Letters and Papers From Prison by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

looking again at what you said to me on Friday.
    The results of my consideration are, in brief, as follows: My exemption for service in the Abwehr in essence amounts to conscription into the Abwehr. I could not have made the journeys intended by the Abwehr had I served in the Abwehr as an enlisted man; in that case I would have lost the disguise which was absolutely necessary for my journeys. That I came to do my war service with the Abwehr and not the armed forces is, in my opinion, exclusively the responsibility of those who regarded my contacts abroad as being so numerous and important that they claimed me for this service; i.e. Admiral Canaris must really decide about that, as he himself ordered that I was to be used for the Abwehr. However, it is also my own personal conviction that I could do greater service to the nation by making use of my contacts abroad than elsewhere. You know, your honour, that I am not well up in matters of law, but I cannot suppress the question whether there is not a regulation to the effect that in war each man is to be put where he makes the greatest contribution for the nation. A chemist is left in his laboratory if he has special knowledge not possessed by anyone else. Be that as it may, at any rate, these are the reasons why I worked for the Abwehr - without any doubt about the rightness of my activity. And I must pass on the responsibility for this to those who engaged me.
    Now about my letter to my brother-in-law in the matters of Niesel, Wolf 54 and Jannasch. 55 I can at least understand that it may seem strange if one reads it without taking into account the personal relationship between myself and my brother-in-law. For me it was part of one of the numerous purely personal conversations in which for many years I had been telling my brother-in-law of church matters and difficulties and had occasionally been asking his advice. In this case it was a question of asking personaladvice as to whether any help could be offered in this or that difficulty. In the Jannasch case I even told the father, who had lost his other son shortly before and was with me in great distress, explicitly that things could not be changed in any way. Was it really impermissible to ask my brother-in-law about the matter once again, personally? This is the context - i.e. that of a quickly written personal letter - in which the words ‘there is a threat of call-up’ are to be understood; a stranger could certainly misunderstand them or take objection to them, but my brother-in-law certainly did not misunderstand them. One need only ask him how he took the expression; [illegible] was the difficulty ‘threatening’ the church. A plea to my brother-in-law on church matters would never have seemed impermissible to me, especially as he alone was responsible for working out all the military possibilities; it would never have occurred to me to press anything on him or to suggest anything to him that he thought irresponsible. My brother-in-law will confirm to you at any time that in these affairs it was exclusively a matter of questions and reports; I never pressed him to do anything. Finally, I always kept in mind the significance of the church for the war effort at home and felt myself inwardly justified in presenting such things to my brother-in-law. He knew this and understood it well. I will not disclaim responsibility for having spoken up for the church even during the war, where this seemed to me to be in the interest of church and nation; and I confidently believe that what I have done can be answered for and defended before the law also. Perhaps you will believe me when I say that I have too high an opinion of the law to want to see casuistry or stretching of points for my personal sake. I believe that in my own case, prosecution and defence are at least agreed on this basic attitude.
    Finally, may I add something that hardly needs saying? If my work for the Abwehr should no longer be regarded as important, I