THE PRESIDENT: No question of translation arises. The passage was read to us verbatim as it is before us, and it was read by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe to the defendant, and the defendant has given the same answer over and over again in answer to Sir David.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, may I point out the following: The whole sentence was in the future tense, the whole sentence...
THE PRESIDENT: It was read to us just now by the interpreter verbatim in the words which are before us in the book and the words which were put by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe to the defendant. There is no question of difference of tense at all.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, there is a special language difficulty, because in the first part the first two verbs are in the present tense in connection with the auxiliary “wird” used later; and in accordance with German language usage the present is to be understood as meaning the future also. In the opinion of the British Prosecution, the first two verbs “deals” and “eliminates” are to be considered past tense, and that is the difference.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a matter of verbal argument on the words of the document.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes. Now one last question to the witness.
A while ago Cardinal Innitzer’s talk to Hitler in Vienna was discussed. What occasioned you to arrange this meeting of Hitler with Cardinal Innitzer?
VON PAPEN: With our march into Austria and the Anschluss of Austria to the Reich, Hitler had joined a Catholic country to Germany; and the problem, which was to be solved, was winning this country from the interior as well. That was possible only if Hitler recognized the religious basis, recognized what rights Catholicism had in this country; for this reason I arranged a talk between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler in order to make sure that Hitler in the future would follow a policy which stood on a Christian basis in Austria.
By arranging this interview, I thought I would be able to do one last service for Austria; that was the reason.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is the end of the examination.