Letters and Papers From Prison (10 page)

[On Operation 7]

10 June 1943

Please permit me to add two further points which occurred to me after today’s interrogation, when I was reflecting on the Friedenthal affair.
⁴⁷
I. As far as I know, the gentleman who carried on negotiations with Frl. Friedenthal was a Dr Arnold: my brother-in-law told me that on some later occasion. Moreover, as far as I know, my brother-in-law himself spoke to her. 2. Frl. Friedenthal looked me up briefly one day during the course of the summer and asked me whether I thought that she could legitimately undertake the task that she assumed would be assigned to her. At that time I answered in the affirmative.

[In the margin: She was speaking only of the fact and not the
content
of the task, of which I did not learn anything, even later.]

Please believe me that these two points really did occur to me afterwards. I often find it difficult to follow the tempo of your questioning, probably because I am not used to it, but I really have no interest in doing other than relating the whole matter as it took place. Ultimately I too am solely concerned with the earliest possible clarification. I very much hope that you will take these words from me.

Heil Hitler!

Yours faithfully,

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

[Further remarks on Operation 7]

The chief point concerns the date
⁴⁸
of my conversation with my brother-in-law. Perhaps you remember from the interrogation
that my first reaction to the question of date was, ‘At any rate, it was a long time ago’; I then uncertainly mentioned spring 1942 and you immediately confirmed this, so I regarded this information as correct. Meanwhile it has become quite clear to me that this date, which seemed to me to be too near, must be completely wrong. I infer this from two things: my brother-in-law occasionally said to me that the carrying through of the whole action lasted more than a year. I further recall that during my long illness, i.e. in autumn 1941, my brother-in-law told me on the occasion of a visit to my room that the Friedenthal affair was now under way. Accordingly, the first discussion of this matter took place a considerable while back. I also now remember that Dr Schmidhuber was once concerned with the affair and that on one of his visits to Switzerland he asked Köchlin,
⁴⁹
to whom he wanted to be introduced by me, about obtaining an entry visa for Frl. Fr.

How it came about I cannot recollect, despite all my efforts, and I simply cannot remember any more the situation in which the matter was discussed with Schm., whether it was discussed by myself or by my brother-in-law, whether in Berlin or Munich or by letter. I think that there are only two possibilities: either this request to Schm. arose in connection with the intentions of the military branch - in that case it may be that my brother-in-law rather than I spoke with Schm., or it went back to the fact that I had learnt that Frl. Friedenthal wanted to go abroad to relatives in Switzerland and that I thereupon discussed this question with Schm. But in the latter case, it seems very remarkable that I cannot remember having discussed the matter personally with Schm. At any rate, the two must have been very close together in time, and I think I can remember that since I was concerned with her case, Frl. Fr. had instructions from the
Abwehr
branch to be at their disposal. My brother-in-law would probably remember; I do not believe that at that time Schm. was already informed of the plans of the
Abwehr,
as the whole matter was handled very secretly. As I last saw Köchlin on my second visit to Switzerland in August 1941 and never talked about this matter with K., I in fact assume that Schm.’s journey took place after August 1941. But it would also be conceivable that by chance I never entered into conversation
with K. on this matter. I later learnt in some way from Schm. that K. had made direct contact with Frl. Fr.

Anyway, in my recollections I feel that the case fits in well with the planned
Abwehr
action. Nor will I deny for a moment that in this whole affair a Christian and charitable element always played a part.

The reason why my recollections of the whole Friedenthal case are so inaccurate is probably that both K. and the
Abwehr
dealt directly with Frl.Fr., so that in both instances I served only once as a go-between, and that in an affair which was of very little concern to me, because, as I have said, I hardly knew Frl.Fr. personally. Besides, Frl. Fr. is to be regarded as a ‘Non-Aryan’ and not as a ‘Jewess’, as like Dr Arnold she never wore a star.

And now, your honour, I would like to put a question to you. I hope that you will excuse me for my complete lack of orientation in legal matters. I simply cannot understand why you allow me to persist, for example, in a mistake like that over the date of my discussion with my brother-in-law, which makes all my remarks inaccurate and unclear and is no help to anyone. The person being interrogated only finds himself in the painful position of having to make corrections afterwards, thus giving the impression that he had previously wanted to make a false statement. I am convinced that you have your reasons for this form of interrogation, but for anyone who has no intention of speaking untruths it is at any rate very disturbing and oppressive afterwards. It may sound like a feeble excuse, but you will know better than I from your experience that people’s memories function very differently, and that some people simply need certain outward props to their memory to be able to reconstruct a situation accurately. Without these, everything escapes one and that is an extremely unpleasant position.

I regret having caused you trouble with this long letter, but I hope that I have now said really everything that I know about these matters.

As to your question about the extent to which my brother-in-law contributed to my journeys…I can with certainty remember only the following contributions: I sleeper supplement,
Berlin-Munich; I D train supplement, second class, Munich to Ettal; I journey Schlawe to Berlin, winter 39/40; I round trip Ettal-Munich-Ettal (Gürtner’s funeral).

[On exemption for pastors of the Confessing Church]
⁵⁰

Dear Judge Advocate,

I am really sorry to keep troubling you in this way, but I must not omit to tell you something that seems important to me, and so I ask you to be so kind as to excuse this demand on your time also. When you read to me yesterday parts of letters to my brother-in-law that I had long forgotten, I was at first tremendously shocked by the word ‘threaten’ in connection with Niesel’s
⁵¹
call-up, and cannot understand how I could have come to use such an expression; I must concede that taken by itself it really does make a very unpleasant impression.

1. Had a man like Niesel had a church authority recognized and appointed by the state, it would certainly have declared him to be indispensable on church grounds alone.

2. Only a church that is inwardly strong in faith can fulfil its hard task to the homeland during a war, which consists in the; summons to unswerving (?) trust in God, to strong inward resistance, to perseverance, to firm confidence and [indecipherable] personal pastoral care to Germans fighting in the homeland [indecipherable]. I intended it as a service to the German people in the war when I advocated a strong church - within the bounds of present possibilities. I believe that in this war, too, the German people to a large extent still desire the service of the church, and I see with fear and shame how feebly and weakly, on the whole., we are equipped, and how as a result our people have lost spiritual powers which are so necessary if they are to survive.

People may think what they like about the Confessing Church, but there is one thing of which it cannot be accused without being completely misunderstood: no one in it would at any time regard
‘call-up’ as something ‘threatening’. The hundreds of voluntary registrations by young ministers of the Confessing Church and the great sacrifices made from their ranks speak clearly enough to the contrary. Even I have hardly spoken to a single minister of the Confessing Church who would not have regarded his call-up as an inner liberation from the heavy pressure of political suspicion which has burdened the Confessing Church and gladly have seized it as a long-sought opportunity to prove his inner attitude and readiness for sacrifice as a soldier. Pastor Niemöller’s voluntary registration for military service right at the beginning of the war has not been without its effect on the Confessing Church. I may say all this as one who knows the young generation of pastors in the Confessing Church and has been more closely associated with them than most other ministers. Precisely because these facts are so irrefutable and because we can have a clear conscience about them, I have felt able and indeed compelled to plead in an urgent individual case - as in that of Niesel - that a pastor should be preserved for church service and the homeland, provided that this can be justified on military grounds. This latter point was not within my competence to judge, so as a result I approached my brother-in-law about it. Two things led me to do so:

I know that even religious people can judge the church very differently, but in times of war no one should want to dispute that the motive of its conviction and its action is love of the German people and a wish to serve it - particularly during the war - to the best of its ability.

Since the beginning of the war I have argued in a number of long conversations with Minister Gürtner,
⁵²
whom I knew personally, for a settlement of the church dispute and a common effort by the different forces of the Protestant church; I submitted suggestions for this to Dr Gürtner and he discussed them with the Minister for Religious Affairs, Herr Kerrl. The latter showed interest and approval. In December 1940, Dr Gürtner accompanied me on a walk at Ettal which lasted for several hours, in the course of which he said that he hoped that the matter would reach a satisfactory settlement and told me in detail how that might come about. His death a month later, and the illness and death of
Minister Kerrl, shattered these hopes. It was an attempt to bring; about peace in the church during the war so as to release its; greatest strength for the war effort. This attempt, despite its failure, meant that I may feel that I have done everything in my power to bring about as harmonious and strong a contribution by the church to the war as possible.

Although this may seem to be little related to the matter, I wanted very much to have said it at some point so that you, your honour, could judge my personal attitude on this question.

[On travelling]

Now, finally, a word about my stays in Berlin. I had to be in Berlin regularly for the following official reasons,

1. Before and after every journey.

2. To prepare certain journeys, some of which took a considerable time (see below).

3. I was expressly told that I was to be at the disposal of Admiral C[anaris] for special commissions, and I was often asked for addresses, commendations and advice.

The following details should be added: Preparation for my planned Scandinavian trip in June 1941 kept me in Berlin from April to July 1941 inclusively. This was because of discussions with the pastor at the Swedish embassy, journeys to the embassy, addresses and advice which I had to get from [crossed out: Dibelius, Diestel] Protestant ministers. Immediately after the failure of this proposed journey I had to apply for my second visa for Switzerland in Munich, and I travelled to Switzerland in August. After my return, further trips to Paris and Spain were planned - 1 recently forgot to mention this - but they did not materialize because of my protracted illness, which I contracted in Berlin. I was not capable of travelling again before the middle of January, beginning of February. From March to July 1942 I was on official journeys with only brief interruptions. These also had to be prepared in Berlin. The intention was that this travelling should be
continued in the autumn to the Balkans and to Switzerland. This plan failed to come off with Schm[idhuber]’s disappearance. So at the request of my brother-in-law I remained in Berlin until the matter was cleared up, as otherwise I would have had to sit about in Munich doing nothing. The situation was so unclear at that time that every day I was expecting to be sent back to Munich and on journeys. I myself repeatedly urged that I should be allowed to travel again, as the military inactivity was getting too long for me. It was no fault of mine that this did not come about. My stay in Berlin was always notified to my military superiors and to my Munich home. I could be reached within the hour and in practice was always reached immediately in urgent matters, both through urgent calls to my landlady in Munich
⁵³
and through the Berlin office of the
Abwehr.
My parents can attest how much I disliked this state of permanent uncertainty about my travelling plans. On my side, there was no week after January 1943 in which I was not told that the next week I would have to go to Munich and then travel, though this was always called off again soon afterwards; in effect I was kept on tenterhooks without knowing how long this state would last.

I have already mentioned the personal reasons why I was glad to remain in Berlin, namely my books which I needed for work, and my elderly parents, whom I did not like to leave all alone unnecessarily, particularly during air-raids.

[On the charge of damaging the war effort]

[2 August 1943]

Your honour,

You have allowed me to write to you once again, and I want to do that today, probably for the last time before the trial. In the three days which have passed since you informed me that charges would be laid against me I have attempted, on your advice, to think quietly through the whole complex of questions once again. I do not want to trouble you with personal matters; I need not tell you what the mere fact of my being charged with damaging the war
effort means for myself, my profession and my family; you know my professional and personal circumstances well enough. If the law requires the charge, it must happen; I understand that. The reason why I did not expect it is perhaps that I did not know the text of the law and also that I have felt myself to be innocent of the charge of damaging the war effort and still feel the same way, even after looking again at what you said to me on Friday.