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 – Bon
hoeffer, 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 liter
ature 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.
Sources and Bibliography
Archives and Sources
BAK: Bundesarchiv, Koblenz
N 1150 Nachlaß Walter Luetgebrune
R 43 I 603–605 Alte Reichskanzlei/Akten zur Affäre Lohmann
BA-MA: Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv, Freiburg
Pers. 6/105 u. 2293 Personalakte Canaris
MSg 1 Wilhelm Canaris
MSg 1/812 Erwin Lahousen
MSg 3–22/1 Die Nachhut
N 104 Nachlaß Helmuth Groscurth
N 326 Nachlaß Albert Hopmann
N 612 Nachlaß Gert Buchheit
N 620 Nachlaß Waldemar Pabst
N 812 Nachlaß Wilhelm Canaris
Canaris Page 47