Warning: include(breadcrumbs.htm): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/vhosts/hhp.orgfree.com/nca/nca06/3701-PS.php on line 15
Warning: include(): Failed opening 'breadcrumbs.htm' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/remi/php74/root/usr/share/pear:/opt/remi/php74/root/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear:/usr/share/php') in /home/vhosts/hhp.orgfree.com/nca/nca06/3701-PS.php on line 15
Copy of document 3701-PS
Translation of document from the Archives of the Catholic Bishops' Conference, Fulda, given by Secretary of the Bishop of Fulda to Dr. Edmund Walsh in December, 1945 PROPOSAL FOR REICHSLEITER BORMANN Concerning: Speech of the Bishop of Muenster on 3 August 1941. Enclosed I submit the draft of a proposal by the Division Chief for Propaganda, Ministry for Propaganda, for Dr. Goebbels, in which, at the same time, he transmits the speech of the Bishop of Muenster of 3 August 1941. The proposal of the Propaganda Division to start an enlightenment campaign regarding the Euthanasia question is, in my opinion right — at least for the territories concerned — but under no circumstances is it sufficient. If against the lies of the bishop (that we are putting the wounded to death), more severe measures are not taken than an information and probable arrest, this counterpropaganda will continue without a chance for us to offset it successfully. I propose that we adopt in this case the only measure that can be taken as good propaganda as well as legal punishment -- namely: to hang the Bishop of Muenster. A general public notice of the execution of the death penalty as well as a detailed justification in connection with this measure should be made. By his lie the Bishop of Muenster not only seeks to insult and to damage National Socialist Germany but at the same time to damage the morale of the German wives and mothers whose husbands and sons are on the battle fields. Every German therefore will understand the kind of execution I suggest provided we justify it in such a manner. On the other hand, if we should find a more gentle kind of punishment, a large portion of the German people will presume that there is some truth in the accusation. Besides, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that such a consequence of the contemptible conduct of the bishop offers the only chance of influencing other bishops not to indulge in such actions. If the bishop should not be punished at all, or if he should only be subjected to imprisonment or fine, it would be almost like an invitation for the other bishops to activate their attacks against National Socialist Germany and the German people also. Berlin, 12 August 1941 Tiessler. Ti/Hu. ------- Division Chief — Propaganda Berlin, 12 August 1941 To the Reich Minister for Propaganda and Popular Enlightenment Concerning: Catholic action. At the beginning of July and the beginning of August several meetings of a rather select committee of the Bishops' Conference of Fulda took place. It was decided at those meetings to continue the line of increasingly sharp opposition. The execution of those decisions becomes evident in three pastoral letters of the Bishop Count von Galen of Muenster. In the pastoral letters of 13 and 20 July the bishop attacked the Gestapo with harsh words because of the closing of several Jesuit houses and convents of the Mission Sisters of the Immaculate Conception; he calls the officials of the Gestapo thieves and robbers. Then he connects those confiscations with several bombings of the city of Muenster and calls them just punishment from heaven for the misdeeds of the Gestapo. In these pastoral letters he glorifies Pastor Niemoeller and attempts [Page 407] to disprove the charge of disturbing the unity of the people by claiming that is only the Gestapo which is destroying the unity of the people. After such attacks against official organs of the state, stronger in form and tenor than the earlier mentioned, more hidden accusations, the Bishop of Muenster on 3 August in a sermon to his diocesans came out with the most severe attack against the leadership of the German government ever made during the past decades. After first dealing again with the closing of those religious houses and convents he turns against the execution of measures concerning Euthanasia for incurable cases of feeblemindedness. He first sets forth the argument against Euthanasia and then goes so far as to claim the following: "Yes, citizens of Muenster, wounded soldiers are being killed recklessly, since they are, productively, of no more use to the state. Mother, your boy will be killed too, if he comes back home from the front wounded.” He closes with the remark that the inhabitants of Muenster had not understood God’s vengeance which came in the form of English air attacks and he incites the faithful to open opposition, even if they should have to die for it. For your information I enclose the original text of the sermon. The allegation of the Bishop of Muenster that wounded soldiers are threatened by measures of Euthanasia was spread by several broadcasts of the London radio. The attitude of the bishop is treason of a definite quality. It is to be feared that this sermon and the utterances of the bishop will get around by propaganda of mouth and will be believed in wide circle of the Reich, especially among the Catholic population. Moreover it is to be feared that those treasonable accusations will find their way to the Protestant population, especially among families who have relatives at the front. Measures taken by the state police against the bishop can hardly be successful, because in case of an arrest and judgment the bishop would be made a martyr by the Church, and other bishops and priests would repeat his claims anew. The most suitable measure would be the enlightenment of the population concerning our measures in reference to Euthanasia; I realized, however, that the present times are very unfit for that. The manner and the means by which the bishop prepared this action makes one fear that he will not relax his attacks, unless we effect a fundamental change of attitude particularly in the Catholic population. I inquired at the Reich Ministry for Church Affairs as to how [Page 408] they regard this matter over there. I was answered that the authentic text of the sermon unfortunately was not yet known in that Department. The sermon was on 3 August. I beg the Reich Minister to decide whether or not the Fuehrer shall be asked by group leader Bormann whether the camouflage of Euthanasia thus far in practice ought to be modified so that a defense against the treasonable claims of the Bishop of Muenster can be inaugurated by launching a campaign of popular enlightenment. Heil Hitler! Enclosure. ------- SECRET PROPOSAL FOR REICHSLEITER BORMANN: Concerning: Sermon of the Bishop of Muenster After the conference of Ministers, Dr. Goebbels discussed with me the sermon of the Bishop of Muenster. He could not say what effective measures could be taken at the moment. I explained to him that in my opinion there could be only one effective measure, namely, to hang the bishop and that I already had informed Reichsleiter Bormann accordingly. Thereupon Dr. Goebbels said that this was a measure upon which the Fuehrer alone could decide. He feared, however, that the population of Muenster could be regarded as lost during the war, if anything were done against the bishop, and in that fear one safely could include the whole of Westphalia. I pointed out to him that it would only be necessary to expose properly that very vulgar lie through propaganda channels. In that way it ought to be possible not only to bring the population there to an understanding of that measure but to create among them rebellion against the bishop. To that Dr. Goebbels answered again that the Fuehrer himself would certainly come to a decision in that question. After that he observed that it would have been wiser, in his opinion, not to challenge the Church during the war but to try only to steer them according to our interests as far as possible. For that reason he had ordered the interview with party comrade Gutterer. But then he had not followed up the matter in this way because the Chancery of the Party had chosen the way of uncompromising refusal and open breach. As much as it was for him — (in contrast to the other Reich's Leaders) — a matter of course to suppress the press of the Church, because in that regard he had proof [Page 409] and excuse concerning the Church. This preserved appearances. He maintained the stand, however, that it would have been better during the war to preserve appearances as far as the Church is concerned. It is permissible always to attack an opponent only if one is in a position to answer properly at the decisive counterattack of that opponent. But this was extraordinarily difficult in the case of the counterattack of the Church during the war, yes, nearly impossible. One should not enjoy a revenge with heat but coldly. In politics one should know how to wait. This the Fuehrer clearly and distinctly had proved again in the case of Russia. If he would have had his way one would have pretended during the war as if … [the following line at end of page is missing]. I explained to him that the procedure employed so far had nevertheless accomplished this much, that the Church had opened up and in doing so played into our hands by documents valuable after the war for the struggle against it. Dr. Goebbels said that in his opinion those measures would have been possible after the war, even without the documents, whereas the effect of the Church documents on the attitude of the people was extraordinarily troublesome now. In any case it is necessary now to establish an absolute and clear rule as to the road to be followed. In the deliberations which have to take place in this connection we should not allow ourselves to be guided by the heart but by completely cold logic. I personally retain the viewpoint that, if the Fuehrer should agree with my proposal to hang the bishop, we could safely still continue along the lines used so far. However, should the Fuehrer reject this proposal and postpone a reckoning, and defer action in the present case also, until after the war, I herewith request that it be considered whether Dr. Goebbels should not try, as far as might be possible, to pursue the course he suggested. Berlin, 13 August 1941 Tiessler. Ti/Hu- ------- Headquarters of the Fuehrer, 13 August 1941 Bo/Fu Documentary remark for party comrade Walter Tiessler, Leader of the Reichsring for National Socialist Propaganda and Popular Enlightenment, Berlin W. 8, Hotel Kaiserhof, Room 117. The several speeches of Bishop Count Galen are known to me. Also the Fuehrer has been given an over-all picture on the atti- [Page 410] tude of the bishop. He ordered me to undertake first an exact investigation of the bishop’s complaints concerning the closing of cloisters in favor of the NSDAP. This was done; but so far I have not been able to report to the Fuehrer. Concerning the effects of the speeches of the Bishop I am being continuously informed through the Gau Leader as well as by the Secret State Police. What kind of steps the Fuehrer will take against the bishop, however, is yet to be decided. A death sentence certainly would be appropriate; considering the state of the war, however, the Fuehrer hardly will order such a measure. The Fuehrer also will have to decide whether enlightenment concerning the Euthanasia matters should be started. So far the Fuehrer has declined to adopt this measure. In your proposal for Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels a decision is requested whether or not the Fuehrer should be asked by one of the adjutants if the camouflage of Euthanasia so far in effect could be modified. I request you to clarify in your office that questions of this kind are not reported to the Fuehrer by the adjutants but through me as the Leader of the Chancery of the Party. This too is precisely one of the reasons, why I should accompany the Fuehrer steadily, in order that all such matters may be reported to the Fuehrer through me. Bormann ------- Proposal for Reichsleiter Bormann! In consequence of your documentary remark of 13 August I informed the Propaganda Division that questions of that kind will not be reported to the Fuehrer through the adjutants but through you. The office thereupon gave me the information that there had been a regrettable misunderstanding. It was Group Leader Bormann, yourself, they meant, not the adjutant. I have been asked by the office to beg your pardon on their behalf. Tiessler Berlin, 16 August 1941 Ti/Hu