was the veteran’s publication of AGEA, the organisation of former Abwehr members), also Lunding, Hans, ‘In Memoriam Wilhelm Canaris’, printed letter of eulogy on twentieth anniversary of his death, 9 April 1965, BA-MA, MSg 1/1193 and. 2172.
49 Augsburg Judgment, lfd no 420a XIII.
50 For Lunding’s spell of incarceration at Flossenbürg see statement of Lunding, Capri, 12 May 1945, NA, WO 311/597.
51 Augsburg Judgment, lfd no 420a XIII.
52 Ibid, see also Lunding, ‘In Memoriam Canaris’, BA-MA, MSg 1/1193 and. 2172; Höhne, Canaris, p 562. See also a comprehensive OSS dossier on Lunding’s statements of 25 February 1946, NARA, RG 226 E 125 B 29. Lunding, not always reliable on facts, stated that KaltenBrünner and Gestapo Chief Müller were at Flossenbürg camp on 6 April to try Canaris. In the time-frame, and with the diary background this is not implausible. In one version after this conversation Lunding had an exchange of code-knocks with Canaris, who communicated his fate by this method.
53 Meyer, Verschwörer im KZ, p 133; Smid, Dohnanyi – Bonhoeffer, p 452f.
54 Buchheit, Geheimdienst, p 444f; Canaris, Höhne, p 563; Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 456; letter from Wera Schwarte to Helmut Krausnick, 24 November 1964, p 2, IfZ, ZS 210i, folio 2.
55 Augsburg Judgment, lfd. no 420a VII.
56 Cf the extensive agreement of analysis and interpretation in Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, pp 131–8; Meyer, Unternehmen Sieben, p 456; Smid, Dohnanyi –Bonhoeffer, p 454. For a legal appraisal of this trial against the background of perverted National Socialist law see Chowaniec, Fall Dohnanyi, pp 138–58; for the occasionally scandalous abuses of jurisprudence after the war: Mohr, Philipp, ‘Die Verfolgung Hans von Dohnanyis durch Reichskriegsgericht, Gestapo und SS 1934–45 und ihre Aufarbeitung durch die Justiz nach 1945’, in Meyer, Verschwörer im KZ, pp 116–44, with further literary sources. The Federal Criminal Court acquitted Thorbeck on 19 June 1956, Huppenkothen was convicted as an accessory to murder, but only for the Flossenbürg trial, and only then because he agreed to the immediate execution of the sentence, which he attended knowing that it had not been confirmed by a Court of Revision. The Federal Criminal Court did not find grounds to criticise the conviction and sentence on Canaris. For the literature in the Huppenkothen trial see Mohr, ‘Verfolgung’, p 143, n 67.
57 Smid, Dohnanyi – Bonhoeffer, p 455.
58 See Höhne, Canaris, p 566; Thun-Hohenstein, Verschwörer, p 271. As to the trials themselves we have only the evidence of the proceedings at Munich (16 February 1951 and 5 November 1952) and Augsburg (15 October 1955).
59 Augsburg Judgment, lfd. no 420a XIII.
60 Höhne, Canaris, p 567.
61 Quotation ibid, and similarly Thun-Hohenstein, Verschwörer, p 271. See also Augsburg Judgment, lfd no 420a X. As to the ambivalence of Canaris’s attitude to the Resistance see opinion of Erwin Lahousen, 29 August 1952, IfZ, ZS 658, folio 6 in which he says that Canaris was ‘overcautious’. ‘Canaris shielded the opposition activities of others but never became involved himself.’
62 Augsburg Judgment, lfd no 420a XIII.
63 Abshagen, Canaris, p 393; Hoffmann, Widerstand, p 653.
64 Höhne, Canaris, p 567.
65 Augsburg Judgment, lfd no 420 XIII; Höhne, Canaris, p 567.
66 Augsburg Judgment, lfd no 420 XIII.
67 Müller, Konsequenz, p 251.
68 Augsburg Judgment, lfd no 420 IX.
69 Information from Stefanie Lahousen to the author, 3 January 2006. For statement of the camp doctor see Höhne, Canaris, p 569; Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, p 1038.
70 Müller, Konsequenz, p 252.
71 See Höhne, Canaris, p 569.