Canaris

by Mueller, Michael;

  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 Ita
ly, 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.