Chapter IV, Page 75—“Aufrüstung”—Concealed rearmament under the

leadership of the Government of the Reich (from 1933 until military freedom in 1935):

“The unification of the whole nation which was combined with the taking over of power on 30 January 1933 was of decisive influence on the size and shape of further rearmament.

“While the Reichsrat approached its dissolution and withdrew as a legislative body, the Reichstag assumed a composition which could only take a decisive attitude toward the rearmament of the Armed Forces. The Government took over the management of the rearmament program upon this foundation. . . .”

Then a heading—“Development of the Armed Forces”:

“This taking over of the management by the Reich Government developed for the Armed Forces in such a manner that the War Minister, General Von Blomberg, and through him the three branches of the Armed Forces, received far-reaching powers from the Reich Cabinet for the development of the Armed Forces. The whole organization of the Reich was included in this work. In view of these powers, the collaboration of the former inspecting body in the management of the secret expenditure was from then on dispensed with. There remained only the inspecting duties of the accounting office of the German Reich.”

Another heading—“Independence of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy”:

“The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Raeder, honorary doctor, had received thereby a far-reaching independence in the building and development of the Navy. This was only hampered in so far as the previous concealment of rearmament had to be continued in consideration of the Versailles Treaty. Besides the ordinary budget there remained the previous special budget, which was greatly increased in view of the considerable credit for the provision of labor, which was made available by the Reich. Wide powers in the handling of these credits were given to the Director of the Budget Department of the Navy, up to 1934 Commodore Schüssler, afterwards Commodore Foerste. These took into consideration the increased responsibility of the Chief of the Budget.”

Another heading—“Declaration of Military Freedom”:

“When the Führer, relying upon the strengthening of the Armed Forces, executed in the meanwhile, announced the restoration of the military sovereignty of the German Reich, the last-mentioned limitation on rearmament works, namely, the external camouflage, was eliminated. Freed from all the shackles which have hampered our ability to move freely on and under water, on land, and in the air, for one and a half decades, and carried by the newly-awakened fighting spirit of the whole nation, the Armed Forces, and as a part of it, the Navy, can lead with full strength towards its completion, the rearmament already under way with the goal of securing for the Reich its rightful position in the world.”

If the Tribunal please, at this moment I have a new problem about proof which I believe we have not discussed. I have in my hand an English translation of an interrogation of the Defendant Erich Raeder. Of course he knows he was interrogated; he knows what he said. I don’t believe we have furnished copies of this interrogation to defendants’ counsel. I don’t know whether under the circumstances I am at liberty to read from it or not. If I do read from it I suggest that the defendants’ counsel will all get the complete text of it—I mean of what I read into the transcript.

THE PRESIDENT: Has the counsel for the Defendant Raeder any objection to this interrogation being read?

DR. SIEMERS: As far as I have understood the proceedings to date, I believe that it is a question of a procedure in which either proof by way of documents or proof by way of witnesses will be furnished. I am surprised that the Prosecution wishes to furnish proof by way of records of interrogations, taken at a time when the Defense was not present. I should be obliged to the Court if I could be told whether, in principle, I, as a defense counsel, may resort to producing evidence in this form, i.e. present documents of the interrogation of witnesses; that is to say, documents in which I myself interrogated witnesses the same as the Prosecution without putting witnesses on the stand.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that if interrogations of defendants are to be used, copies of such interrogations should be furnished to defendant’s counsel beforehand. The question which the Tribunal wished to ask you was whether on this occasion you objected to this interrogation being used without such a copy having been furnished to you. With regard to your observation as to your own rights with reference to interrogating your defendants, the Tribunal considers that you must call them as witnesses upon the witness stand and cannot interrogate them and put in the interrogations. The question for you now is whether you object to this interrogation being laid before the Tribunal at this stage.

DR. SIEMERS: I should like first of all to have an opportunity of seeing every record before it is submitted in Court. Only then shall I be able to decide whether interrogations can be read, the contents of which I as a defense counsel am not familiar with.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will adjourn now and it anticipates that the interrogation can be handed to you during the adjournment and then can be used afterwards.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal. I should like to ask the Tribunal to note the presence and appearance, on behalf of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of Mr. A. I. Vishinsky of the Foreign Office, and General K. P. Gorshenin, Chief Prosecutor of the Soviet Republic who has been able to join us in the Prosecution only now.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal notes what Mr. Justice Jackson has said, and observes that Mr. Vishinsky has taken his seat with the Soviet Delegation of Chief Prosecutors.

DR. SIEMERS: In the meanwhile during the lunch hour I have seen the minutes. I should like to observe that I don’t think it is very agreeable that the Prosecution should not depart from their point that the Defense should only receive the documents during the proceedings, or just before the proceedings, or at times, even after the proceedings. I should be grateful if the Prosecution could see to it in the future that we are informed in good time.

Yesterday a list of the documents which were to be presented today was made in our room, number 54. I find that the documents presented today are not included in yesterday’s list. You will understand that the task of the Defense is thereby rendered comparatively difficult. On principle, I cannot in my statement of today, give my agreement to the reading of minutes of interrogations. In order to facilitate matters, I should like to follow the Court’s suggestion, and declare that I am agreeable to the minutes presented here being read. I request, however—and I believe I have already been assured by the Prosecution to that effect—that only the part be read which refers to Document C-156, as I had no time to discuss the remaining points with the defendants.

As to the remaining points, five other documents are cited. Moreover I request that the part which refers to the book by Kapitän zur See Schüssler, should be read in full, and I believe that the prosecutor agrees with this.

THE PRESIDENT: I understood from the counsel for Raeder that you were substantially in agreement as to what parts of this interrogation you should read. Is that right, Mr. Alderman?

MR. ALDERMAN: If I understood the counsel correctly, he asked that I read the entire part of the interrogation which deals with Document C-156, but I understood that he did not agree for me to read other parts that referred to other documents. I handed counsel the original of my copy of the interrogation before the lunch hour, and when he returned it to me after the lunch hour, I substituted in his hands a carbon copy. I didn’t quite understand his statement about documents being introduced which hadn’t been furnished to the defendant. We did file the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Is this document in the document book?

MR. ALDERMAN: My understanding is that the document book contains all the documents except these interrogations. They did not contain the interrogation.

THE PRESIDENT: Then he is right in saying that.

MR. ALDERMAN: He is right as to the interrogation, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you in agreement with him then, that you can read what you want to read now, and that it is not necessary for you to read the parts to which he objects.

MR. ALDERMAN: I think so. I understand he objects to my reading anything other than the part concerned with C-156. I would anticipate that he might be willing for me to read the other parts tomorrow.

This deals with the book which I offered in evidence this morning, Document C-156, Exhibit USA-41. The Defendant Raeder identified that book, and explained that the Navy tried to fulfill the letter of the Versailles Treaty and at the same time make progress in naval development. I refer to the interrogation of the Defendant Raeder at the part we had under discussion:

“Q. I have here a Document C-156, which is a photostatic copy of a work prepared by the High Command of the Navy and covers the struggle of the Navy against the Versailles Treaty from 1919 to 1935. I ask you initially whether you are familiar with the work.

“A. I know this book. I read it once when it was edited.

“Q. Was that an official publication of the German Navy?

“A. This Captain Schüssler (indicating the author) was a commander in the Admiralty. Published by the OKM, it was an idea of this officer to put all these things together.

“Q. Do you recall the circumstances under which the authorization to prepare such a work was given to him?

“A. I think he told me that he would write such a book as he tells here in the foreword.

“Q. And in the preparation of this work he had access to the official Navy files and based his work on the items contained therein?

“A. Yes, I think so. He would have spoken with other persons, and he would have had the files which were necessary.

“Q. Do you know whether, before the work was published, a draft of it was circulated among the officers in the Admiralty for comment?

“A. No, I don’t think so. Not before it was published. I saw it only when it was published.

“Q. Was it circulated freely after its publication?

“A. It was a secret object. I think all upper commands in the Navy had knowledge of it.

“Q. It was not circulated outside of Navy circles?

“A. No.

“Q. What then is your opinion concerning the comments contained in the work, regarding the circumventing of the provisions of Versailles?

“A. I don’t remember very exactly what is in here. I can only remember that the Navy had always the object to fulfill the word of the Versailles Treaty, but in order to have some advantages. But the flying men were exercised 1 year before they went into the Navy. Quite young men. So that the word of the Treaty of Versailles was filled. They did not belong to the Navy, as long as they were exercised in flying, and the submarines were developed, but not in Germany and not in the Navy, but in Holland. There was a civil bureau, and in Spain there was an industrialist; in Finland, too, and they were built only much later, when we began to act with the English Government about the Treaty of 35 to 100, because we could see that then the Treaty of Versailles would be destroyed by such a treaty with England, and so, in order to keep the word of Versailles, we tried to fulfill the word of Versailles, but we tried to have advantages.

“Q. Would a fair statement be that the Navy High Command was interested in avoiding the limiting provisions of the Treaty of Versailles regarding personnel and the limits of armaments, but would attempt to fulfill the letter of the Treaty, although actually avoiding it?

“A. That was our endeavor.”

MR. ALDERMAN: Now the rest of this is the portion that counsel for the defendant asked me to read:

“Q. Why was such a policy adopted?

“A. We were much menaced in the first years after the first war by the danger that the Poles would attack East Prussia, and so we tried to strengthen a little our very, very weak forces in this way; and so all our efforts were directed to the aim of having a little more strength against the Poles should they attack us. It was nonsense to think of attacking Poland in this stage by the Navy. A second aim was to have some defense against the entering of French forces into the Ostsee (East Sea), because we knew that the French had the intention to sustain the Poles. Their ships came into the Ostsee, Gdynia, and so the Navy was a defense against an attack of Poland and against the entrance of French ships into the East Sea; quite defensive aims.

“Q. When did this fear of an attack from Poland first show itself in official circles in Germany, would you say?

“A. In all the first years. They took Vilna; in the same minute we thought they would come to East Prussia. I don’t know exactly the year, because those judgments were the judgments of the German Government Ministers, the Army and Navy Ministers—Gröner and Noske.

“Q. Then those views, in your opinion, were generally held and existed perhaps as early as 1919-1920, after the end of the first World War?

“A. Oh, but the whole situation was very, very uncertain, and about those years in the beginning I cannot give you a very exact picture, because I was then 2 years in the Navy Archives to write a book about the War and the fighting capacity of cruisers. For 2 years I was not with those things.”

MR. ALDERMAN: Likewise the same kind of planning and purposes are reflected in the table of contents of a history of the German Navy, 1919 to 1939, found in captured official files of the German Navy. Although a copy of the book has not been found by us, the project was to have been written by Oberst Scherff, Hitler’s personal military historian. We have found the table of contents; it refers by numbers to groups of documents and notes of documents, which evidently were intended as the working materials for the basis of chapters, to be written in accordance with the table of contents. The titles in this table of contents clearly establish the Navy planning and preparation to get the Versailles Treaty out of the way and to rebuild the naval strength necessary for aggressive war.

We have here the original captured document which is, as I say, the German typewritten table of contents of this projected work, with a German cover, typewritten, entitled _Geschichte der Deutschen Marine, 1919-1939_ (_History of the German Navy, 1919-1939_). We identify it as our series C-17 and I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-42. This table of contents includes such general headings—perhaps I had better read some of the actual headings:

“Part A, 1919—The Year of Transition. Chapter VII: First efforts to circumvent the Versailles Treaty and to limit its effects.

“(a) Demilitarization of the Administration, incorporation of naval offices in Civil Ministries _et cetera_. (For example: Incorporation of greater sections of the German maritime observation station and the sea-mark system in Helgoland and Kiel, of the Ems-Jade Canal _et cetera_ into the Reich Transport Ministry up to 1934: Noske’s proposal of 11. 8. 1919 to incorporate the Naval Construction Department in the Technical High School, Berlin; formation of the Naval Arsenal Kiel.)”—With a reference to a group of documents numbered 75.—”

“(b) The saving from destruction of coastal fortifications and guns.

“(1) North Sea (strengthening of fortifications with new batteries and modern guns between the signing and the taking effect of the Versailles Treaty; dealings with the Control Commission—information, drawings, visits of inspection, result of efforts.)”—referring to the group of documents numbered 85.—

“(2) Baltic (taking over by the Navy of fortresses Pillau and Swinemünde; salvage for the Army of 185 movable guns and mortars there.)”—I may interpolate that when the British offer in evidence the Treaty of Versailles, you will see the detailed limitations which this document indicates an effort to avoid.—

“(3) The beginnings of coastal air defense.

“Part B, 1920-1924—The Organizational New Order. Chapter V: The Navy. Fulfillment and avoidance of the Versailles Treaty. Foreign countries.

“(a) The Interallied Control Commissions.

“(b) Defense measures against the fulfillment of the Versailles Treaty and independent arming behind the back of the Reich Government and the legislative bodies.

“(1) Dispersal of artillery gear and munitions, of hand and automatic weapons.

“(2) Limitation of demolition work in Helgoland.

“(3) Attempt to strengthen personnel of the Navy, from 1923.

“(4) The activities of Captain Lohmann (founding of numerous associations at home and abroad, participations, formation of ‘sports’ unions and clubs, interesting the film industry in naval recruitment).

“(5) Preparation for re-establishing the German U-boat arm since 1920 (projects and deliveries for Japan, Holland, Turkey, Argentina, and Finland; torpedo testing).

“(6) Participation in the preparation for building of the Luftwaffe (preservation of airdromes, aircraft construction, teaching of courses, instruction of midshipmen in anti-air-raid defense, training of pilots).

“(7) Attempt to strengthen the mining branch.

“Part C (1925-1932—Replacement of tonnage). Chapter IV: The Navy, the Versailles Treaty, foreign countries.

“(a) The activities of the Interallied Control Commission (up to 31. 1. 27; discontinuance of the activity of the Naval Peace Commission).

“(b) Independent armament measures behind the back of the Reich Government and legislative bodies up to the Lohmann case.

“(1) The activities of Captain Lohmann (continuation) their significance as a foundation for the rapid reconstruction work from 1935.

“(2) Preparation for the restrengthening of the German U-boat arm from 1925 (continuation), the merit of Lohmann in connection with the preparation for rapid construction in 1925, relationship to Spain, Argentina, Turkey; the first post-war U-boat construction of the German Navy in Spain since 1927 . . . 250-ton specimen in Finland, preparation for rapid assembly; electric torpedo; training of U-boat personnel abroad in Spain and Finland. Formation of U-boat school in 1932 disguised as an anti-U-boat school.

“(3) Participation in the preparation for the reconstruction of the Luftwaffe (continuation). Preparation for a Naval Air Arm, Finance Aircraft Company Severa, later Luftdienst”—or Air Service—“GMBH; Naval Flying School Warnemünde; air station list, training of sea cadet candidates, military tactical questions ‘Air Defense Journeys,’ technical development, experimental station planning, trials, flying boat development Do X _et cetera_, catapult aircraft, arming, engines, ground organization, aircraft torpedoes, the Deutschland flight 1925, and the seaplane race 1926.

“(4) Economic rearmament (‘The Tebeg’—Technical Advice and Supply Company as a disguised naval office abroad for investigating the position of raw materials for industrial capacity and other war economic questions).

“(5) Various measures (the NV Aerogeodetic Company—secret investigations).

“(c) Planned armament work with the tacit approval of the Reich Government, but behind the backs of the legislative bodies (1928 to the taking over of power).

“(1) The effect of the Lohmann case on the secret preparations; winding up of works which could not be advocated; resumption and carrying on of other work.

“(2) Finance question (‘Black Funds’ and the ‘Special Budget’).

“(3) The Labor Committee and its objectives.

“(d) The question of Marine attachés (the continuation under disguise; open reappointment 1932-1933).

“(e) The question of disarmament of the fleet abroad and in Germany (the Geneva Disarmament Conference 1927; the London Naval Treaty of 1930; the Anglo-French-Italian Agreement 1931; the League of Nations Disarmament Conference 1932).

“Part D (1933-1939—The German Navy during the military freedom period).”

—which goes beyond the period with which I am at the moment dealing. A glance at the chapter headings following that will indicate the scope of this proposed work. Whether the history was ever actually written by Scherff, I do not know.

I would like to call attention just to the first two or three headings, under this “Part D—The German Navy during the military freedom period”:

“I. National Socialism and the question of the fleet and of prestige at sea.

“II. Incorporation of the Navy in the National Socialist State.”—The main heading III in the middle of the page—“The Rearmament of the Navy under the direction of the Reich Government in a disguised way.”

The policy development of the Navy is also reflected from the financial side. The planned organization of the Navy budget for armament measures was based on a co-ordination of military developments and political objectives. Military political development was accelerated after the withdrawal from the League of Nations.

I have here, if the Court please, a captured document, in German, headed “Der Chef der Marineleitung, Berlin, 12 May 1934,” and marked in large blue printing “Geheime Kommandosache” (Secret Commando Matter), which is identified as our C-153. It has the facsimile signature of Raeder at the end. I assume it is the facsimile; it may have been written with a stylus on a stencil; I can’t tell. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-43. It is headed with the title: “Armament Plan (R. P.) for the 3rd Armament Phase.” This document of 12 May 1934 speaks of war tasks, war and operational plans, armament targets, _et cetera_, and shows that it was distributed to many of the High Command of the Navy. It shows that a primary objective was readiness for a war without any alert period.

I quote from the third numbered paragraph:

“The planned organization of armament measures is necessary for the realization of this target; this again requires a co-ordinated and planned expenditure in peace time. This organization of financial measures over a number of years, according to the military viewpoint, is found in the armament program and provides: (a) for the military leader a sound basis for his operational considerations, and (b) for the political leader a clear picture of what may be achieved with the military means available at a given time.”

One other sentence from Paragraph 7 of that document:

“All theoretical and practical R-preparations”—I assume that means armament preparations—“are to be drawn up with a primary view to readiness for a war _without any alert period_.”—And “without any alert period” is underscored in the original.

The conspiratorial nature of these Nazi plans and preparations long before the outbreak of hostilities is illustrated in many other ways. Thus, in 1934, Hitler instructed Raeder to keep secret the U-boat construction program; also the actual displacement and speed of certain ships. Work on U-boats had been going on, as already indicated, in Holland and Spain.

The Nazi theory was rather clever on that. The Versailles Treaty forbade rearming by the Germans in Germany, but they said it didn’t forbid them to rearm in Holland, Spain, and Finland.

Secrecy was equally important then because of the pending naval negotiations with England. We have a captured document, which is a manuscript in German script, of a conversation between the Defendant Raeder and Adolf Hitler in June 1934. It is not signed by the Defendant Raeder. I might ask his counsel if he objects to my stating that the Defendant Raeder, in an interrogation on 8 November 1945, admitted that this was a record of this conversation and that it was in his handwriting, though he did not sign his name at the end.

That document is identified in our series as C-189, and I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-44.

It is headed: “Conversation with the Führer in June 1934 on the occasion of the resignation of the Commanding Officer of the ‘Karlsruhe.’”

“1. Report by the C-in-C Navy concerning increased displacement of D. and E. (defensive weapons).

“Führer’s instructions: No mention must be made of a displacement of 25-26,000 tons, but only of improved 10,000-ton ships. Also, the speed over 26 nautical miles may not be stated.

“2. C-in-C Navy expresses the opinion that later on, the Fleet must anyhow be developed to oppose England, that therefore from 1936 onwards, the large ships must be armed with 35-centimeter guns (like the King George class.)

“3. The Führer demands to keep the construction of the U-boats secret, in consideration of the Saar plebiscite.”

In order to continue the vital increase of the Navy, as planned, the Navy needed more funds than it had available; so Hitler proposed to put funds of the Labor Front at the disposal of the Navy.

We have another Raeder memorandum of a conversation between Raeder and Hitler on 2 November 1934. Of this I have a photostatic copy of the German typed memorandum, identified as our C-190. This one, again, is not signed, but it was found in Raeder’s personal file and I think he will not deny that it is his memorandum. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-45.

It is headed: “Conversation with the Führer on 2. 11. 34 at the time of the announcement by the Commanding Officer of the ‘Emden’.

“1. When I mentioned that the total funds to be made available for the Armed Forces for 1935 would presumably represent only a fraction of the required sum, and that therefore it was possible that the Navy might be hindered in its plans, he replied that he did not think the funds would be greatly decreased. He considered it necessary that the Navy be speedily increased by 1938 with the deadlines mentioned. In case of need he will get Dr. Ley to put 120 to 150 million from the Labor Front at the disposal of the Navy, as the money would still benefit the workers. Later, in a conversation with Minister Göring and myself, he went on to say that he considered it vital that the Navy be increased as planned, as no war could be carried on if the Navy was not able to safeguard the ore imports from Scandinavia.

“2. Then, when I mentioned that it would be desirable to have six U-boats assembled at the time of the critical political situation in the first quarter of 1935,”—that’s the following year, foreseeing—“he stated that he would keep this point in mind, and tell me when the situation demanded that the assembling should commence.”

Then, there is an apostrophe and a note at the bottom:

“The order was not sent out. The first boats were launched in the middle of June ’35 according to plan.”

The development of the armament industry by the use of foreign markets was a program encouraged by the Navy, so that this industry would be able to supply the requirements of the Navy in case of need.

We have an original German document, again headed “Geheime Kommandosache” (secret commando matter)—a directive of 31 January 1933 by the Defendant Raeder for the German industry to support the armament of the Navy.

It is identified in our series as C-29. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-46:

“Top Secret.

“General directions for support given by the German Navy to the German armament industry.

“The effects of the present economic depression have led here and there to the conclusion that there are no prospects of an active participation of the German armament industry abroad, even if the Versailles terms are no longer kept. There is no profit in it and it is therefore not worth promoting. Furthermore, the view has been taken that the increasing ‘self-sufficiency’ would in any case make such participation superfluous.

“However obvious these opinions may seem, formed because of the situation as it is today, I am nevertheless forced to make the following contradictory corrective points:

“a) The economic crisis and its present effects must perforce be overcome sooner or later. Though equality of rights in war politics is not fully recognized today, it will, by the assimilation of weapons, be achieved at some period, at least to a certain extent.

“b) The consequent estimation of the duties of the German armament industry lies mainly in the military-political sphere. It is impossible for this industry to satisfy, militarily and economically, the growing demands made of it by limiting the deliveries to our Armed Forces. Its capacity must therefore be increased by the delivery of supplies to foreign countries over and above our own requirements.

“c) Almost every country is working to the same end today, even those which, unlike Germany, are not tied down by restrictions. Britain, France, North America, Japan, and especially Italy, are making supreme efforts to ensure markets for their armament industries. The use of their diplomatic representations, of the propaganda voyages of their most modern ships and vessels, of sending missions and also of the guaranteeing of loans and insurance against deficits, are not merely to gain commercially advantageous orders for their armament industries, but first and foremost, to expand their output from the point of view of military policy.

“d) It is just when the efforts to do away with the restrictions imposed on us have succeeded, that the German Navy has an ever increasing and really vital interest in furthering the German armament industry and preparing the way for it in every direction in the competitive battle against the rest of the world.

“e) If, however, the German armament industry is to be able to compete in foreign countries, it must inspire the confidence of its purchasers. The condition for this is that secrecy for our own ends be not carried too far. The amount of material to be kept secret under all circumstances, in the interest of the defense of the country, is comparatively small. I would like to issue a warning against the assumption that at the present stage of technical development in foreign industrial states, a problem of vital military importance which we perhaps have solved, has not been solved there. Solutions arrived at today, which may become known, if divulged to a third person by naturally always possible indiscretion, have often been already superseded by new better solutions on our part, even at that time or at any rate after the copy has been made. It is of greater importance that we should be technically well to the fore in any really fundamental matters, than that less important points should be kept secret unnecessarily and excessively.

“f) To conclude: I attach particular importance to guaranteeing the continuous support of the industry concerned by the Navy, even after the present restrictions have been relaxed. If the purchasers are not made confident that something better is being offered them, the industry will not be able to stand up to the competitive battle and therefore will not be able to supply the requirements of the German Navy in case of need.”

This Navy program of surreptitious rearmament, in violation of the Treaty obligations, starting even before the Nazis came into power, is illustrated by a 1932 order of the Defendant Raeder, Chief of the Naval Command, addressed to the main Naval Command, regarding the concealed construction of torpedo-tubes for S-boats. He ordered that torpedo-tubes be removed and stored in the Naval Arsenal, but be kept ready for immediate refitting. By using only the permitted number—that is, permitted under the Treaty—at a given time, and storing them after satisfactory testing, the actual number of operationally effective S-boats was constantly increased.

We have this German order, with the facsimile signature of Raeder, with the heading: “Der Chef der Marine Leitung, Berlin, 10 February 1932.” Our series number is C-141. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-47, the order for concealed armament of S-boats. That is C-141. I read from the first paragraph of the text:

“In view of our Treaty obligations and the Disarmament Conference, steps must be taken to prevent the first S-boat half-flotilla, which in a few months will consist of exactly similar, newly built S-boats, from appearing openly as a formation of torpedo-carrying boats”—the German word being “Torpedoträger”—“and it is not intended to count these S-boats against the number of torpedo-carrying boats allowed to us.

“I therefore order:

“1. S2-S5 will be commissioned in the shipyard Lürssen, Vegesack, without armament and will be fitted with easily removable cover-sheetmetal on the spaces necessary for torpedo-tubes. The same will be arranged by T.M.I.”—a translator’s note at the bottom says with reference to T.M.I. (Inspectorate of Torpedoes and Mining)—“In agreement with the Naval Arsenal, for the Boat S-1 which will dismantle its torpedo-tubes on completion of the practice shooting, for fitting on another boat.

“2. The torpedo-tubes of all S-boats will be stored in the Naval Arsenal ready for immediate fitting. During the trial runs the torpedo-tubes will be taken on board one after the other for a short time to be fitted and for practice shooting, so that only one boat at a time carries torpedo armament. For public consumption this boat will be in service for the purpose of temporary trials by the T.V.A.”

—I suppose that is not the Tennessee Valley Authority; the translator’s note calls it the Technical Research Establishment.—

“It should not anchor together with the other unarmed boats of the half-flotilla because of the obvious similarity of the type. The duration of firing, and consequently the length of time the torpedo-tubes are aboard, is to be as short as possible.

“3. Fitting the torpedo-tubes on all S-boats is intended as soon as the situation of the political control allows it.”

Interestingly enough, that memorandum by the Defendant Raeder, written in 1932, was talking about “as soon as the situation of the political control allows it.” The seizure of power was the following year.

Along similar lines the Navy was also carrying on the concealed preparation of auxiliary cruisers, under the disguised designation of ‘Transport Ships 0’. The preparations under this order were to be completed by 1 April 1935. At the very time of construction of these ships as commercial ships, plans were made for their conversion.

We have the original German document, again top secret, identified by our Number C-166, order from the Command Office of the Navy, dated 12 March 1934, and signed in draft by Groos. It has the seal of the Reichswehrministerium, Marineleitung, over the draft signature. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-48. I think the Defendant Raeder will admit, or at least will not deny, that this is an official document.

“Subject: Preparation of auxiliary cruisers.

“It is intended to include in the Establishment Organization 35 (AG Aufstellungsgliederung) a certain number of auxiliary cruisers which are intended for use in operations in foreign waters.

“In order to disguise the intention and all the preparations, the ships will be referred to as ‘Transport Ships 0’. It is requested that in future this designation only be used.”

The short paragraph says: “The preparations are to be arranged, so that they can be completed by 1. 4. 35.”

Among official Navy files, OKM files, which we have, there are notes kept year by year, from 1927 to 1940, on the reconstruction of the German Navy, and in these notes are numerous examples of the Navy’s activities and policies of which I should like to point out some illustrations.

One of these documents discloses that the displacement of the battleships “Scharnhorst-Gneisenau” and “F/G”—whatever that is—was actually greater than the tonnages which had been notified to the British under the Treaty. This document, our C-23, I offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-49. That is a set really of three separate documents joined together. I read from that document:

“The true displacement of the battleships ‘Scharnhorst-Gneisenau’ and the ‘F/G’ exceeds by 20 percent, in both cases, the displacement reported to the British.”

And then there is a table with reference to different ships, and two columns headed “Displacement by Type”: one column “Actual Displacement” and the other column “Notified Displacement.”

On the “Scharnhorst” the actual was 31,300 tons; the notified was 26,000 tons. On the “F”—actual 41,700 tons, the notified 35,000. On the “HI”—actual 56,200 tons, notified 46,850, and so down the list. I need not read them all.

On the second document in that group towards the end, Page 2 on the English version, is the statement:

“In a clear cut program for the construction, the Führer and Reich Chancellor has set the Navy the task of carrying out the aims of his foreign policy.”

The German Navy constantly planned and committed violations of armament limitation and with characteristic German thoroughness had prepared superficial explanations or pretexts to explain away these violations.

Following a conference with the chief of “A” section, an elaborate survey list was prepared and compiled, giving a careful list of the quantity and type of German naval armament and ammunition on hand under manufacture or construction, and in many instances proposed together with a statement of the justification or defense that might be used in those instances where the Versailles Treaty was violated or its allotment has been exceeded.

The list contained 30 items under “Material Measures” and 14 items under “Measures of Organization.” The variety of details covered necessarily involved several sources within the Navy, which must have realized their significance. As I understand it, the “A” section was the military department of the Navy.

We have this very interesting document among the captured documents identified by our Number C-32. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-50. It again is Geheime Kommandosache and it is headed “A Survey Report of German Naval Armament after Conference with Chief of ‘A’ Section”, dated 9 September 1933, and captured among official German Navy files.

This is a long document, if the Tribunal please, but I should like to call attention to a few of the more interesting items.

There are three columns, one headed “Measure”, one headed “Material Measures, Details,” and the most interesting one is headed “Remarks.” The remarks contain the pretext or justification for explaining away the violations of the Treaty. They are numbered, so I can conveniently refer to the numbers:

“Number 1. Exceeding the permitted number of mines.”—Then figures are given. Remarks—“Further mines are in part ordered, in part being delivered.”

“Number 2. Continuous storing of guns from the North Sea area for Baltic artillery batteries.”—In the remarks column—“Justification: Necessity for overhauling. Cheaper repairs.”

“Number 6. Laying gun-platforms in the Kiel area.” Remarks: “The offense over and above that in Serial Number 3 lies in the fact that all fortifications are forbidden in the Kiel area. This justification will make it less severe; pure defense measures.”

“Number 7. Exceeding the caliber permitted for coastal batteries.” The explanation: “Possible justification is that, though the caliber is larger, the number of guns is less.”

“Number 8. Arming of minesweepers. The reply to any remonstrance against this breach: the guns are taken from the Fleet reserve stores, have been temporarily installed only for training purposes. All nations arm their mine sweeping forces (equality of rights).”

—Here is one that is rather amusing—“Number 13. Exceeding the number of machine guns _et cetera_, permitted.” Remarks: “Can be made light of.”

“Number 18. Construction of U-boat parts.” This remark is quite characteristic: “Difficult to detect. If necessary can be denied.”

“Number 20. Arming of fishing vessels.” Remarks: “For warning shots. Make little of it.”—And so on throughout the list.

I think quite obviously that must have been used as a guide for negotiators who were attending the Disarmament Conference as to the position that they might take.

Now to Paragraph IV (F) 2 (b) of the Indictment: the allegation that “On 14 October 1933 they led Germany to leave the International Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations.”

That is an historical fact of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice. The Nazis took this opportunity to break away from the international negotiations and to take an aggressive position on an issue which would not be serious enough to provoke reprisal from other countries. At the same time Germany attached so much importance to this action, that they considered the possibility of the application of sanctions by other countries. Anticipating the probable nature of such sanctions and the countries which might apply them, plans were made for military preparations for armed resistance on land, at sea, and in the air, in a directive from the Reichsminister for Defense Blomberg, to the Head of the Army High Command Fritsch, the Head of the Navy High Command Raeder, and the Reichsminister of Air Göring.

We have this captured document in our series C-140, which I offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-151. It is a directive dated 25 October 1933, 11 days after the withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations.

“1) The enclosed directive gives the basis for preparations of the Armed Forces in the case of sanctions being applied against Germany.

“2) I request the Chiefs of the Army and Navy High Commands and the Reichsminister for Air to carry out the preparations in accordance with the following points:

“(a) Strictest secrecy. It is of the utmost importance that no facts become known to the outside world from which preparation for resistance against sanctions can be inferred or which is incompatible with Germany’s existing obligations in the sphere of foreign policy regarding the demilitarized zone. If necessary, the preparations must take second place to this necessity.”

I think that makes the point without further reading. One of the immediate consequences of the action was that following the withdrawal from the League of Nations, Germany’s armament program was still further increased.

I introduced this morning document C-153, as Exhibit USA-43, so that is already in. From that, at this point, I wish to read Paragraph 5. That, as you recall, was a document dated 12 May 1934.

“5) Owing to the speed of military political development, since Germany quitted Geneva, and based on the progress of the Army, the new R-plan will only be drawn up for a period of 2 years. The third ‘A’ phase lasts accordingly from 1. 4. 34 to 31. 3. 36.”

Then the next allegation of the Indictment, if the Tribunal please: “On 10 March 1935 the Defendant Göring announced that Germany was building a military air force.”

That is an historical fact of which I ask the Court to take judicial notice, and I am quite certain that the Defendant Göring would not dispute it.

We have a copy of the German publication known as _Das Archiv_—the number of March 1935; and it is Page 1830 to which I refer, and I would offer that in evidence, identifying it as our number 2292-PS; I offer it as Exhibit USA-52. It is an announcement concerning the German Air Force:

“The Reich Minister for Aviation, General of the Airmen, Göring, in his talk with the special correspondent of the _Daily Mail_, Ward Price, expressed himself on the subject of the German Air Force.

“General Göring said:

“‘In the extension of our national defenses’”—Sicherheit—“‘it was necessary, as we repeatedly told the world, to take care of defense in the air. As far as that is concerned, I restricted myself to those measures absolutely necessary. The guiding line of my actions was, not the creation of an aggressive force which would threaten other nations, but merely the completion of a military aviation which would be strong enough to repel, at any time, attacks on Germany.’”

Then, at the end of that section of the article in _Das Archiv_:

“In conclusion, the correspondent asks whether the German Air Force will be capable of repelling attacks on Germany.

General Göring replied to that exactly as follows:

“‘The German Air Force is just as passionately permeated with the will to defend the Fatherland to the last as it is convinced, on the other hand, that it will never be employed to threaten the peace of other nations.’”

As I said; I believe, this morning, when we cite assurances of that kind from Nazi leaders, we take it that we are not foreclosed from showing that they had different intentions from those announced.

The next allegation of the Indictment is the promulgating of the law for compulsory military service, universal military service.

Having gone as far as they could on rearmament and the secret training of personnel, the next step necessary to the program for aggressive war was a large-scale increase in military strength. This could no longer be done under disguise and camouflage, and would have to be known to the world. Accordingly, on 16 March 1935, there was promulgated a law for universal military service, in violation of Article 173 of the Versailles Treaty.

I ask the Court to take judicial notice of that law as it appears in the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, which is the official compilation of laws, in the Title I of Volume I, yearly volume 1935, or Jahrgang, at Page 369 and I think I need not offer the book or the law in evidence.

The text of the law itself is very brief and I might read that. It is right at the end of the article. I should refer to that as our Document Number 1654-PS, so as to identify it:

“In this spirit the German Reich Cabinet has today passed the following law:

“Law for the Organization of the Armed Forces of March 16, 1935.

“The Reich Cabinet has passed the following law which is herewith promulgated:

“Paragraph 1. Service in the Armed Forces is based upon compulsory military duty.

“Paragraph 2. In peace time, the German Army, including the police troops transferred to it, is organized into 12 corps and 36 divisions.”—There is a typographical error in the English version of that. It says “16 divisions”, but the original German says 36 divisions.—

“Paragraph 3. The Reich Minister of War is charged with the duty of submitting immediately to the Reich Ministry detailed laws on compulsory military duty.”

Signed: “Berlin, 16 March 1935.”

It is signed first by the Führer and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler, and then many other officials, including the following defendants in this case:

Von Neurath, Frick, Schacht, Göring, Hess, Frank.

Does the Court contemplate a short recess?

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for 10 minutes.

[_A recess was taken._]

COL. STOREY: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution expects, on tomorrow, to offer in evidence some captured enemy moving pictures and in order to give Defense Counsel an opportunity to see them before they are offered in evidence—and in response to their request made to the Tribunal some time ago—the showing of these films for Defense Counsel will be held in this court room this evening at 8 o’clock, for the Defense Counsel.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Colonel Storey.

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I have reached now Paragraph IV, F, 2 (e) of the Indictment, which alleges:

“On 21 May 1935 they falsely announced to the world, with intent to deceive and allay fears of aggressive intentions, that they would respect the territorial limitations of the Versailles Treaty and comply with the Locarno Pact.”

As a part of their program to weaken resistance in possible enemy states, the Nazis followed a policy of making false assurances, thereby tending to create confusion and a false sense of security. Thus on the same date on which Germany renounced the armament provisions of the Versailles Treaty, Hitler announced the intent of the German Government to respect the territorial limitations of Versailles and Locarno.

I offered in evidence this morning, as Exhibit USA-38, our Document 2288-PS, the pertinent volume of the issue of the _Völkischer Beobachter_ of 21 May 1935, containing Hitler’s speech in the Reichstag on that date. In that speech he said:

“Therefore, the Government of the German Reich shall absolutely respect all other articles pertaining to the cooperation”—Zusammenleben, really meaning the living together in harmony—“of the various nations, including territorial agreements. Revisions which will be unavoidable as time goes by it will carry out by way of a friendly understanding only.

“The Government of the German Reich has the intention not to sign any treaty which it believes not to be able to fulfill. However, it will live up to every treaty signed voluntarily even if it was composed before this Government took over. Therefore, it will in particular adhere to all the obligations under the Locarno Pact, as long as the other partners of the Pact also adhere to it.”

For convenient reference, the territorial limitations in the Locarno and Versailles Treaties include the following: The Rhine Pact of Locarno, 16 October 1925, Article 1:

“The High Contracting Parties, collectively and severally, guarantee, in the manner provided in the following Articles: the maintenance of the territorial _status quo_, resulting from the frontiers between Germany and Belgium, and between Germany and France, and the inviolability of the said frontiers, as fixed by, or in pursuance of the Treaty of Peace, signed at Versailles, on June 28, 1919, and also the observance of the stipulations of Articles 42 and 43 of the said Treaty, concerning the demilitarized zone.”

That has reference, of course, to the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland.

Then from the Versailles Treaty, 28 June 1919, Article 42:

“Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications, either on the left bank of the Rhine or on the right bank, to the West of the line drawn 50 kilometers to the East of the Rhine.

“Article 43: In the area defined above, the maintenance and the assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily and military maneuvers of any kind, as well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilization, are in the same way forbidden.”

The next allegation of the Indictment (f):

“On 7 March 1936, they reoccupied and fortified the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Rhine Pact of Locarno of 16 October 1925, and falsely announced to the world that ‘we have no territorial demands to make in Europe.’”

The demilitarized zone of the Rhineland obviously was a sore wound with the Nazis ever since its establishment, after World War I. Not only was this a blow to their increasing pride, but it was a bar to any effective strong position which Germany might want to take on any vital issues. In the event of any sanctions against Germany, in the form of military action, the French and other powers would get well into Germany, east of the Rhine, before any German resistance could even be put up. Therefore, any German plans to threaten or breach international obligations or for any kind of aggression, required the preliminary reoccupation and refortification of this open Rhineland territory. Plans and preparations for the reoccupation of the Rhineland started very early.

We have a document, a German captured document, in German script, which we identify as C-139, and which appears to be signed by the handwriting of Blomberg. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-53.

The document deals with what is called “Operation Schulung”, which means schooling, or training. It is dated 2 May 1935 and even refers to prior Staff discussions on the subject dealt with. It is addressed to the Chief of the Army Command, who at that time, I believe, was Fritsch, the Chief of the Navy High Command, Raeder, and the Reich Minister for Air, Göring.

It does not use the name “Rhineland” and does not, in terms, refer to it. It is our view that it was a military plan for the military reoccupation of the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Rhine Pact of Locarno.

I read from the first part of the document which is headed “top secret”:

“For the operation suggested in the last Staff talks of the Armed Forces, I lay down the code name ‘Schulung’”—training.—

“The supreme direction of Operation Schulung rests with the Reich Minister of Defense as this is a joint undertaking of the three services.

“Preparations for the operation will begin forthwith according to the following directives:

“1. General.

“(1) The operation must, on issue of the code words ‘Carry out Schulung’, be executed by a surprise blow at lightning speed. Strictest secrecy is necessary in the preparations and only the very smallest number of officers should be informed and employed in the drafting of reports, drawings, _et cetera_, and these officers only in person.

“(2) There is no time for mobilization of the forces taking part. These will be employed in their peacetime strength and with their peacetime equipment.

“(3) The preparation for the operation will be made without regard to the present inadequate state of our armaments. Every improvement of the state of our armaments will make possible a greater measure of preparedness and thus result in better prospects of success.”

The rest of the order deals with military details and I think it is unnecessary to read it.

There are certain points, in the face of this order, which are inconsistent with any theory that it was merely a training order, or that it might have been defensive in nature. The operation was to be carried out as a surprise blow at lightning speed (Schlagartig als Überfall).

The air forces were to provide support for the attack. There was to be reinforcement by the East Prussian division. Furthermore, this document is dated 2 May 1935, which is about 6 weeks after the promulgation of the Conscription Law on 16 March 1935, and so it could hardly have been planned as a defensive measure against any expected sanctions which might have been applied by reason of the passage of the Conscription Law.

Of course the actual reoccupation of the Rhineland did not take place until 7 March 1936, so that this early plan would necessarily have been totally revised to suit the existing conditions and specific objectives. As I say, although the plan does not mention the Rhineland, it has all of the indications of a Rhineland operation plan. That the details of this particular plan were not ultimately the ones that were carried out in reoccupying the Rhineland does not at all detract from the vital fact that as early as 2 May 1935 the Germans had already planned that operation, not merely as a Staff plan but as a definite operation. It was evidently not on their timetable to carry out the operation so soon if it could be avoided. But they were prepared to do so, if necessary, to resist French sanctions against their Conscription Law.

It is significant to note the date of this document is the same as the date of the signature of the Franco-Russian Pact, which the Nazis later asserted as their excuse for the Rhineland reoccupation.

The military orders on the basis of which the Rhineland reoccupation was actually carried into execution, on 7 March 1936, were issued on 2 March 1936 by the War Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Blomberg, and addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army Fritsch, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Raeder, and Air Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force Göring. We have that order signed by Blomberg, headed, as usual, “top secret,” identified by us as C-159. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-54.

The German copy of that document bears the Defendant Raeder’s initial in green pencil, with a red pencil note: “To be submitted to the C-in-C of the Navy.”

The first part of the order reads:

“Supreme Command of the Navy:

“1. The Führer and Reich Chancellor has made the following decision:

“By reason of the Franco-Russian Mutual Assistance Pact, the obligations accepted by Germany in the Locarno Treaty, as far as they apply to Articles 42 and 43, of the Treaty of Versailles which referred to the demilitarized zone, are to be regarded as obsolete.

“2. Sections of the Army and Air Force will therefore be transferred simultaneously in a surprise move to garrisons of the demilitarized zone. In this connection, I issue the following orders. . . .”

There follow the detailed orders for the military operation.

We also have the orders for naval cooperation. The original German document, which we identify as C-194, was issued on 6 March 1936, in the form of an order on behalf of the Reich Minister for War, Blomberg, signed by Keitel, and addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Raeder, setting out detailed instructions for the Commander-in-Chief of the fleet and the admirals commanding the Baltic and North Sea. I offer the document in evidence as Exhibit USA-55.

The short covering letter is as follows:

“To: C-in-C Navy.

“The Minister has decided the following after the meeting:

“1. The inconspicuous air reconnaissance in the German bay, not over the line Texel-Doggerbank, from midday on Z-Day onward, has been approved. C-in-C Air Force will instruct the Air Command VI from midday 7 March to hold in readiness single reconnaissance aircraft to be at the disposal of the C-in-C fleet.

“2. The Minister will reserve the decision to set up a U-boat reconnaissance line until the evening of 7 March. The immediate transfer of U-boats from Kiel to Wilhelmshafen has been approved.

“3. The proposed advance measures for the most part exceed Degree of Emergency A and therefore are out of the question as the first countermeasures to be taken against military preparations of neighboring states. It is far more essential to examine the advance measures included in Degree of Emergency A, to see whether one or other of the especially conspicuous measures could not be omitted.”

That is signed “Keitel”.

The rest of the documents are detailed naval orders—operational orders—and I think I need not read further.

For the historical emphasis of this occasion, Hitler made a momentous speech on 7 March 1936. I have the volume of the _Völkischer Beobachter_, Berlin, Sunday, 8 March 1936, our Document 2289-PS, which I offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-56.

This is a long speech which the world remembers and of which I shall only read a short portion:

“Men of the German Reichstag! France has replied to the repeated friendly offers and peaceful assurances made by Germany by infringing the Rhine Pact through a military alliance with the Soviet Union exclusively directed against Germany. In this manner, however, the Locarno Rhine Pact has lost its inner meaning and ceased in practice to exist. Consequently, Germany regards herself, for her part, as no longer bound by this dissolved treaty. The German Government is now constrained to face the new situation created by this alliance, a situation which is rendered more acute by the fact that the Franco-Soviet treaty has been supplemented by a Treaty of Alliance between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union exactly parallel in form. In accordance with the fundamental right of a nation to secure its frontiers and ensure its possibilities of defense, the German Government has today restored the full and unrestricted sovereignty of Germany in the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland.”

The whole matter of the German reoccupation of the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland caused extensive international repercussions and study. As a result of the protests lodged with the League of Nations, the Council of the League made an investigation and announced the following finding, of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice, as being carried in the _League of Nations Monthly Summary_, March 1936, Volume 16, Page 78; and it is also quoted in an article by Quincy Wright, in the _American Journal of International Law_, Page 487, 1936.

The finding is this:

“That the German Government has committed a breach of Article 43 of the Treaty of Versailles by causing, on March 7, 1936, military forces to enter and establish themselves in the demilitarized zone referred to, in Article 42 and the following articles of that Treaty, and in the Treaty of Locarno.”

At the same time, on 7 March 1936, as the Germans reoccupied the Rhineland in flagrant violation of the Versailles and Locarno Treaties, they again tried to allay the fears of other European powers and lead them into a false sense of security by announcing to the world: “We have no territorial demands to make in Europe.”

That appears in this same speech of Hitler’s, which I have offered in evidence as Exhibit USA-56, which is Document 2289-PS. The language will be found on Page 6, Column 1:

“We have no territorial claims to make in Europe. We know above all that all the tensions resulting either from false territorial settlements or from the disproportion of the numbers of inhabitants to their living spaces cannot, in Europe, be solved by war.”

Most of the acts set forth in the paragraph of the Indictment which I have been discussing, I think do not need judicial proof because they are historical facts. We have been able to bring you a number of interesting documents illuminating that history. The existence of prior plans and preparations is indisputable from the very nature of things. The method and sequence of these plans and their accomplishment are clearly indicative of the progressing and increasingly aggressive character of the Nazi objectives, international obligations and considerations of humanity notwithstanding.

The detailed presentation of the violations of treaties and international law will be presented by our British colleagues, in support of Count Two of the Indictment.

In clear relief, there is shown the determination of the Nazi conspirators to use whatever means were necessary to abrogate and overthrow the Treaty of Versailles and its restrictions upon the military armament and activity of Germany. In this process, they conspired and engaged in secret rearmament and training, the secret production of munitions of war, and they built up an air force. They withdrew from the International Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations on October 14, 1933. They instituted universal military service on March 16, 1935. On May 21, 1935 they falsely announced that they would respect the territorial limitations of Versailles and Locarno. On March 7, 1936 they reoccupied and fortified the Rhineland and at the same time, falsely announced that they had no territorial demands in Europe.

The objectives of the conspirators were vast and mighty, requiring long and extensive preparations. The process involved the evasion, circumvention, and violation of international obligations and treaties. They stopped at nothing.

The accomplishment of all those things, together with getting Versailles out of the way, constituted an opening of the gates toward the specific aggressions which followed.

I pass next, if the Tribunal please, to the presentation of the story of the aggression against Austria. I do not know whether Your Honor desires me to start on that or not. I am perfectly willing to do so.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to use this volume of documents marked “M” tomorrow?

MR. ALDERMAN: There will be a new one marked “N”.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 28 November 1945 at 1000 hours._]

SEVENTH DAY Wednesday, 28 November 1945

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the United States.

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, at this point we distribute document book lettered “N”, which will cover the next phase of the case, as I will now undertake to present it. Of the five large phases of aggressive warfare, which I undertake to present to the Tribunal, I have now completed the presentation of the documents on the first phase, the phase lasting from 1933 to 1936, consisting of the preparation for aggression.

The second large phase of the program of the conspirators for aggression lasted from approximately 1936 to March 1939, when they had completed the absorption of Austria and the occupation of all of Czechoslovakia. I again invite the Court’s attention to the chart on the wall. You may be interested in glancing at it from time to time as the presentation progresses.

The relevant portions of the Indictment to the present subject are set forth in Subsection 3, under Section IV (F), appearing on Pages 7 and 8 of the printed English text. This portion of the Indictment is divided into three parts: First, the 1936 to 1938 phase of the plan, planning for the assault on Austria and Czechoslovakia; second, the execution of the plan to invade Austria, November 1937 to March 1938; third, the execution of the plan to invade Czechoslovakia, April 1938 to March 1939.

As I previously indicated to the Tribunal, the portion of the Indictment headed “(a) Planning for the assault on Austria and Czechoslovakia” is proved for the most part by Document Number 386-PS, which I introduced on Monday. That is Exhibit USA-25. That was one of the handful of documents with which I began my presentation of this part of the case. The minutes taken by Colonel Hossbach of the meeting in the Reich Chancellery on 5 November 1937, when Hitler developed his political last will and testament, reviewed the desire of Nazi Germany for more room in central Europe, and made preparations for the conquest of Austria and Czechoslovakia as a means of strengthening Germany for the general pattern of the Nazi conspiracy for aggression.

I shall present the material on this second, or Austrian phase of aggression, in two separate parts. I shall first present the materials and documents relating to the aggression against Austria. They have been gathered together in the document book which has just been distributed. Later I shall present the material relating to the aggression against Czechoslovakia. They will be gathered in a separate document book.

First, we have the events leading up to the autumn of 1937, and the strategic position of the National Socialists in Austria. I suggest at this point, if the Tribunal please, that in this phase we see the first full flowering of what has come to be known as Fifth Column infiltration techniques in another country, and first under that, the National Socialist aim of absorption of Austria.

In order to understand more clearly how the Nazi conspirators proceeded, after the meeting of 5 November 1937, covered by the Hossbach minutes, it is advisable to review the steps which had already been taken in Austria by the Nazi Socialists of both Germany and Austria. The position which the Nazis had reached by the fall of 1937 made it possible for them to complete their absorption of Austria much sooner and with much less cost than had been contemplated at the time of the meeting covered by the Hossbach minutes.

The acquisition of Austria had long been a central aim of the German National Socialists. On the first page of _Mein Kampf_ Hitler said: “German Austria must return to the Great German Motherland.” He continued by stating that this purpose of having common blood in a common Reich could not be satisfied by a mere economic union. Moreover, this aim of absorption of Austria was an aim from 1933 on and was regarded as a serious program which the Nazis were determined to carry out.

At this point, I should like to offer in evidence our Document Number 1760-PS, which, if admitted, would be Exhibit USA-57. This document is an affidavit executed in Mexico City on 28 August of this year by George S. Messersmith, United States Ambassador, now in Mexico City. Before I quote from Mr. Messersmith’s affidavit, I should like to point out briefly that Mr. Messersmith was Consul General of the United States of America in Berlin from 1930 to late spring of 1934. He was then made American Minister in Vienna where he stayed until 1937.

In this affidavit he states that the nature of his work brought him into frequent contact with German Government officials, and he reports in this affidavit that the Nazi Government officials, with whom he had contact, were on most occasions amazingly frank in their conversation and concealed none of their aims.

If the Court please, this affidavit, which is quite long, presents a somewhat novel problem of treatment in the presentation of this case. In lieu of reading this entire affidavit into the record, I should like, if it might be done in that way, to offer in evidence, not merely the English original of the affidavit, but also a translation into German, which has been mimeographed. This translation of the affidavit into German has been distributed to counsel for the defendants.

DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen): An affidavit of a witness who is obtainable has just been turned over to the Court. The content of the affidavit offers so many subjective opinions of the witness, that it is imperative we hear the witness personally in this matter.

I should like to take this occasion to ask that it be decided as a matter of principle, whether that which a witness can testify from his own knowledge may, without further ado, be presented in the form of an affidavit; or whether if a witness is living and can be reached the principle of oral proceedings should be applied, that is, the witness should be heard directly.

MR. ALDERMAN: If the Tribunal please, I should like to be heard briefly on the matter.

THE PRESIDENT: You have finished what you had to say, I understand?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will hear Mr. Alderman.

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I recognize, of course, the inherent weakness of an affidavit as evidence where the witness is not present and subject to cross-examination. Mr. Messersmith is an elderly gentleman. He is not in good health. It was entirely impracticable to try to bring him here; otherwise, we should have done so.

I remind the Court of Article 19 of the Charter:

“The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence, which it deems to have probative value.”

Of course, the Court would not treat anything in an affidavit such as this as having probative value unless the Court deemed it to have probative value; and if the defendants have countering evidence, which is strong enough to overcome whatever is probative in this affidavit, of course the Court will treat the probative value of all the evidence in accordance with this provision of the Charter.

By and large, this affidavit and another affidavit by Mr. Messersmith which we shall undertake to present cover background material which is a matter of historical knowledge, of which the Court could take judicial notice. Where he does quote these amazingly frank expressions by Nazi leaders, it is entirely open to any of them, who may be quoted, to challenge what is said, or to tell Your Honors what they believe was said. In any event, it seems to me that the Court can accept an affidavit of this character, made by a well-known American diplomat, and give it whatever probative value the Court thinks it has.

As to the question of reading the entire affidavit, I understand the ruling of the Court to be that only those parts of documents, which are quoted in the record, will be considered to be in the record. It will be based upon the necessity of giving the German counsel knowledge of what was being used. As to these affidavits, we have furnished them complete German translations. It seems to us that a different rule might obtain where that has been done.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Alderman, have you finished what you had to say?

MR. ALDERMAN: Yes, sir.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The representative of the Prosecution takes the point of view that the age and state of health of the witness makes it impossible to summon him as a witness. I do not know the witness personally. Consequently, I am not in a position to state to what extent he is actually incapacitated. Nevertheless, I have profound doubts regarding the presentation of evidence of such an old and incapacitated person. I am not speaking specifically now about Mr. Messersmith. I do not think the Court can judge to what extent old age and infirmity can possibly influence memory and reasoning powers; so, personal presence would seem absolutely indispensable.

Furthermore, it is important to know what questions, _in toto_, were put to the witness. An affidavit only reiterates the answers to questions which were put to the person. Very often conclusions can be drawn from unanswered questions. It is here a question of evidence solely on the basis of an affidavit. For that reason we are not in a position to assume, with absolute certainty, that the evidence of the witness is complete.

I cannot sanction the intention of the Prosecution in this case to introduce two methods of giving evidence of different value; namely, a fully valid one through direct evidence of a witness, and a less complete one through evidence laid down in an affidavit. The situation is this: Either the evidence is sufficient, or it is not. I think the Tribunal should confine itself to complete and fully valid evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Alderman, did you wish to add anything?

MR. ALDERMAN: I wish to make this correction, perhaps of what I said. I did not mean to leave the implication that Mr. Messersmith is in any way incapacitated. He is an elderly man, about 70 years old. He is on active duty in Mexico City; the main difficulty is that we did not feel we could take him away from his duties in that post, combined with a long trip and his age.

THE PRESIDENT: That is all, is it?

MR. ALDERMAN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has considered the objection which has been raised. In view of the powers which the Tribunal has under Article 19 of the Charter, which provides that the Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence, but shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value, the Tribunal holds that affidavits can be presented, and that in the present case it is a proper course.

The question of the probative value of an affidavit as compared with a witness who has been cross-examined would, of course, be considered by the Tribunal. If, at a later stage, the Tribunal thinks the presence of a witness is of extreme importance, the matter can be reconsidered. I add this: If the defense wish to put interrogatories to the witness, they will be at liberty to do so.

MR. ALDERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. I offer then our Document 1760-PS as Exhibit USA-57, affidavit by George S. Messersmith. Rather than reading the entire affidavit, unless the Court wishes me to do so, I intend to paraphrase and state the substance of what is covered in various parts of the affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think it would be better to adhere to the rule which we have laid down: That only what is read in the court will form part of the record.

MR. ALDERMAN: I shall read then, if the Tribunal please, from the fourth paragraph on the third page of the English copy, the following list of names, headed by President Miklas of Austria and Chancellor Dollfuss:

“From the very beginnings of the Nazi Government, I was told by both high and secondary government officials in Germany that incorporation of Austria into Germany was a political and economic necessity and that this incorporation was going to be accomplished ‘by whatever means were necessary.’ Although I cannot assign definite times and places, I am sure that at various times and places, every one of the German officials whom I have listed earlier in this statement told me this, with the exception of Schacht, Von Krosigk and Krupp von Bohlen. I can assert that it was fully understood by everyone in Germany who had any knowledge whatever of what was going on that Hitler and the Nazi Government were irrevocably committed to this end, and the only doubt which ever existed in conversations or statements to me was how and when.”

In connection with that paragraph, I invite your attention to the list of German officials to whom he refers on Page 2 of the affidavit. They are listed as Hermann Göring, General Milch, Hjalmar Schacht, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Count Schwerin von Krosigk, Joseph Goebbels, Richard Walter Darré, Robert Ley, Hans Heinrich Lammers, Otto Meissner, Franz von Papen, Walter Funk, General Wilhelm Keitel, Admiral Erich von Raeder, Admiral Karl Dönitz, Dr. Bohle, Dr. Stuckert, Dr. Krupp von Bohlen, and Dr. Davidson. The affiant states he was sure that at various times and places, everyone of those listed German officials had made these statements to him, with the exception of Schacht, Von Krosigk, and Krupp von Bohlen. I shall continue with the next paragraph:

“At the beginning of the Nazi regime in 1933, Germany was, of course, far too weak to permit any open threats of force against any country, such as the threats which the Nazis made in 1938. Instead it was the avowed and declared policy of the Nazi Government to accomplish the same results which they later accomplished through force, through the methods which had proved so successful for them in Germany: Obtain a foothold in the Cabinet, particularly in the Ministry of the Interior, which controlled the police, and then quickly eliminate opposition elements. During my stay in Austria, I was told on any number of occasions by Chancellor Dollfuss, Chancellor Schuschnigg, President Miklas, and other high officials of the Austrian Government that the German Government kept up constant and unceasing pressure upon the Austrian Government to agree to the inclusion of a number of ministers with Nazi orientation. The English and French ministers in Vienna, with whom I was in constant and close contact, confirmed this information through statements which they made to me of conversations which they had with high Austrian officials.”

I shall read other portions of the affidavit as the presentation proceeds, on the question of pressure used against Austria, including terror and intimidation, culminating in the unsuccessful Putsch of July 26, 1934. To achieve their ends the Nazis used various kinds of pressure. In the first place, they used economic pressure. A law of 24 March 1933, a German law, imposed a prohibitive 1,000 Reichsmark penalty on trips to Austria. It brought great hardship to this country which relied very heavily on its tourist trade. For that I cite the _Reichsgesetzblatt_, 1933, Part I, Page 311, and ask the Court to take judicial notice of that German law.

The Nazis used propaganda and they used terroristic acts, primarily bombings. Mr. Messersmith’s affidavit, Document 1760-PS, from which I have already read, goes into some detail with respect to these outrages. I read again from Page 4 of the affidavit, the English version:

“The outrages were an almost constant occurrence, but there were three distinct periods during which they rose to a peak. During the first two of these periods, in mid-1933 and in early 1934, I was still in Berlin. However, during that period I was told by high Nazi officials in conversation with them, that these waves of terror were being instigated and directed by them. I found no concealment in my conversations with high Nazi officials of the fact that they were responsible for these activities in Austria. These admissions were entirely consistent with the Nazi thesis that terror is necessary and must be used to impose the will of the Party not only in Germany but in other countries. I recall specifically that General Milch was one of those who spoke frankly that these outrages in Austria were being directed by the Nazi Party, and expressed his concern with respect thereto and his disagreement with this definite policy of the Party.

“During the wave of terroristic acts in May and June 1934, I had already assumed my duties as American Minister in Vienna. The bomb outrages during this period were directed primarily at railways, tourist centers, and the Catholic Church, which latter, in the eyes of the Nazis, was one of the strongest organizations opposing them. I recall, however, that these outrages diminished markedly for a few days during the meeting of Hitler and Mussolini in Venice in mid-June 1934. At that time Mussolini was strongly supporting the Austrian Government and was strongly and deeply interested in maintaining Austrian independence and sovereignty, and in keeping down Nazi influence and activity in Austria. At that time also Hitler could not afford an open break with Mussolini and undoubtedly agreed to the short cessation of these bomb outrages on the insistence of Mussolini because he, Hitler, wished to achieve as favorable an atmosphere for the meeting between him and Mussolini as possible. The cessation of the bomb outrages during the Hitler-Mussolini conversations was considered by me and by the Austrian authorities and by all observers at that time as an open admission on the part of Hitler and the German Government that the outrages were systematically and completely instigated and controlled from Germany.”

Turning to Page 7 of the English version, following the line which reads, “Official dispatch from Vienna” dated July 26, 1934, I quote the following paragraph:

“In addition to these outrages, the Nazis attempted to bring pressure upon Austria by means of the ‘Austrian Legion’. This organization, a para-military force of several thousand men, was stationed near the Austrian border in Germany as a constant and direct threat of violent action against Austria. It was without any question sanctioned by the Nazi Government of Germany, as it could otherwise not have existed, and it was armed by them. It was made up of Austrian Nazis who had fled from Austria after committing various crimes in Austria, and by Austrians in Germany who were attracted by the idle life and pay given by the German authorities.”

These terroristic activities of the Nazis in Austria continued until July 25, 1934. It is a well-known historical fact of which I ask the Court to take judicial notice that on that day members of the NSDAP, the Nazi Party, attempted a revolutionary Putsch in Austria and killed Chancellor Dollfuss.

At this point I should like to invite your attention to the fact that the Indictment alleges in Count Four, Crimes against Humanity, Paragraph B on Page 26 of the English printed text, that the Nazis murdered amongst others Chancellor Dollfuss. I do not have available an official authenticated account of the details of that Putsch but I think that it will suffice if I briefly recall to the Court what is, after all, a well-known matter of history.

On July 25, 1934, about noon, 100 men dressed in the uniform of the Austrian Army seized the Federal Chancellery. Chancellor Dollfuss was wounded trying to escape, being shot twice at close quarters. The radio building in the center of the town was overwhelmed, and the announcer was compelled to broadcast the news that Dollfuss had resigned and that Dr. Rintelen had taken his place as Chancellor. Although the Putsch failed, the insurgents kept control of the Chancellery building, and agreed to give it up only after they had a safe conduct to the German border. The insurgents contacted the German Minister Dr. Rieth by telephone and subsequently had private negotiations with him in the building. At about 7 p.m. they yielded the building, but Chancellor Dollfuss breathed his last about 6 p.m., not having had the services of a doctor.

It is also a well-known historical fact that the German Government denied all complicity in this Putsch and in this assassination. Hitler removed Dr. Rieth as Minister on the ground that he had offered a safe conduct to the rebels without making inquiry of the German Government, and had thus without reason dragged the German Reich into an internal Austrian affair in public sight.

This statement appears in a letter which Hitler sent to Defendant Papen on July 26, 1934. I shall offer that letter a little later.

Although the German Government denied any knowledge or complicity in this Putsch, we think there is ample basis for the conclusion that the German Nazis bear responsibility for these events. It is not my purpose, with respect to this somewhat minor consideration, to review the extensive record in the trial of the Austrian Nazi Planetta and others who were convicted for the murder of Dollfuss. Similarly I have no intention of presenting to the Court the contents of the Austrian _Braunbuch_, issued after July 25. The Court will, I think, take judicial notice.

I should like, instead, to mention a few brief items which seem to us sufficient for the purpose. I quote again from our Exhibit Number 1760-PS, from the Messersmith affidavit, USA-57, on Page 7, the paragraph in the middle of the page:

“The events of the Putsch of July 25, 1934, are too well known for me to repeat them in this statement. I need say here only that there can be no doubt that the Putsch was ordered and organized by the Nazi officials from Germany through their organization in Austria made up of German Nazis and Austrian Nazis. Dr. Rieth, the German Minister in Vienna, was fully familiar with all that was going to happen and that was being planned. The German Legation was located directly across the street from the British Legation, and the Austrian secret police kept close watch on the persons who entered the German Legation.

“The British had their own secret service in Vienna at the time, and they also kept a discreet surveillance over the people entering the German Legation. I was told by both British and Austrian officials that a number of men who were later found guilty by the Austrian courts of having been implicated in the Putsch had frequented the German Legation. In addition, I personally followed very closely the activities of Dr. Rieth, and I never doubted, on the basis of all my information, that Dr. Rieth was in close touch and constant touch with the Nazi agents in Austria, these agents being both German and Austrian. Dr. Rieth could not have been unfamiliar with the Putsch and the details in connection therewith. I recall, too, very definitely from my conversations with the highest officials of the Austrian Government after the Putsch their informing me that Dr. Rieth had been in touch with Von Rintelen, who, it had been planned by the Nazis, was to succeed Chancellor Dollfuss, had the Putsch been successful.

“It may be that Dr. Rieth was himself not personally sympathetic with the plans for the Putsch, but there is no question that he was fully familiar with all these plans and must have given his assent thereto and connived therein.

“As this Putsch was so important and was a definite attempt to overthrow the Austrian Government and resulted in the murder of the Chancellor of Austria, I took occasion to verify at the time for myself various other items of evidence indicating that the Putsch was not only made with the knowledge of the German Government but engineered by it. I found and verified that almost a month before the Putsch Goebbels told Signor Cerruti, the Italian Ambassador in Berlin, that there would be a Nazi government in Vienna in a month.”

I should also like to offer in evidence Ambassador Dodd’s diary, 1933-38, a book published in 1941, our Document 2832-PS, and particularly the entry for July 26, 1934. We have the book with the two pages to which I have reference. I should like to offer that portion of the book in evidence as Exhibit USA-58, further identified as our Document 2832-PS.

Mr. Dodd, then Ambassador to Berlin, made the following observations in that entry. First he noted that in February 1934 Ernst Hanfstaengl advised Mr. Dodd that he brought what was virtually an order from Mussolini to Hitler to leave Austria alone and to dismiss and silence Theodor Habicht, the German agent in Munich, who had been agitating for annexation of Austria. On June 18 in Venice, Hitler was reported to have promised Mussolini to leave Austria alone. Mr. Dodd further states, and I quote from his entry of July 26, 1934:

“On Monday, July 23, after repeated bombings in Austria by Nazis, a boat loaded with explosives was seized on Lake Constance by the Swiss police. It was a shipment of German bombs and shells to Austria from some arms plant. That looked ominous to me, but events of that kind had been so common that I did not report it to Washington.

“Today evidence came to my desk that last night, as late as 11 o’clock, the Government issued formal statements to the newspapers rejoicing at the fall of Dollfuss and proclaiming the Greater Germany that must follow. The German Minister in Vienna had actually helped to form the new cabinet. He had, as we now know, exacted a promise that the gang of Austrian Nazi murderers should be allowed to go into Germany undisturbed, but it was realized about 12 o’clock that although Dollfuss was dead the Loyal Austrians had surrounded the Government Palace and prevented the organization of a new Nazi regime. They held the murderers prisoners. The German Propaganda Ministry therefore forbade publication of the news sent out an hour before and tried to collect all the releases that had been distributed. A copy was brought to me today by a friend.

“All the German papers this morning lamented the cruel murder and declared that it was simply an attack of discontented Austrians, not Nazis. News from Bavaria shows that thousands of Austrian Nazis living for a year in Bavaria on German support had been active for 10 days before, some getting across the border contrary to law, all drilling and making ready to return to Austria. The German propagandist Habicht was still making radio speeches about the necessity of annexing the ancient realm of the Hapsburgs to the Third Reich, in spite of all the promises of Hitler to silence him. But now that the drive has failed and the assassins are in prison in Vienna, the German Government denounces all who say there was any support from Berlin.

“I think it will be clear one day that millions of dollars and many arms have been pouring into Austria since the spring of 1933. Once more, the whole world is condemning the Hitler regime. No people in all modern history has been quite so unpopular as Nazi Germany. This stroke completes the picture. I expect to read a series of bitter denunciations in the American papers when they arrive about 10 days from now.”

As I stated before, the German Government denied any connection with the Putsch and the murder of Dollfuss. In this connection, I should like to invite attention to the letter of appointment which Hitler wrote to the Defendant Von Papen on 26 July 1934. This letter appears in a standard German reference work _Dokumente der Deutschen Politik_, Volume 2, Page 83. For convenience we have identified it as Document 2799-PS, and a copy translated into English is included in the document book. The defendants may examine the German text in the _Dokumente der Deutschen Politik_, a copy of which is present in my hand, Page 83 of Volume 2.

I ask the Court if it will take judicial notice of this original German typing.

I should like to read this letter which Chancellor Hitler sent to Vice Chancellor Von Papen. I think it will provide us with a little historical perspective and perhaps freshen our recollection of the ways in which the Nazi conspirators worked. In considering Hitler’s letter to the Defendant Von Papen on July 26, we might bear in mind as an interesting sidelight, the widespread report at that time, and I mention this only as a widespread report, that the Defendant Von Papen narrowly missed being purged on June 30, 1934, along with the Nazi Ernst Roehm and others. The letter from Hitler to Von Papen is as follows:

“Dear Herr Von Papen:

“As a result of the events in Vienna, I am compelled to suggest to the Reich President the removal of the German Minister to Vienna, Dr. Rieth, from his post, because he, at the suggestion of Austrian Federal Ministers and the Austrian rebels, respectively consented to an agreement made by both these parties concerning the safe conduct and retreat of the rebels to Germany without making inquiry of the German Reich Government. Thus, the Minister has dragged the German Reich into an internal Austrian affair without any reason.

“The assassination of the Austrian Federal Chancellor which was strictly condemned and regretted by the German Government has made the situation in Europe, already fluid, more acute, without any fault of ours. Therefore, it is my desire to bring about, if possible, an easing of the general situation, and especially to direct the relations with the German Austrian State, which have been so strained for a long time, again into normal and friendly channels.

“For this reason, I request you, dear Herr Von Papen, to take over this important task, just because you have possessed, and continue to possess, my most complete and unlimited confidence ever since we have worked together in the Cabinet.

“Therefore, I have suggested to the Reich President that you, upon leaving the Reich Cabinet and upon release from the office of Commissioner for the Saar, be called on a special mission to the post of the German Minister in Vienna for a limited period of time. In this position you will be directly subordinated to me.

“Thanking once more for all that you have at one time done for the co-ordination of the Government of the National Revolution, and since then together with us for Germany, I remain, yours very sincerely, Adolf Hitler.”

Now let us look at the situation 4 years later, on July 25, 1938, after the Anschluss with Austria. At that time the German officials no longer expressed regrets over the death of Dollfuss. They were eager and willing to reveal what the world already knew, that they were identified with and sponsors of the murder of the former Chancellor.

I offer in evidence at this point Document L-273, which I offer as Exhibit USA-59. That document is a dispatch from the American Consul General, Vienna, to the Secretary of State, dated July 26, 1938. Unfortunately, through a mechanical slip, this document which is in English in the original, was not mimeographed in English and is not in your document book. However, it was translated into German, and is in the document book which counsel for the defendants have. I read from a photostatic copy of the dispatch:

“The two high points of the celebration”—here was a celebration—“were the memorial assembly on the 24th at Klagenfurt, capital of the Province of Carinthia, where in 1934 the Vienna Nazi revolt found its widest response and the march on the 25th to the former Federal Chancellery in Vienna by the surviving members of the SS Standarte 89, which made the attack on the Chancellery in 1934.”—a reconstitution of the crime, so to say.

“The assembled thousands at Klagenfurt were addressed by the Führer’s deputy, Rudolf Hess, in the presence of the families of the 13 National Socialists who were hanged for their part in the July Putsch. The Klagenfurt memorial celebration was also made the occasion for the solemn swearing in of the seven recently appointed Gauleiter of the Ostmark. From the point of view of the outside world, this speech of Reich Minister Hess was chiefly remarkable for the fact that after devoting the first half of his speech to the expected praise of the sacrifices of the men, women, and youths of Austria in the struggle for Greater Germany, he then launched into a defense of the occupation of Austria, an attack on the ‘lying foreign press’ and on those who spread the idea of a new war. The world was fortunate, declared Hess, that Germany’s leader was a man who would not allow himself to be provoked. The Führer does what is necessary for his people in sovereign calm and labors for the peace of Europe, even though provocators ‘completely ignoring the deliberate threat of the peace of certain small states,’ deceitfully claim that he is a menace to the peace of Europe.

“The march on the former Federal Chancellery,”—referring back to the Putsch of 4 years before—“now the Reichsstatthalterei, followed the exact route and time schedule of the original attack. The marchers were met at the Chancellery by Reichsstatthalter Seyss-Inquart, who addressed them and unveiled a memorial tablet. From the Reichsstatthalterei the Standarte”—that is the SS organization which made the original attack and which marched on this occasion 4 years later—“marched from the old Ravag broadcasting center, from which false news of the resignation of Dollfuss had been broadcast, and there unveiled a second memorial tablet. Steinhaeusel, the present Police President of Vienna, is a member of the SS Standarte 89.”

Today that original memorial plaque, if the Court please, is rubble, like so much of Nuremberg; but we found a photograph of it in the National Library in Vienna. I should like to offer this photograph in evidence. It was taken on this occasion 4 years later. The Nazi wreath encircles the memorial tablet. A large wreath of flowers with a very distinct swastika Nazi symbol was laid before the wreath. I offer that photograph identified as 2968-PS in evidence. I offer it as Exhibit USA-60. You will find that in the document book. I know of no more interesting or shocking document at which you could look. We call celebrating a murder 4 years later, “Murder by ratification.”

As that photograph shows, this plaque which was erected to celebrate this sinister occasion reads: “One hundred and fifty-four German men of the 89th SS Standarte stood up here for Germany on July 25, 1934. Seven found death in the hands of the hangman.”

The Tribunal may notice that the number “154” at the top of the plaque is concealed in the photograph by the Nazi wreath surrounding the plaque. I must confess that I find myself curiously interested in this tablet and in the photograph which was taken and carefully filed. The words chosen for this marble tablet, and surely we can presume that they were words chosen carefully, tell us clearly that the men involved were not mere malcontent Austrian revolutionaries, but were regarded as German men, were members of a para-military organization, and stood up here for Germany.

In 1934 Hitler repudiated Doctor Rieth because he dragged the German Reich into an internal Austrian affair without any reason. In 1938 Nazi Germany proudly identified itself with this murder, took credit for it, and took responsibility for it. Further proof in the conventional sense, it seems to us, is hardly necessary.

Next we refer to the program culminating in the Pact of July 11, 1936. In considering the activities of the Nazi conspirators in Austria between July 25, 1934 and November 1937 there is a distinct intermediate point, the Pact of July 11, 1936. Accordingly, I shall first review developments in the 2-year period, July 1934-36.

First, we must consider the continued aim of eliminating Austria’s independence, with particular relation to the Defendant Von Papen’s conversation and activity. The first point that should be mentioned is this: The Nazi conspirators pretended to respect the independence and sovereignty of Austria, notwithstanding the aim of Anschluss stated in _Mein Kampf_. But in truth and in fact they were working from the very beginning to destroy the Austrian State.

A dramatic recital of the position of Defendant Von Papen in this regard is provided in Mr. Messersmith’s affidavit, from which I have already quoted. I quote now from Page 9 of the English copy, the second paragraph, 1760-PS, Exhibit USA-57:

“That the policy of Anschluss remained wholly unchanged was confirmed to me by Franz von Papen when he arrived in Vienna as German Minister. It will be recalled that he accepted this assignment as German Minister even though he knew that he had been marked for execution in the St. Bartholomew’s massacre of 30 June 1934. When, in accordance with protocol, he paid me a visit shortly after his arrival in Vienna, I determined that during this call there would be no reference to anything of importance, and I limited the conversation strictly to platitudes which I was able to do as he was calling on me in my office. I deemed it expedient to delay my return call for several weeks in order to make it clear to Von Papen that I had no sympathy with, and on the other hand was familiar with the objectives of his mission in Austria. When I did call on Von Papen in the German Legation, he greeted me with ‘Now you are in my Legation and I can control the conversation.’

“In the boldest and most cynical manner he then proceeded to tell me that all of southeastern Europe, to the borders of Turkey, was Germany’s natural hinterland, and that he had been charged with the mission of facilitating German economic and political control over all this region for Germany. He blandly and directly said that getting control of Austria was to be the first step. He definitely stated that he was in Austria to undermine and weaken the Austrian Government and from Vienna to work towards the weakening of the Governments in the other states to the south and southeast. He said that he intended to use his reputation as a good Catholic to gain influence with certain Austrians, such as Cardinal Innitzer, towards that end. He said that he was telling me this because the German Government was bound on this objective of getting this control of southeastern Europe and that there was nothing which could stop it, and that our own policy and that of France and England was not realistic.

“The circumstances were such, as I was calling on him in the German Legation, that I had to listen to what he had to say and of course, I was prepared to hear what he had to say although I already knew what his instructions were. I was nevertheless shocked to have him speak so boldly to me, and when he finished I got up and told him how shocked I was to hear the accredited representative of a supposedly friendly state to Austria admit that he was proposing to engage in activities to undermine and destroy that Government to which he was accredited. He merely smiled and said of course this conversation was between us, and that he would of course not be talking to others so clearly about his objectives. I have gone into this detail with regard to this conversation, as it is characteristic of the absolute frankness and directness with which high Nazi officials spoke of their objectives.”

And again, reading from the same document on Page 10, beginning at the last paragraph at the bottom of the page:

“On the surface, however, German activities consisted principally of efforts to win the support of prominent and influential men through insidious efforts of all kinds, including the use of the German diplomatic mission in Vienna and its facilities and personnel.

“Von Papen as German Minister entertained frequently and on a lavish scale. He approached almost every member of the Austrian Cabinet, telling them, as several of them later informed me, that Germany was bound to prevail in the long run, and that they should join the winning side if they wished to enjoy positions of power and influence under German control. Of course, openly and outwardly he gave solemn assurance that Germany would respect Austrian independence and that all that she wished to do was to get rid of elements in the Austrian Government like the Chancellor Schuschnigg and Starhemberg as head of the Heimwehr, and others, and replace them by a few ‘nationally-minded’ Austrians, which of course meant the Nazis. The whole basic effort of Von Papen was to bring about the Anschluss.

“In early 1935 the Austrian Foreign Minister, Berger-Waldenegg, informed me that in the course of a conversation with Von Papen, the latter had remarked, ‘Yes, you have your French and English friends now, and you can have your independence a little longer.’ The Foreign Minister, of course, told me this remark in German, but the foregoing is an accurate translation. The Foreign Minister told me that he had replied to Von Papen, ‘I am glad to have from your own lips your own opinion which agrees with what your Chief has just said in the Saar and which you have taken such pains to deny.’ Von Papen appeared to be terribly upset when he realized just what he had said and tried to cover his statements, but according to Berger-Waldenegg, kept constantly getting into deeper water.

“Von Papen undoubtedly achieved some success, particularly with men like Glaise-Horstenau and others who had long favored the Grossdeutschtum idea, but who nevertheless had been greatly disturbed by the fate of the Catholic Church. Without conscience or scruple, Von Papen exploited his reputation and that of his wife as ardent and devout Catholics to overcome the fears of these Austrians in this respect.”

May I inquire if the Court expect to take a short recess?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wishes to make it clear, if I did not make it clear when I spoke before, that if Defense Counsel wish to put interrogatories to Mr. Messersmith upon his affidavit they may submit such interrogatories to the Tribunal in writing for them to be sent to Mr. Messersmith to answer.

FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBÜHLER (Counsel for Defendant Dönitz): I do not know whether my question has yet been answered, or by what it has been made known by the President of the Court.

In the testimony of Mr. Messersmith, Dönitz’ name was mentioned. It appears on Page 4 of the German version. I should like to read the whole paragraph:

“Admiral Karl Dönitz was not always in an amicable frame of mind. He was not a National Socialist when the National Socialists came to power”. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: This passage was not read in evidence, was it?

DR. KRANZBÜHLER: No, only the name was mentioned.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think the name was mentioned, because this part of the affidavit was not read.

DR. KRANZBÜHLER: The name was read, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, go on.

DR. KRANZBÜHLER: [_Continuing._]

“Nevertheless, he became one of the first high officers in the Army and fleet and was in complete agreement with the concepts and aims of National Socialism.”

As an introduction to this paragraph, Mr. Messersmith said, in Document Number 1760, on Page 2, the last sentence before the Number 1:

“Among those whom I saw frequently and to whom I have reference in many of my statements were the following. . . .”

Then after Number 16 Dönitz’ name appears. My client has informed me that he has heard the name “Messersmith” today for the first time; that he does not know the witness Messersmith, has never seen him, nor has he ever spoken to him.

I therefore request that the witness Messersmith be brought before the Court to state when and where he spoke to the Defendant Dönitz.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already ruled that the affidavit is admissible; that its probative value will of course be considered by the Tribunal, and the defendants’ counsel have the right, if they wish, to submit interrogatories for the examination of Messersmith. Of course defendants will have the opportunity of giving evidence when their turn comes, then Admiral Dönitz, if he thinks it right, will be able to deny the statements of the affidavit.

DR. KRANZBÜHLER: Thank you.

MR. ALDERMAN: I want to call the Court’s attention to a slight mistranslation into German of one sentence of the Messersmith affidavit. In the German translation the word “nicht” crept in when the negative was not in the English.

The English statement was:

“I deemed it expedient to delay my return call for several weeks in order to make it clear to Von Papen that I had no sympathy with and on the other hand was familiar with the objectives of his mission in Austria.”

The German text contains the negative: “Und dass ich anderseits nicht mit den Zielen seiner Berufung in Österreich vertraut war.” The “nicht” should not be in the German text.

The continued existence of Nazi organizations was a program of armed preparedness. The wiles of the Defendant Von Papen represented only one part of the total program of Nazi conspiracy. At the same time Nazi activities in Austria, forced underground during this period, were carried on.

Mr. Messersmith’s affidavit on Pages 9 and 10, the English text, discloses the following. Reading from the last main paragraph on Page 9:

“Nazi activities, forced underground in this period, were by no means neglected. The Party was greatly weakened for a time as a result of the energetic measures taken against the Putsch and as a result of public indignation. Reorganization work was soon begun. In October 1934 the Austrian Foreign Minister, Berger-Waldenegg, furnished me the following memorandum, which he told me had been supplied to the Austrian Government by a person who participated in the meeting under reference.”

I quote the first paragraph of the memorandum:

“A meeting of the chiefs of the Austrian National Socialist Party was held on 29 and 30 September 1934, at Bad Aibling in Bavaria.”

Then, skipping four paragraphs and resuming on the fifth one:

“The Agents of the Party Direction in Germany have received orders in every Austrian district to prepare lists of all those persons who are known to support actively the present Government and who are prepared closely to cooperate with it.

“When the next action against the Government takes place those persons are to be proceeded against just as brutally as against all those other persons, without distinction of party, who are known to be adversaries of National Socialism.

“In a report of the Party leaders for Austria the following principles have been emphasized:

“A. The taking over of the power in Austria remains the principal duty of the Austrian National Socialist Party. Austria has for the German Reich a much greater significance and value than the Saar. The Austrian problem is the problem. All combat methods are consecrated by the end which they are to serve.

“B. We must, on every occasion which presents itself, appear to be disposed to negotiate, but arm at the same time for the struggle. The new phase of the struggle will be particularly serious and there will be this time two centers of terror, one along the German frontier and the other along the Yugoslav frontier.”

That ends the quotation from the memorandum. I proceed with the next paragraph of the affidavit:

“The Austrian Legion was kept in readiness in Germany. Although it was taken back some miles further from the Austrian frontier, it remained undissolved in spite of the engagement which had been taken to dissolve it. The Austrian Government received positive information to this effect from time to time which it passed on to me and I had direct information to the same effect from reliable persons coming from Germany to Vienna who actually saw the Legion.”

The fact of the reorganization of the Nazi Party in Austria is corroborated by a report of one of the Austrian Nazis.

I offer in evidence our Document Number 812-PS, as Exhibit USA-61. It contains three parts. First, there is a letter dated August 22, 1939 from Mr. Rainer, then Gauleiter at Salzburg, to the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, then Austrian Reich Minister. That letter encloses a letter dated July 6, 1939 written by Rainer to Reich Commissioner and Gauleiter Josef Bürckel.

DR. HANS LATERNSER: (Co-counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): I object to the presentation of the letters contained in Document Number 812. Of course, I cannot object to the presentation of this evidence to the extent that this evidence is to prove that these letters were actually written. However, if these letters are to serve as proof for the correctness of their contents, then I must object to the use of these letters, for the following reason: Particularly, the third document: It is a letter which, as is manifest from its contents, has a certain bias, for this reason, that in this letter it is explained to what extent the Austrian Nazi Party participated in the Anschluss.

It purports, further, to expose the leading role played by the Party group Rainer-Klausner.

From the bias that is manifest in the contents of this letter, this letter cannot serve as proof for the facts brought forth in it, particularly since the witness Rainer, who wrote this letter, is available as a witness. I have discovered he is at present in Nuremberg.

I object to the use of this letter to the extent that it is to be used to prove the correctness of its contents, because the witness who can testify to that is at our disposal in Nuremberg.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear Mr. Alderman in answer to what has been said. The Tribunal has not yet read the letter.

MR. ALDERMAN: I think perhaps it would be better to read the letter before we argue about the significance of its contents.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you relying upon the letter as evidence of the facts stated in it?

MR. ALDERMAN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: From whom is the letter, and to whom is it addressed?

MR. ALDERMAN: The first letter is from Mr. Rainer who was at that time Gauleiter at Salzburg, to the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, then Reich Minister of Austria.

That letter encloses a letter dated July 6, 1939, written by Rainer to Reich Commissioner and Gauleiter Josef Bürckel. In that letter, in turn, Rainer enclosed a report on the events in the NSDAP of Austria from 1933 to March 11, 1938, the day before the invasion of Austria.

I had some other matters in connection with this that I did want to bring to the attention of the Tribunal before it passes upon the admissibility.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think that the defendant’s counsel is really challenging the admissibility of the document; he challenges the contents of the document.

MR. ALDERMAN: Yes. On that, in the first place, we are advised by defendant’s counsel that this man Rainer is in Nuremberg. I would assume he is there.

We have also an affidavit by Rainer stating that what is stated in these communications is the truth. However, it seems to us that the communications themselves, as contemporaneous reports by a Party officer at the time, are much more probative evidence than anything that he might testify to before you today.

DR. LATERNSER: I have already said that this letter has these characteristics, that it is biased, that it tends to emphasize and exaggerate the participation of the Austrian Nazi Party on the Anschluss. Therefore, I must object to the use of this letter as objective evidence. It was not written with the thought in mind that the letter would be used as evidence before a court. If the writer had known that, the letter undoubtedly would have been formulated differently, considering his political activity.

I believe, although I am not sure, that the witness is in Nuremberg. In that case, according to a principle which is basic for all trial procedure, the witness should be presented to the Court personally, particularly since, in this case, the difficulties inherent in the question of Messersmith do not here pertain.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the letters are admissible. They were written to and received by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart. The defendant can challenge the contents of the letters by his evidence.

If it is true that Rainer is in Nuremberg, it is open to the defendant to apply to the Tribunal for leave to call Rainer in due course. He can then challenge the contents of these letters, both by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s evidence and by Rainer’s evidence. The letters themselves are admitted.

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I agree quite fully with the statement that if it had been known that these letters were to be offered in evidence in a court of justice, they very probably would have been differently written. That applies to a great part of the evidence that we shall offer in this case. And I would say that if the photographer who took the photograph of the Memorial Plaque had known that his photographs would be introduced in evidence in a conspiracy case, he probably never would have snapped the shutter.

The letter from Rainer to Bürckel indicates that he was asked to prepare a short history of the role of the Party. Perhaps I had better read the covering letter, addressed to the Defendant Seyss-Inquart:

“Dear Dr. Seyss:

“I have received your letter of 19 August 1939, in which you asked me to inform you what I know of those matters which, among others, are the subject of your correspondence with Bürckel.

“I do not wish to discuss sundry talks and all that which has been brought to my notice in the course of time by different people. I wish to clarify essentially my own attitude.

“On 5 July 1939 I was asked by telephone by the Reich Commissioner Gauleiter Bürckel if I was in possession of the memorandum of Globus regarding the events of March. I told him that I did not have this memorandum, that I never possessed a single part of it; that I, furthermore, did not then participate in the matter and do not know its content. Because of official requests by Bürckel, I have entrusted him with a report accompanied by a letter written on 6 July.

“If Bürckel now writes to you that certain statements were confirmed by me, I feel obliged to entrust you with a copy each of my copies of those two documents, which were only written in single originals. I shall specially inform Bürckel of this, adding that I have given—apart from, those written explanations—no confirmations, declarations, or criticisms whatsoever regarding you and your attitude and that I have authorized nobody to refer to any statements of mine.

“Since the beginning of our collaboration, I have always expressed and represented forcefully my ideas regarding yourself and my opinion of your personality. This conception of mine was the very basis of our collaboration. The events of February and March have not changed this, especially since I considered the political success of 11 March merely as a confirmation of the intentions and convictions which have equally induced both of us to collaborate.

“As far as Globus is concerned, you are fully, aware of his nature, which I judged always and in every situation only by its good side. I believe that you have already talked to Globus about the occurrences between the 11 March 1938 and today, and I am convinced that he will tell you everything that is bothering him, if you will speak to him about this matter, as is your intention.

“With best regards and Heil Hitler!

Yours, Friedl Rainer.”

And so Rainer writes his report, which is enclosed with this letter, to show that the Party as a whole is entitled to the glory which was excessively ascribed to one person, Dr. Seyss-Inquart.

I refer to the third paragraph of the first enclosure, the report to Reich Commissioner Gauleiter Josef Bürckel:

“We saw in March and April how a false picture about the actual leadership conditions developed from this fact which could not be corrected in spite of our attempts to that effect. This was an important factor for the varying moods of Globocnik who hoped especially from you that you would emphasize for Hitler, and also for the public, the role of the Party during the events preceding 12 March 1938. I limited myself to address this verbal and written declaration to Party member Hess, and furthermore to secure the documents from the March days. In addition, I spoke at every available opportunity about the fight of the Party. I did not undertake steps to give just credit to other persons for the glory which was excessively ascribed to one person, Dr. Seyss-Inquart, and I would not do that, primarily because I appear as a beneficiary, and furthermore, because I believe that I would not gladden Hitler by doing so.

“I am also convinced that Dr. Seyss-Inquart did not act crookedly, and furthermore, that Hitler does not want to commit an act of historical justice by special preference of his person, but rather that he is attracted to him personally. It really is of no great account to Hitler if this or that person were more or less meritorious in this sector of the great fight of the movement. Because, in the last analysis, by far the greatest part is to be ascribed only to him; he alone will be considered by history as the liberator of Austria. I, therefore, considered it best to accept existing conditions and look for new fertile fields of endeavor in the Party.

“If I should be asked to describe—without personal interest—the role of the Party according to my best conviction, I am ready to do so at any time. For this reason I promised yesterday to submit to you again a short summary, and to make it available for your confidential use. Of this letter and of this abbreviated description I retain the sole copy.

“Heil Hitler! Rainer.”

Now, of course, all of these enclosures went to the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, and he had knowledge of the contents of all of them.

It is an historical fact of which the Court will take judicial notice, that Seyss-Inquart was the original Quisling. It so happened that the Norwegian Seyss-Inquart gave his name to posterity as a meaningful name, but all Quislings are alike.

The Tribunal will observe from this that the Rainer report is hardly likely to be tendentious, as counsel says, or to be prejudiced in favor of Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s contribution to the Anschluss. It tends, on the contrary, to show that Seyss-Inquart was not quite so important as he might have thought he was. Even so, Rainer gives Seyss-Inquart credit enough.

The Rainer report further tells of the disorganization of the Nazi Party in Austria and of its reconstitution. I now quote the second and third paragraphs of the report, appearing on Pages 3 and 4 of the English text of 812-PS, which is Exhibit USA-61; and I believe it is on Pages 1 and 2 of the original German of the report or Bericht, which is the third part of the document:

“Thus the first stage of battle commenced which ended with the July rising of 1934. The decision for the July rising was right, the execution of it was faulty. The result was a complete destruction of the organization; the loss of entire groups of fighters through imprisonment or flight into the Alt-Reich, and with regard to the political relationship of Germany to Austria, a formal acknowledgment of the existence of the Austrian State by the German Government. With the telegram to Papen, instructing him to reinstitute normal relationships between the two States, the Führer had liquidated the first stage of the battle, and a new method of political penetration was to begin. By order of the Führer the Landesleitung Munich was dissolved, and the Party in Austria was left to its own resources.

“There was no acknowledged leader for the entire Party in Austria. New leaderships were forming in the new Gaue. The process was again and again interrupted by the interference of the police; there was no liaison between the formations, and frequently there were two, three, or more rival leaderships. The first evident, acknowledged speaker of almost all the Gaue in Autumn 1934 was Engineer Reinthaler (already appointed Landesbauernführer, leader of the country’s farmers, by Hess). He endeavored to bring about a political appeasement by negotiations with the Government with the purpose of giving the NSDAP legal status again, thus permitting its political activities. Simultaneously, Reinthaler started the reconstruction of the illegal political organization at the head of which he had placed Engineer Neubacher.”

Next we have secret contacts between German officials, including the Defendant Von Papen, and the Austrian Nazis; the use by the Austrian Nazis of front personalities.

There are two cardinal factors concerning the Nazi organization in Austria which should be borne in mind.

First, although the Führer had, on the surface, cast the Austrian Nazis adrift—as indicated in the document I have just read—in fact, as we shall show, German officials, including Von Papen, maintained secret contact with the Austrian Nazis in line with Hitler’s desires. German officials consulted and gave advice and support to the organization of the Austrian Nazis.

In the second place, the Austrian Nazis remained an illegal organization in Austria, organizing for the eventual use of force in a so-called emergency. But in the meantime they deemed it expedient to act behind front personalities, such as the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, who had no apparent taint of illegality in his status in Austria.

Mr. Messersmith relates, in his affidavit, that he got hold of a copy of a document outlining this Nazi program. I quote from Page 8 of Document 1760-PS, USA-57, the following:

“For 2 years following the failure of the July 25 Putsch, the Nazis remained relatively quiet in Austria. Very few terroristic acts occurred during the remainder of 1934 and, as I recall, in 1935 and most of 1936, this inactivity was in accordance with directives from Berlin, as direct evidence to that effect which came to my knowledge at that time, proved. Early in January the Austrian Foreign Minister Berger-Waldenegg, furnished me a document which I considered accurate in all respects, and which stated:

“‘The German Minister here, Von Papen, on the occasion of his last visit to Berlin, was received three times by Chancellor Hitler for fairly long conversations and he also took this opportunity to call on Schacht and Von Neurath. In these conversations the following instructions were given to him:

“‘During the next 2 years nothing can be undertaken which will give Germany external political difficulties. On this ground, everything must be avoided which could awaken the appearance of Germany interfering in the internal affairs of Austria. Chancellor Hitler will, therefore, also for this reason, not endeavor to intervene in the present prevailing difficult crisis in the National Socialist Party in Austria, although he is convinced that order could be brought into the Party at once through a word from him. This word, however, he will not give for foreign political reasons, being convinced that ends desired by him may be reached also in another way. Naturally, Chancellor Hitler declared to the German Minister here, this does not indicate any disinterestedness in Austria’s independence. Also, before everything, Germany cannot for the present withdraw Party members in Austria, and must therefore, in spite of the very real exchange difficulties, make every effort to bring help to the persecuted National Socialist sufferers in Austria.

“‘As a result, Minister of Commerce Schacht finally gave the authorization that from then on, 200,000 marks a month were to be set aside for this end (support of National Socialists in Austria). The control and supervision of this monthly sum was to be entrusted to Engineer Reinthaler, who, through the fact that he alone had control over the money, would have a definite influence on the Party followers. In this way it would be possible to end most quickly and most easily the prevailing difficulties and divisions in the Austrian National Socialist Party.

“‘The hope was also expressed to Herr Von Papen that the recently authorized foundation of German Ortsgruppen of the National Socialist Party in Austria, made up of German citizens in Austria, would be so arranged as not to give the appearance that Germany is planning to interfere in Austrian internal affairs.’”

The report of Gauleiter Rainer to Reich Commissar Bürckel in July 1939 outlines the further history of the Party and the leadership squabbles following the retirement of Reinthaler.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you think this would be a convenient time to break off until 2 o’clock?

MR. ALDERMAN: Yes, sir.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I had just referred again to the report of Gauleiter Rainer to Reich Commissioner Bürckel in July 1939, which outlines the further history of the Party and the leadership problem following the retirement of Reinthaler.

In referring to the situation in 1935, he mentioned some of the contacts with the Reich Government, that is, the German Government, in the following terms. I quote from Page 4 of the English text of that report, and I believe from Page 4 of the German text of the Rainer report, which is 812-PS, that is Exhibit USA-61:

“In August some further arrests took place, the victims of which were, apart from the Gauleiter”—Gau leaders—“also Globocnik and Rainer. Schattenfroh then claimed, because of an instruction received from the imprisoned Leopold, to have been made deputy country leader. A group led by engineer Raffelsberger had at this time also established connection with departments of the Alt-Reich (Ministry of Propaganda, German racial agency, _et cetera_), and made an attempt to formulate a political motto in the form of a program for the fighting movement of Austria.”

And, again, the Rainer report sets forth the situation a little later in 1936. I quote from Page 6 of the English text, and I think Page 5 of the German text:

“The principles of the construction were:

“The organization is the bearer of the illegal fight and the trustee of the idea to create a secret organization, in a simple manner and without compromise, according to the principle of organizing an elite to be available to the illegal Land Party Council upon any emergency. Besides this, all political opportunities should be taken and all legal people and legal chances should be used without revealing any ties with the illegal organization. Therefore, cooperation between the illegal Party organization and the legal political aides was anchored at the top of the Party leadership. All connections with the Party in Germany were kept secret in accordance with the orders of the Führer. These said that the German State should officially be omitted from the creation of an Austrian NSDAP and that auxiliary centers for propaganda, press, refugees, welfare, _et cetera_, should be established in the foreign countries bordering Austria.

“Hinterleitner already contacted the lawyer Seyss-Inquart, who had connection with Dr. Waechter which originated from Seyss-Inquart’s support of the July uprising. On the other side, Seyss-Inquart had a good position in the legal field and especially well-established relations with Christian Social politicians. Dr. Seyss-Inquart came from the ranks of the Styrian Heimatschutz”—home defense—“and became a Party member when the entire Styrian Heimatschutz was incorporated into the NSDAP. Another personality who had a good position in the legal field was Colonel Glaise-Horstenau who had contacts with both sides. The agreement of 11 July 1936 was strongly influenced by the activities of these two persons of whom Glaise-Horstenau was designed as trustee to the Führer.”

The Rainer report thus discloses the dual tactics of the Austrian Nazis during this period of keeping quiet and awaiting developments. They were maintaining their secret contacts with Reich officials, and using native personalities such as Glaise-Horstenau and Seyss-Inquart. The Nazis made good use of such figures, who were more discreet in their activities and could be referred to as nationalists. They presented, supported, and obtained consideration of demands which could not be negotiated by other Nazis like Captain Leopold.

Seyss-Inquart did not hold any public office until January 1937, when he was made Counsellor of State. But Rainer, describing him as a trustworthy member of the Party through the ranks of this Styrian Heimatschutz, points him out as one who strongly influenced the agreement of July 11, 1936. The strategic importance of that agreement will be considered a little later. Rainer’s report, as I have said before, was hardly likely to over emphasize the significance of Seyss-Inquart’s contribution.

That the Nazis, but not the Austrian Government, did well to trust Seyss-Inquart is indicated by the next document. I propose to offer in evidence Document 2219-PS as Exhibit USA-62. This is a letter dated 14 July 1939, addressed to Field Marshal Göring. The document is a typed carbon of the letter. It ends with the “Heil Hitler” termination, and it is not signed, but we think it was undoubtedly written by Defendant Seyss-Inquart. It was the carbon copy found among Seyss-Inquart’s personal files, and such carbon copies kept by authors of letters usually are not signed. On the first page of the letter there appears a note in ink, not indicated in the partial English translation, reading, “Air Mail, 15 July, 1515 hours, Berlin, brought to Göring’s office.” The main text of the letter consists of a plea for intercession on behalf of one Mühlmann, whose name we shall meet later, and who, unfortunately, got into Bürckel’s bad graces. I shall quote the extract part of the document which has been translated into English, and which starts, I believe, on Page 7 of the German text:

“At present in Vienna, 14 July 1939;

“To the General Field Marshal

“Sir:

“If I may add something about myself, it is the following: I know that I am not of an active fighting nature, unless final decisions are at stake. At this time of pronounced activism”—Aktivismus—“this will certainly be regarded as a fault of my personality. Yet I know that I cling with unconquerable tenacity to the goal in which I believe, that is Greater Germany”—Grossdeutschland—“and the Führer. And if some people are already tired out from the struggle and some have been killed in the fight, I am still around somewhere and ready to go into action. This, after all, was also the development until the year 1938. Until July 1934, I conducted myself as a regular member of the Party. And if I had quietly, in whatever form, paid my membership dues (the first one, according to a receipt, I paid in December 1931) I probably would have been an undisputed, comparatively old fighter and Party member of Austria, but I would not have done any more for the union. I told myself in July 1934 that we must fight this clerical regime on its own ground in order to give the Führer a chance to use whatever method he desired.”—I would like to call particular attention to that sentence.—“I told myself that this Austria was worth a mass. I have stuck to this attitude with an iron determination because I and my friends had to fight against the whole political church, the Freemasonry, the Jewry, in short, against everything in Austria. The slightest weakness which we might have displayed would undoubtedly have led to our political annihilation; it would have deprived the Führer of the means and tools to carry out his ingenious political solution for Austria, as became evident in the days of March 1938. I have been fully conscious of the fact that I am following a path which is not comprehensible to the masses and also not to my Party comrades. I followed it calmly and would without hesitation follow it again, because I am satisfied that at one point I could serve the Führer as a tool in his work, even though my former attitude even now gives occasion to very worthy and honorable Party comrades to doubt my trustworthiness. I have never paid attention to such things because I am satisfied with the opinion which the Führer and the men close to him have of me.”

That letter was written to one of the men close to him—Field Marshal Göring. I think that suffices to demonstrate Seyss-Inquart as one whose loyalty to Hitler, a foreign dictator, and to the aims of the Nazi conspiracy, led him to fight for the Anschluss with all the means at his disposal.

It is appropriate at this time to offer in evidence a document from the Defendant Von Papen, and to see how he thought the doctrines of National Socialism could be used to effect the aim of the Anschluss. I offer Document 2248-PS as Exhibit USA-63. This document is a letter from Von Papen to Hitler, dated July 27, 1935. It consists of a report entitled, “Review and Outlook 1 Year after the Death of Chancellor Dollfuss.” After reviewing the success that the Austrian Government had had in establishing Dollfuss as a martyr, and his principles as the patriotic principles of Austria, Von Papen stated—and I quote the last paragraph of the letter, beginning on Page 1 (Page 146 of the German text):

“National Socialism must and will overpower the new Austrian ideology. If today it is contended in Austria that the NSDAP is only a centralized Reich German Party and therefore unable to transfer the spirit of thought of National Socialism to groups of people of a different political makeup, the answer must rightly be that the national revolution in Germany could not have been brought about in a different way. But when the creation of the people’s community in the Reich will be completed, National Socialism could, in a much wider sense than this is possible through the present Party organization—at least apparently—certainly become the rallying point for all racially German units beyond the borders. Spiritual progress in regard to Austria cannot be achieved today with any centralized tendency. If this recognition would once and for all be stated clearly from within the Reich, then it would easily become possible to effect a break-through into the front of the New Austria. A Nuremberg Party Day designated as ‘The German Day’ as in old times and the proclamation of a National Socialistic peoples’ front would be a stirring event for all beyond the borders of the Reich. Such attacks would win us also the particularistic Austrian circles, whose spokesman, the legitimistic Count Dubsky, wrote in his pamphlet about the Anschluss: ‘The Third Reich will be with Austria, or it will not be at all. National Socialism must win it or perish if it is unable to solve this task.’”

We have other reports from Von Papen to Hitler which I shall offer in evidence presently, showing that he maintained covert contact with the National Socialist groups in Austria. It is certainly interesting that from the very start of his mission, Defendant Von Papen was thinking of ways and means of using the principle of National Socialism for national Germans outside the border of Germany. Papen was working for the Anschluss, although he preferred to use the principles of National Socialism rather than rely on the Party organization as a necessary means of establishing those principles in the German Reich.

Next we have some assurance and reassurance to Austria. The German Government did no more than keep up a pretense of non-interference with Austrian groups. It employed the psychological inducement of providing assurances that it had no designs on Austrian independence. If Austria could find hope for the execution of those assurances, she could find her way clear to the granting of concessions and obtain relief from the economic and internal pressure.

I offer Document 2247-PS in evidence as Exhibit USA-64. It is a letter from Von Papen, while in Berlin, to Hitler, dated May 17, 1935.

Von Papen’s letter indicated to Hitler that a forthright credible statement by Germany reassuring Austria, would be most useful for German diplomatic purposes and for the improvement of relationship between Austria and German groups in Austria.

He had a scheme for pitting Schuschnigg and his Christian Social forces against Starhemberg, the Vice Chancellor of Austria, who was backed by Mussolini. Von Papen hoped to persuade Schuschnigg to ally his forces with the NSDAP in order to emerge victorious over Starhemberg. Von Papen indicates that he obtained this idea from Captain Leopold, leader of the illegal National Socialists in Austria.

I quote from his letter, starting at the second paragraph of the second page. This is Von Papen writing to “Mein Führer” Hitler:

“I suggest that we take an active part in this game. The fundamental idea should be to pit Schuschnigg and his Christian Social forces, who are opposed to a home-front dictatorship, against Starhemberg. The possibility of thwarting the measures arranged between Mussolini and Starhemberg should be afforded to him in such a way that he would submit the offer to the Government of a definitive German-Austrian compromise of interests. According to the convincing opinion of the leader of the NSDAP in Austria, Captain Leopold, the totalitarian principle of the NSDAP in Austria must be replaced in the beginning by a combination of that part of the Christian Social elements which favors the Greater Germany idea and the NSDAP. If Germany recognizes the national independence of Austria and guarantees full freedom to the Austrian national opposition, then, as a result of such a compromise, the Austrian Government would be formed in the beginning by a coalition of these forces. . . . A further consequence of this step would be the possibility of the participation of Germany in the Danube Pact, which would take the sting out of its acuteness due to the settlement of relations between Germany and Austria. Such a measure would have a most beneficial influence on the European situation, and especially on our relationship with England.

“One may object that Schuschnigg will hardly be determined to follow such a pattern, that he will rather in all probability immediately communicate our offer to our opponents.

“Of course, one should first of all explore the possibility of setting Schuschnigg against Starhemberg through the use of go-betweens. The possibility exists. If Herr Schuschnigg finally says ‘no’ and makes our offer known in Rome, then the situation would not be any worse, but on the contrary, the efforts of the Reich Government to make peace with Austria would be revealed, without prejudice to other interests. Therefore, even in the case of refusal this last attempt would be an asset. I consider it completely possible, that in view of the farspread dislike in the Alpine countries of the pro-Italian course, and in view of the sharp tensions between the Federal Government”—Bundesregierung—“Herr Schuschnigg will grasp this last straw, always under the supposition that the offer could not be interpreted as a trap by the opponents, but that it bears all the marks of an actually honest compromise with Austria.

“Assuming success of this step we would again establish our active intervention in central European politics, which, as opposed to the French, Czech, and Russian political maneuvers, would be a tremendous success, both morally and practically.

“Since there are 2 weeks left to accomplish very much work in the way of explorations and conferences, an immediate decision is necessary.

“The Reich Army Minister”—Reichswehrminister—“shares the opinion presented above, and the Reich Foreign Minister”—Reichsaussenminister—“wants to discuss it with you, my Führer.”—Signed—“Papen.”

In other words, Von Papen wanted a strong assurance and a credible assurance of the preservation of Austria’s independence. As he put it, Germany had nothing to lose with what it could always call a mere effort at peace, and she might be able to convince Schuschnigg to establish an Austrian coalition government with the NSDAP. If she did this, she would vastly strengthen her position in Europe. Finally Von Papen urged haste.

Exactly 4 days later, in a Reichstag address, Hitler responded to Von Papen’s suggestion, and asserted:

“Germany neither intends nor wishes, to interfere in the internal affairs of Austria, to annex Austria or to conclude an Anschluss.”

The British will present a document covering that speech. I merely wanted to use one sentence at this point. It is a sentence quite well known to history.

It is appropriate to take notice of this assurance at this point, and to note that for a complexity of reasons Von Papen suggested, and Hitler announced, a policy completely at variance with their intentions, which had been, and continued to be, to interfere in Austria’s internal affairs and to conclude an Anschluss.

There was then a temporary continuance of a quiet pressure policy.

On May 1, 1936, Hitler blandly in a public speech branded as a lie any statement that “tomorrow or the day after” Germany would fall upon Austria. I invite the Court’s attention to the version of the speech appearing in the _Völkischer Beobachter_, SD—that is South Germany—2 to 3 May 1936, Page 2, and translated in our Document 2367-PS.

Without offering that document, I ask the Court to take judicial notice of that statement in that well-known speech.

If Hitler meant what he said, it was only in the most literal and misleading sense, that is, that he would not actually fall upon Austria “tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.” For the conspirators well knew that the successful execution of their purpose required for a little while longer the quiet policy they had been pursuing in Austria.

I now offer in evidence our Document L-150, “Memorandum of Conversation between Ambassador Bullitt and the Defendant Von Neurath, on 18 May 1936” as Exhibit USA-65. This document unfortunately again appears in your document books in German. Due to an error, it has not been mimeographed in English. German counsel have the German copies.

I shall read from it and at the same time, hand to the interpreter reading the German, a marked copy of a German translation. I might read one sentence from the first paragraph:

“I called on Von Neurath, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on May 18 and had a long talk on the general European situation.

“Von Neurath said that it was the policy of the German Government to do nothing active in foreign affairs until the Rhineland had been ‘digested.’

“He explained that he meant until the German fortifications had been constructed on the French and Belgian frontiers, the German Government would do everything possible to prevent, rather than encourage, an outbreak by the Nazis in Austria and would pursue a quiet line with regard to Czechoslovakia. ‘As soon as our fortifications are constructed and the countries of Central Europe realize that France cannot enter German territory, all these countries will begin to feel very differently about their foreign policies and a new constellation will develop.’”

I skip then two paragraphs.

“Von Neurath then stated that no understanding had been reached between Germany and Italy, and admitted that the demonstrations of friendship between Germany and Italy were mere demonstrations without basis in reality. He went on to say that at the present time he could see no way to reconcile the conflicting interests of Germany and Italy in Austria. He said that there were three chief reasons why the German Government was urging the Austrian Nazis to remain quiet at the present time:

“The first was that Mussolini had today the greater part of his army mobilized on the Austrian border, ready to strike, and that he would certainly strike if he should have a good excuse.

“The second reason for urging Austrian Nazis to remain quiet for the present was that the Nazi movement was growing stronger daily in Austria. The youth of Austria was turning more and more towards the Nazis, and the dominance of the Nazi Party in Austria was inevitable and only a question of time.”

The third reason was that until the German fortifications had been constructed on the French border, an involvement of Germany in war with Italy might lead to a French attack on Germany.

But if Germany was not yet ready for open conflict in Austria, her diplomatic position was vastly improved over 1934, a fact which influenced Austria’s willingness to make concessions to Germany and to come to terms.

I quote again from the Messersmith affidavit, Page 11 of the English text. That is Document 1760-PS.

“Developments in the fall of 1935 and the spring of 1936 gave Germany an opportunity to take more positive steps in the direction of the nazification of Austria. Italy, which had given Austria assurance of support of the most definite character against external German aggression and on one occasion, by mobilizing her forces, had undoubtedly stopped German aggressive action which had been planned against Austria, embarked on her Abyssinian adventure. This and the re-occupation of the Rhineland in 1936 completely upset the balance in Europe. It is quite obvious that after Italy had launched her Abyssinian adventure, she was no longer in any position to counter German aggressive moves against Austria.”

This weakening of Austria helped to pave the way for the pact of July 11, 1936. On July 11, 1936 the Governments of Austria and Germany concluded an accord. That will be offered in evidence also by the British Delegation.

I merely ask at this point, that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the fact that such an accord was entered into. The formal part of the agreement of July 11, 1936 will also be proved by our British colleagues. For convenient reference, it will be found in the Document which the British will offer, TC-22, and the substance of it is also contained on Pages 11 and 12 of Mr. Messersmith’s affidavit, 1760-PS.

Upon the basis of this fight alone, the agreement looked like a great triumph for Austria. It contains a confusing provision to the effect that Austria in her policy, especially with regard to Germany, would regard herself as a German state, but the other two provisions clearly state that Germany recognizes the full sovereignty of Austria and regards the inner political order of Austria, including the question of Austria and National Socialism, as an internal concern of Austria upon which Germany will exercise neither direct nor indirect influence. But there was much more substance to the day’s events than appears in the text of the accord. I refer to Mr. Messersmith’s summary as set forth on Page 12 of his affidavit, 1760-PS, as follows:

“Even more important than the terms of the agreement published in the official communiqué, was the contemporaneous informal understanding, the most important provisions of which were that Austria would:

“(1) Appoint a number of individuals enjoying the Chancellor’s confidence but friendly to Germany, to positions in the Cabinet; (2) with the devised means to give the national opposition a role in the political life of Austria within the framework of the Patriotic Front; and (3) with amnesty for all Nazis, save those convicted of the most serious offenses.”

This amnesty was duly announced by the Austrian Government and thousands of Nazis were released, and the first penetration of Deutsch-National into the Austrian Government was accomplished by the appointment of Dr. Guido Schmidt as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Dr. Edmund Glaise-Horstenau as Minister without portfolio.

I now offer in evidence Document 2994-PS, which is an affidavit by Kurt von Schuschnigg, Foreign Chancellor of Austria, executed at Nuremberg, Germany, on 19 November 1945. I offer this as Exhibit USA-66. The defendants have received German translations of that evidence.

DR. LATERNSER: In the name of the accused, Seyss-Inquart, I wish to protest against the presentation of written evidence by the witness Von Schuschnigg for the following reasons: Today, when a resolution was announced, with respect to the use to be made of the written evidence of Mr. Messersmith, the Court was of the opinion that in a case of very great importance it might possibly take a different view of the matter. With respect to the Austrian conflict this is the case, since Schuschnigg is the most important witness, the witness who was affected at the time in his position as Federal Chancellor. In the case of such an important witness, the principle of direct evidence must be adhered to, in order that the Court be in a position to ascertain the actual truth in this case. The accused and his defense counsel would feel prejudiced in his rights granted by the Charter, should direct evidence be circumvented. I must, therefore, uphold my viewpoint since it can be assumed that the witness Von Schuschnigg will be able to confirm certain facts which are in favor of the accused Seyss-Inquart.

I therefore make the motion to the Court that the written evidence of the witness Von Schuschnigg be not admitted.

THE PRESIDENT: If you have finished, the Tribunal will hear Mr. Alderman.

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, at this point I am simply proposing to offer this affidavit for the purpose of showing the terms of the secret understanding between the German and Austrian Governments in connection with this accord. It is not for any purpose to incriminate the Defendant Seyss-Inquart that it is being offered at this point.

DR. LATERNSER: May I add to my motion that the witness, Von Schuschnigg, on 19 November 1945, was questioned in Nuremberg, and that if an interrogation on 19 November was possible, then a short time later—that is now—it ought to be possible to call him before the Court, especially as the interrogation before this court is of special importance.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess now to consider this question.

[_A recess was taken._]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has considered the objection to the affidavit of Von Schuschnigg and upholds the objection.

If the Prosecution desires to call Von Schuschnigg as a witness, it can apply to do so. Equally if the Defense wishes to call Von Schuschnigg as a witness, it can apply to do so. In the event Von Schuschnigg is not able to be produced, the question of affidavit-evidence by Von Schuschnigg being given will be reconsidered.

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, in view of the strategy and tactics of the Nazis’ concessions as indicated in the portion of the Messersmith affidavit that I read, substantial concessions were made by Austria to obtain Germany’s diplomatic formal assurance of Austrian independence and non-intervention in Austrian internal affairs.

The release of imprisoned Nazis presented potential police problems, and as Mr. Messersmith pointed out in a 1934 dispatch to the United States State Department quoted on Pages 12 to 13 of his affidavit:

“Any prospect that the National Socialists might come to power would make it more difficult to obtain effective police and judicial action against the Nazis for fear of reprisals by the future Nazi Government against those taking action against Nazis even in the line of duty. The preservation of internal peace in Austria was less dependent upon Germany’s living up to her obligations under the accord.”

Next, Germany’s continuing program of weakening the Austrian Government. In the pact of 11 July 1936 Germany agreed not to influence directly or indirectly the internal affairs of Austria, including the matter of Austrian National Socialism.

On 16 July 1936, just 5 days later, Hitler violated that provision. I quote from Document 812-PS, which is Exhibit USA-61, the reports of Gauleiter Rainer to Commissioner Bürckel, all of which were forwarded to the Defendant Seyss-Inquart—Page 6 of the English, and I believe, also Page 6 of the German version.

“At that time the Führer wished to see the leaders of the Party in Austria in order to tell them his opinion on what Austrian National Socialists should do. Meanwhile Hinterleitner was arrested, and Dr. Rainer became his successor and leader of the Austrian Party. On 16 July 1936 Doctor Rainer and Globocnik visited the Führer at the Obersalzberg where they received a clear explanation of the situation and the wishes of the Führer. On 17 July 1936 all illegal Gauleiter met in Anif near Salzburg, where they received a complete report from Rainer on the statement of the Führer and his political instructions for carrying out the fight. At this same conference the Gauleiter received organizational instructions from Globocnik and Hiedler.”

Then skipping a paragraph I quote further from this report—in the English that paragraph which I am skipping is omitted, so I am skipping a paragraph in the German version:

“Upon the proposal of Globocnik, the Führer named Lieutenant General”—Gruppenführer—“Keppler as chief of the mixed commission which was appointed, in accordance with the State Treaty of 11 July 1936, to supervise the correct execution of the agreement. At the same time Keppler was given full authority by the Führer for the Party in Austria. After Keppler was unsuccessful in his efforts to cooperate with Leopold, he worked together with Doctor Rainer, Globocnik, Reinthaler as leader of the peasants, Kaltenbrunner”—that is the Defendant Kaltenbrunner in this case—“as leader of the SS, and Doctor Jury as deputy leader of the Austrian Party, as well as with Glaise-Horstenau and Seyss-Inquart.”

A new strategy was developed for the Austrian Nazis. Mr. Messersmith describes it briefly, and I quote from Page 13 of his affidavit, 1760-PS:

“The sequel of the agreement was the only one which could have been expected in view of all the facts and previous recorded happenings. Active Nazi operations in Austria were resumed under the leadership of a certain Captain Leopold who, as was known definitely, was in frequent touch with Hitler. The Nazi program was now to form an organization through which the Nazis could carry on their operations openly and with legal sanction in Austria. There were formed in Austria several organizations which had a legal basis, but which were simply a device by which the Nazis in Austria could organize and later seek inclusion as a unit in the Patriotic Front. The most important of these was the Union of the East Mark,”—Ostmärkische Verein—“the sponsor of which was the Minister of the Interior Glaise-Horstenau. Through the influence of Glaise-Horstenau and pro-Nazi Neustädter-Stürmer, this organization was declared legal by the courts. I made specific mention of the foregoing because it shows the degree to which the situation in Austria had disintegrated as a result of the underground and open Nazi activities directed from Germany.”

At this point I offer in evidence Document 2246-PS as Exhibit USA-67, a captured German document which is a report from Von Papen to Hitler dated September 1, 1936. This document is most interesting because it indicates Von Papen’s strategy after July 11, 1936 for destroying Austria’s independence. Von Papen had taken a substantial step forward with the agreement of July 11. It should be noted incidentally, that after that agreement he was promoted from Minister to Ambassador. Now his tactics were developed in the following terms—I quote the last three paragraphs of his letter of September 1, 1936 to the Führer and Reich Chancellor. Those three paragraphs are all joined as one paragraph in the English text:

“The progress of normalizing relations with Germany at the present time is obstructed by the continued persistence of the Ministry of Security, occupied by the old anti National Socialistic officials. Changes in personnel are therefore of utmost importance. But they are definitely not to be expected prior to the conference on the abolishing of the control of finances at Geneva. The Chancellor of the League has informed Minister Von Glaise-Horstenau of his intention to offer him the portfolio of the Ministry of the Interior. As a guiding principle”—Marschroute (a German word meaning the route of march)—“I recommend on the tactical side, continued, patient, psychological treatment, with slowly intensified pressure directed at changing the regime. The proposed conference on economic relations, taking place at the end of October, will be a very useful tool for the realization of some of our projects. In discussion with Government officials as well as with leaders of the illegal Party (Leopold and Schattenfroh) who conform completely with the agreement of 11 July I am trying to direct the next developments in such a manner to aim at corporative representation of the movement in the Fatherland Front, but nevertheless refraining from putting National Socialists in important positions for the time being. However, such positions are to be occupied only by personalities having the support and the confidence of the movement. I have a willing collaborator in this respect in Minister Glaise-Horstenau.”—Signature—“Papen.”

To recapitulate, this report by Von Papen to Hitler discloses the following plan:

(a) Obtaining a change in personnel in the Austrian Ministry of Security in due course;

(b) Obtaining corporative representation of the Nazi movement in the Fatherland Front;

(c) Not putting avowed National Socialists in important positions yet, but using nationalist personalities;

(d) Using economic pressure and patient psychological treatment with slowly intensified pressure directed at changing the regime.

My next subject is Germany’s diplomatic preparations for the conquest of Austria.

The program of the Nazi conspiracy with respect to Austria consisted of weakening that country externally and internally by removing its support from without, as well as by penetrating within. This program was of the utmost significance, especially since, as the Court will remember, the events of 25 July 1934 inside Austria were overshadowed in the news of the day by the fact that Mussolini had brought his troops to the Brenner Pass and posed there as a strong protector of his northern neighbor, Austria.

Accordingly, interference in the affairs of Austria and steady increase in the pressure needed to acquire control over that country, required removal of the possibility that Italy or any other country would come to its aid. But the foreign policy program of the conspiracy for the weakening and isolation of Austria was integrated with their foreign policy program in Europe generally.

I should like, therefore, at this juncture, to digress for a moment from the presentation of evidence bearing on Austria alone and to consider with the Tribunal the general foreign policy program of the Nazis. It is not my intention to examine this subject in any detail. Historians and scholars exhausting the archives will have many years of probing all the details and ramifications of European diplomacy during this fateful decade.

It is instead my purpose to mention very briefly the highlights of the Nazis’ diplomatic preparation for war.

In this connection I should like to offer to the Tribunal Document Number 2385-PS, a second affidavit of George S. Messersmith executed on 30 August 1945 at Mexico City. This has been made available to the defendants in German, as well as in English.

This is a different affidavit from Document Number 1760-PS which was executed August 28. This second affidavit, which I offer as Exhibit USA-68, consists of a presentation of the diplomatic portion of the program of the Nazi Party. To a considerable extent it merely states facts of common knowledge, facts that many people who are generally well informed already know. It also gives us facts which are common knowledge in the circle of diplomats or of students of foreign affairs. It consists of some 11 mimeographed pages, single-spaced. I read first from the third paragraph in the affidavit:

“As early as 1933, while I served in Germany, the German and Nazi contacts which I had in the highest and secondary categories openly acknowledged Germany’s ambitions to dominate southeastern Europe from Czechoslovakia down to Turkey. As they freely stated, the objective was territorial expansion in the case of Austria and Czechoslovakia. The professed objectives in the earlier stages of the Nazi regime, in the remainder of southeastern Europe, were political and economic control and they did not, at that time, speak so definitely of actual absorption and destruction of sovereignty. Their ambitions, however, were not limited to southeastern Europe. From the very beginnings of 1933, and even before the Nazis came into power, important Nazis speaking of the Ukraine freely said that ‘it must be our granary’ and that ‘even with southeastern Europe under our control, Germany needs and must have the greater part of the Ukraine in order to be able to feed the people of greater Germany.’ After I left Germany in the middle of 1934 for my post in Austria, I continued to receive information as to the German designs in southeastern Europe. In a conversation with Von Papen shortly after his appointment as German Minister to Austria in 1934, Von Papen frankly stated to me that ‘southeastern Europe to Turkey is Germany’s hinterland and I have been designated to carry through the task of bringing it within the fold. Austria is first on the program.’

“As I learned through my diplomatic colleagues, Von Papen in Vienna and his colleague Von Mackensen in Budapest were openly propagating the idea of the dismemberment and final absorption of Czechoslovakia as early as 1935.”

Then, skipping a short paragraph, I resume:

“Immediately after the Nazis came into power, they started a vast rearmament program. This was one of the primary immediate objectives of the Nazi regime. As a matter of fact the two immediate objectives of the Nazi regime when it came into power, had to be and were, according to their own statements frequently made to me: First, to bring about the complete and absolute establishment of their power over Germany and the German people, so that they would become in every respect willing and capable instruments of the regime to carry through its ends; Second, the establishment of a tremendous armed power within Germany in order that the political and economic program in southeastern Europe and in Europe could be carried through by force if necessary, but probably by a threat of force. It was characteristic that in carrying through this second aim, they emphasized from the very outset the building of an overpowering air force. Göring and Milch often said to me or in my presence that the Nazis had decided to concentrate on air power as the weapon of terror most likely to give Germany a dominant position and the weapon which could be developed the most rapidly and in the shortest time.”

Skipping to the end of that paragraph, and resuming at the next:

“At the same time that this rearmament was in progress, the Nazi regime took all possible measures to prepare the German people for war in the psychological sense. Throughout Germany, for example, one saw everywhere German youth of all ages engaged in military exercises, drilling, field maneuvers, practicing the throwing of hand grenades, et cetera. In this connection I wrote in an official communication in November 1933, from Berlin as follows:

“‘ . . . Everything that is being done in the country today has for its object to make the people believe that Germany is being threatened vitally in every aspect of its life by outside influences and by other countries. Everything is being done to use this feeling to stimulate military training and exercises, and innumerable measures are being taken to develop the German people into a hardy, sturdy race which will be able to meet all comers. The military spirit is constantly growing. It cannot be otherwise. The leaders of Germany today have no desire for peace unless it is a peace which the world makes at the expense of complete compliance with German desires and ambitions. Hitler and his associates really and sincerely want peace for the moment, but only to have a chance to get ready to use force if it is found finally essential. They are preparing their way so carefully that there is not in my mind any question but that the German people will be with them when they want to use force and when they feel that they have the necessary means to carry through their objects. . . .’”

One further sentence following that I quote:

“Military preparation and psychological preparation were coupled with diplomatic preparation designed so to disunite and isolate their intended victims as to render them defenseless against German aggression.”

In 1933 the difficulties facing Germany in the political and diplomatic field loomed large. France was the dominant military power on the continent. She had a system of mutual assistance in the West and in the East.

“The Locarno Pact of 1928, supplemented by the Franco-Belgian Alliance, guaranteed the territorial _status quo_ in the West. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Romania were allied in the Little Entente and each, in turn, was united with France by mutual assistance pacts. Since 1922 France and Poland had likewise been allied against external aggression. Italy had made plain her special interest in Austrian independence.”

Nazi Germany launched a vigorous diplomatic campaign to break up the existing alliances and understandings, to create divisions among the members of the Little Entente and the other eastern European powers.

Specifically, Nazi Germany countered these alliances with promises of economic gain for cooperating with Germany. To some of these countries she offered extravagant promises of territorial and economic rewards. She offered Carinthia in Austria to Yugoslavia. She offered part of Czechoslovakia to Hungary and part to Poland. She offered Yugoslav territory to Hungary at the same time that she was offering land in Hungary to Yugoslavia.

As Mr. Messersmith states in his affidavit—that is 2385-PS, on Page 5:

“Austria and Czechoslovakia were the first on the German program of aggression. As early as 1934, Germany began to woo neighbors of these countries with the promises of a share in the loot. To Yugoslavia in particular they offered Carinthia. Concerning the Yugoslav reaction, I reported at the time:

“‘The major factor in the internal situation in the last week has been the increase in tension with respect to the Austrian Nazi refugees in Yugoslavia. . . . There is very little doubt but that Göring, when he made his trip to various capitals in southeastern Europe about 6 months ago, told the Yugoslavs that they would get a part of Carinthia when a National Socialist Government came into power in Austria. . . . The Nazi seed sown in Yugoslavia had been sufficient to cause trouble and there are undoubtedly a good many people there who look with a great deal of benevolence on those Nazi refugees who went to Yugoslavia in the days following July 25.’

“Germany made like promises of territorial gains to Hungary and to Poland in order to gain their cooperation or at least their acquiescence in the proposed dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. As I learned from my diplomatic colleagues in Vienna, Von Papen and Von Mackensen in Vienna and in Budapest in 1935 were spreading the idea of division of Czechoslovakia, in which division Germany was to get Bohemia, Hungary to get Slovakia, and Poland the rest. This did not deceive any of these countries for they knew that the intention of Nazi Germany was to take all.

“The Nazi German Government did not hesitate to make inconsistent promises when it suited its immediate objective. I recall the Yugoslav Minister in Vienna saying to me in 1934 or 1935 that Germany had made promises to Hungary of Yugoslav territory while at the same time promising to Yugoslavs portions of Hungarian territory. The Hungarian Minister in Vienna later gave me the same information.

“I should emphasize here in this statement that the men who made these promises were not only the ‘dyed in the wool’ Nazis but more conservative Germans who already had begun willingly to lend themselves to the Nazi program. In an official dispatch to the Department of State from Vienna dated October 10, 1935, I wrote as follows:

“‘Europe will not get away from the myth that Neurath, Papen, and Mackensen are not dangerous people and that they are “diplomats of the old school.” They are in fact servile instruments of the regime and just because the outside world looks upon them as harmless, they are able to work more effectively. They are able to sow discord just because they propagate the myth that they are not in sympathy with the regime.’”

I find that last paragraph very important and worthy of emphasis. In other words, Nazi Germany was able to promote these divisions and increase its own aggressive strength by using as its agents in making these promises men who on outward appearances were merely conservative diplomats. It is true that the Nazis openly scoffed at any notion of international obligations, as I shall show in a moment. It is true that the real trump in Germany’s hand was its rearmament and more than that, its willingness to go to war. And yet the attitude of the various countries was not influenced by those considerations alone.

With all those countries, and I suppose with all persons, we are not always completely rational, we tend to believe what we want to believe, and if an apparently substantial and conservative person like the Defendant Von Neurath, for example, is saying these things, one might be apt to believe them, or at least to act upon that hypothesis. And it would be the more impressive if one were also under the impression that the person involved was not a Nazi and would not stoop to go along with the designs of the Nazis.

Germany’s approach toward Great Britain and France was in terms of limited expansion as the price of peace. They signed a naval limitations treaty with England and discussed a Locarno air pact. In the case of both France and England, they limited their statement of intentions and harped on fears of communism and war.

In making these various promises, Germany was untroubled by notions of the sanctity of international obligations. High ranking Nazis, including Göring, Frick, and Frank, openly stated to Mr. Messersmith that Germany would observe her international undertakings only so long as it suited Germany’s interest to do so.

I quote from the affidavit, Document 2385-PS, Page 4, beginning on the 10th line:

“High ranking Nazis with whom I had to maintain official contact, particularly men such as Göring, Goebbels, Ley, Frick, Frank, Darré, and others, repeatedly scoffed at my position as to the binding character of treaties and openly stated to me that Germany would observe her international undertakings only so long as it suited Germany’s interest to do so. Although these statements were openly made to me as they were, I am sure, made to others, these Nazi leaders were not really disclosing any secret, for on many occasions they expressed the same idea publicly.”

France and Italy worked actively in southeastern Europe to counter Germany’s moves.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to adjourn?

MR. ALDERMAN: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 29 November 1945 at 1000 hours._]

EIGHTH DAY Thursday, 29 November 1945

_Morning Session_

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal. Before I resume the consideration of Mr. Messersmith’s second affidavit, Document 2385-PS, Exhibit USA-68, I should like to consider briefly the status of the proof before this Tribunal of the matter stated in the first Messersmith affidavit, introduced by the United States, Document 1760-PS, Exhibit USA-57. You will recall that Mr. Messersmith in that affidavit made the following general statements:

First, that although Nazi Germany stated that she would respect the independence of Austria, in fact she intended from the very beginning to conclude an Anschluss, and that Defendant Von Papen was working toward that end.

Second, that although Nazi Germany pretended, on the surface, to have nothing to do with the Austrian Nazis, in fact she kept up contact with them and gave them support and instruction.

Third, that while they were getting ready for their eventual use of force in Austria, if necessary, the Nazis were using quiet infiltrating tactics to weaken Austria internally, through the use of Christian-front personalities who were not flagrantly Nazi and could be called what they referred to as Nationalist Opposition, and through the device of developing new names for Nazi organizations, so that they could be brought into the Fatherland Front of Austria corporatively—that is as an entire group.

Now let us see briefly what some of our German documents proved, in support of these general statements in the Messersmith affidavit. The excerpts I have already read out of the report from Rainer to Bürckel, enclosed in the letter to Seyss-Inquart, Document 812-PS, Exhibit USA-61, showed:

First, that the Austrian Nazi groups kept up contacts with the Reich although they did it secretly in accordance with instructions from the Führer.

Second, that they continued their organization on a secret basis so as to be ready in what they referred to as an emergency.

Third, that they used persons like Seyss-Inquart and Glaise-Horstenau, who had what they called good legal positions, but who could be trusted by the Nazis; and that 5 days after the Pact of July 11, 1936 between Germany and Austria, a pact which specifically pledged the German Government not to interfere either directly or indirectly in the internal affairs of Austria, including the question of Austrian National Socialism, the Austrian Nazis met with Hitler at Obersalzberg and received new instructions; and finally, that Hitler then used Keppler, whose name we shall again meet in a short while in a significant manner as his “contact man” with the Austrian Nazis, with full authority to act for the Führer in Austria and to work with the leaders of the Austrian Nazis.

Then we offered Document 2247-PS, Exhibit USA-64, Von Papen’s letter to Hitler of May 17, 1935 that showed that Von Papen had been in contact with Captain Leopold and it showed how Von Papen got Hitler to make a solemn promise of Austria’s independence in order to further Papen’s internal political gain in Austria.

Then we offered Document 2248-PS, Exhibit USA-63, Von Papen’s letter of July 27, 1935, which reviewed the situation 1 year after Dollfuss’ death, and pointed out how National Socialism could be made the link for the Anschluss and how National Socialism could overcome the Austrian ideologies, and in which he identified himself completely with the National Socialist goal.

We offered Document 2246-PS, Exhibit USA-67, Von Papen’s letter to Hitler of September 1, 1936, which showed how Von Papen advised using both economic and continuing psychological pressure; that he had conferences with the leaders of the illegal Austrian Party; that he was trying to direct the next developments in such a way as to get corporative representation of the Nazi movement in the Fatherland Front, and that meanwhile he was not ready to urge that avowed National Socialists be put in prominent positions, but was quite satisfied with collaborators like Glaise-Horstenau.

I think that practically all of the statements in Mr. Messersmith’s affidavits have been fully supported by these documents, German documents, which we have introduced. Certain parts of the affidavits cannot be corroborated by documents, in the very nature of things, and I refer specifically to Mr. Messersmith’s conversation with the Defendant Von Papen in 1934, which I read to the Tribunal yesterday. But I think those matters are manifestly just as true and just as clear of the defendant’s guilt and complicity.

Yesterday I was reading to the Tribunal selected excerpts from Mr. Messersmith’s second affidavit, 2385-PS, Exhibit USA-68, relating to the diplomatic preparations for war. Prior to adjournment, I had read to the Tribunal excerpts which established the following propositions:

First, Nazi Germany undertook a vigorous campaign to break up the diplomatic agreements existing in 1933; first—in the West the Locarno Pact supplemented by the French-Belgium Agreement; second—in the East the Little Entente, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, and their respective mutual assistance pacts with France, and the French-Polish Pact; third—as for Austria, the special concern of Italy for her independence, that is for Austrian independence.

In the second place, Nazi Germany countered these alliances with extravagant and sometimes inconsistent promises of territorial gain to countries in southeastern Europe, Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland.

In the third place, Mr. Messersmith wrote an official communication to the State Department, pointing out that persons like Von Neurath and Von Papen were able to work more effectively in making these promises and in doing their other work, just because they, and I quote: “propagated the myth that they are not in sympathy with the regime.”

In the fourth place, in fact, high-ranking Nazis openly stated that Germany would honor her international obligations only so long as it suited her to do so.

There are two more excerpts which I wish to read from this affidavit:

France and Italy worked actively in southeastern Europe to counter German moves, as I said yesterday. France made attempts to promote an east Locarno pact and to foster an economic accord between Austria and the other Danubian powers. Italy’s effort was to organize an economic bloc of Austria, Hungary, and Italy. But Germany foiled these efforts by redoubling her promises of loot, by continuing her armament, and by another very significant strategy, that is the Fifth-Column strategy; that the Nazis stirred up internal dissensions within neighboring countries to disunite and weaken their intended victims.

I read now from Page 7 of the English copy of the second Messersmith affidavit, Document 2385-PS, Exhibit USA-68, the paragraph beginning in the middle of the page:

“At the same time that Germany held out such promises of reward for cooperation in her program, she stirred up internal dissensions within these countries themselves, and in Austria and Czechoslovakia in particular, all of which was designed so to weaken all opposition and strengthen the pro-Nazi and Fascist groups as to insure peaceful acquiescence in the German program. Her machinations in Austria I have related in detail, as they came under my direct observation, in a separate affidavit. In Czechoslovakia they followed the same tactics with the Sudeten Germans. I was reliably informed that the Nazi Party spent over 6,000,000 marks in financing the Henlein Party in the elections in the spring of 1935 alone. In Yugoslavia she played on the old differences between the Croats and the Serbs and the fear of the restoration of the Hapsburg in Austria. It may be remarked here that this latter was one of the principal instruments, and a most effective one, which Nazi Germany used, as the fear in Yugoslavia in particular of a restoration of the Hapsburg was very real. In Hungary she played upon the agrarian difficulties and at the same time so openly encouraged the Nazi German elements in Hungary as to provoke the Government of Hungary to demand the recall of Von Mackensen in 1936. In Hungary and in Poland she played on the fear of communism and communist Russia. In Romania she aggravated the existing anti-Semitism, emphasizing the important role of the Jews in Romanian industry and the Jewish ancestry of Lupescu. Germany undoubtedly also financed the fascist Iron Guard through Codreanou.

“Such ‘diplomatic’ measures reinforced by Germany’s vast rearmament program had a considerable effect, particularly in Yugoslavia, Poland, and Hungary, and sufficient at least to deter these countries from joining any combination opposed to German designs, even if not enough to persuade them actively to ally themselves with Nazi Germany.

“Important political leaders of Yugoslavia began to become convinced that the Nazi regime would remain in power and would gain its ends, and that the course of safety for Yugoslavia was to play along with Germany.”

I shall not take the time of the Tribunal to read into evidence the detailed official dispatches which Mr. Messersmith sent to the American State Department, showing that Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland were beginning to follow the German line.

As for Italy, Germany’s initial objective was to sow discord between Yugoslavia and Italy, by promising Yugoslavia Italian territory, particularly Trieste. This was to prevent France from reaching agreement with them and to block an east Locarno pact. On that I quote again from Document 2385-PS, Exhibit USA-68, the second Messersmith affidavit, in the middle of Page 21 of the English version:

“While Italy openly opposed efforts at Anschluss with Austria in 1934, Italian ambitions in Abyssinia provided Germany with the opportunity to sow discord between Italy and France and England, and to win Italy over to acceptance of Germany’s program in exchange for German support of Italy’s plans in Abyssinia.”

That, if the Tribunal please, paved the way for the Austro-German Declaration or Pact of 11 July 1936; and in the fall of 1936 Germany extended the hand of friendship and common purpose to Italy, in an alliance which they called the “Rome-Berlin Axis.” This, together with Germany’s alliance with Japan, put increasing pressure on England and greatly increased the relative strength of Germany.

And so by means of careful preparation in the diplomatic field, among others, the Nazi conspirators had woven a position for themselves, so that they could seriously consider plans for war and begin to outline time tables, not binding time tables and not specific ones in terms of months and days, but still general time tables, in terms of years, which were the necessary foundation for further aggressive planning, and a spur to more specific planning. And that time table was developed, as the Tribunal has already seen, in the conference of 5 November 1937, contained in our Document Number 386-PS, Exhibit USA-25, the Hossbach minutes of that conference, which I adverted to in detail on Monday last.

In those minutes, we see the crystallization of the plan to wage aggressive war in Europe, and to seize both Austria and Czechoslovakia, and in that order.

In connection with the exposition of the aggression on Austria, I have shown first the purpose of the Nazi conspiracy, with respect to the absorption of Austria, and then the steps taken by them in Austria up to this period, that is, November 1937.

I have also outlined for the Tribunal the general diplomatic preparations of the Nazi conspirators, with respect to their program in Europe generally, and with respect to Austria in particular.

It may now be profitable to reconsider the minutes of the meeting of 5 November 1937, in the light of this more-detailed background. It will be recalled that in that meeting, the Führer insisted that Germany must have more space in Europe. He concluded that the space required must be taken by force; and three different possible cases were outlined for different eventualities but all reaching the conclusion that the problem would certainly have to be solved before 1943 to 1945.

Then there was envisaged the nature of a war in the near future, specifically against Austria and Czechoslovakia. Hitler said that for the improvement of Germany’s military and political positions, it must be the first aim of the Nazis, in every case of entanglement by war, to conquer Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously in order to remove any threat from the flanks in case of a possible advance westward.

Hitler then considered that the embodiment into Germany of Czechoslovakia and Austria would constitute the conquest of food for from 5 to 6 million people, including the assumption that the comprehensive forced emigration of 1 million people from Austria could be carried out. And he further pointed out that the annexation of the two States to Germany, both militarily and politically, would constitute a considerable relief since they would provide shorter and better frontiers, would free fighting personnel for other purposes, and would make possible the reconstitution of large new German armies.

Insofar as Austria is concerned, those minutes reveal a crystallization in the policy of the Nazi conspirators. It had always been their aim to acquire Austria. At the outset a revolutionary Putsch was attempted, but that failed. The next period was one of surface recognition of the independence of Austria and the use of devious means to strengthen the position of Nazis internally in Austria.

Now, however, it became clear that the need, or the greed, for Austria, in the light of the larger aggressive purpose of the Nazi conspirators was sufficiently great to warrant the use of force in order to obtain Austria with the speed that was designed. In fact, as we shall see later, the Nazis were actually able to secure Austria, after having weakened it internally and removed from it the support of other nations, merely by setting the German military machine into motion and making a threat of force.

The German armies were able to cross the border and secure the country without the necessity of firing a shot. Their careful planning for war and their readiness to use war as an instrument of political action made it possible, in the end, for them to pluck this plum without having to fight a blow for it.

The German High Command had, of course, previously considered preparation against Austria.

I offer in evidence another German document, C-175, as Exhibit USA-69. It, again, is “top secret”, with the added legend in German: “Chefsache nur durch Offizier” (matter for the chief only to be delivered through an officer).

This was a top-secret directive of 24 June 1937 of the Reichsminister for War and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, General Von Blomberg. The importance of this top-secret directive is indicated by the fact that the carbon copy, received by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, was one of only four copies establishing the directive for a unified preparation for war of all the Armed Forces.

This directive from General Von Blomberg states that although the political situation indicates that Germany need not consider an attack from any side it also states that Germany does not intend to unleash a European war. It then states in Part 1, and I quote from Page 2 of the English text, which, I believe, is Page 4, third paragraph, of the German text:

“The intention to unleash a European war is held just as little by Germany. Nevertheless, the politically fluid world situation, which does not preclude surprising incidents, demands a continued preparedness for war by the German Armed Forces: (a) To counter attacks at any time; (b) To enable the military exploitation of politically favorable opportunities, should they occur.”

The directive then indicates that there will be certain preparations for war of a general nature. I quote the first two portions of Paragraph 2, on Page 2 of the English text, and I think Page 5 of the German text:

“(2) The preparations of a general nature include:

“(a) The permanent preparedness for mobilization of the German Armed Forces, even before the completion of rearmament, and full preparedness for war.

“(b) The further working on ‘mobilization without public announcement’ in order to put the Armed Forces in a position to begin a war suddenly and by surprise, both as regards strength and time.”

And the directive finally indicates that there might be special preparations for war against Austria. I quote from Part 3, (1) Special Case Otto, Page 4 of the English text, and Page 19 of the German text. “Case Otto”, as you will repeatedly see, was the standing code name for aggressive war against Austria. I quote:

“Armed intervention in Austria in the event of her restoring the monarchy.

“The object of this operation will be to compel Austria by armed force to give up a restoration.

“Making use of the domestic political divisions of the Austrian people, the march in will be made in the general direction of Vienna, and will break any resistance.”

I should now like to call attention to two conversations, held by United States Ambassador Bullitt with the Defendants Schacht and Göring, in November 1937.

PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): I should like to state my objection to the manner in which Document C-175 has been treated. This document is a study made by the General Staff, which was conceived to meet many different eventualities of war. It even mentions the possibility that Germany might have to go to war with Spain, and might have to carry out a military attack on her.

Only part of this document was read, the part relating to Austria; and thus the impression was given that a plan had been made to march against Austria, whereas it actually says the German Reich had no intention to attack at that time, but was merely preparing for all eventualities.

I should like to request that the reading of this document be supplemented by reading at least the headings of the paragraphs of this document. If these paragraphs of the document are placed before the Court, it will be seen that this was not a plan to march against Austria, but simply a document preparing for all eventualities.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, your objection does not appear to be to the admissibility of the document, but to the weight of the document. The Tribunal has already informed defendants’ counsel that they will have an opportunity at the appropriate time, when they come to prepare their defense, to refer to any documents, parts of which have been put in by the Prosecution, and to read such parts as they think necessary then, and to make what criticism they think necessary then.

Your objection is therefore premature, because it does not go to the admissibility of the document. It simply indicates a wish that more of it should be read. You will have the opportunity later to read any parts of the documents which you wish.

MR. ALDERMAN: I suppose, if the Tribunal please, that the fundamental basis of the objection just stated by the distinguished counsel, must have been his theory that Germany never made any plans to invade Austria, and if so, it would seem to follow that Germany never invaded Austria, and perhaps history is mistaken.

I had adverted to two conversations, held by United States Ambassador Bullitt with the Defendant Schacht and the Defendant Göring, in November 1937.

For this purpose, I offer in evidence our Document L-151, offered as Exhibit USA-70. It is a dispatch from Mr. Bullitt, American Ambassador in Paris, to the American Secretary of State on 23 November 1937.

Now, again, if the Tribunal please, we are embarrassed because that document is not in the document book before the members of the Tribunal. It has been furnished in German translation to the Defense Counsel.

If the Tribunal will permit, I will read from the original exhibit. On top is a letter from Ambassador Bullitt to the Secretary of State, November 23, 1937, stating that he visited Warsaw, stopped in Berlin en route, where he had conversations with Schacht and Göring, among others.

On the conversation with Schacht, I read from Page 2 of the report:

“Schacht said that in his opinion, the best way to begin to deal with Hitler was not through political discussion but through economic discussion. Hitler was not in the least interested in economic matters. He regarded money as filth. It was therefore possible to enter into negotiations with him in the economic domain without arousing his emotional antipathy, and it might be possible through the conversations thus begun to lead him into arrangements in the political and military field, in which he was intensely interested. Hitler was determined to have Austria eventually attached to Germany, and to obtain at least autonomy for the Germans of Bohemia. At the present moment he was not vitally concerned about the Polish Corridor and in his”—that is Schacht’s—“opinion, it might be possible to maintain the Corridor, provided Danzig were permitted to join East Prussia, and provided some sort of a bridge could be built across the Corridor, uniting Danzig and East Prussia with Germany.”

And for the Defendant Göring’s statements to Ambassador Bullitt, I read from the second memorandum, “Memorandum of Conversation between Ambassador Bullitt and General Hermann Göring,” on Page 2 of that document, following a part of a sentence which is underlined, just below the middle of the page:

“The sole source of friction between Germany and France was the refusal of France to permit Germany to achieve certain vital national necessities.

“If France, instead of accepting collaboration with Germany, should continue to follow a policy of building up alliances in Eastern Europe to prevent Germany from the achievement of her legitimate aims, it was obvious that there would be conflict between France and Germany.

“I asked Göring what aims especially he had in mind. He replied:

“‘We are determined to join to the German Reich all Germans who are contiguous to the Reich and are divided from the great body of the German race merely by the artificial barriers imposed by the Treaty of Versailles.’

“I asked Göring if he meant that Germany was absolutely determined to annex Austria to the Reich. He replied that this was an absolute determination of the German Government. The German Government, at the present time, was not pressing this matter because of certain momentary political considerations, especially in their relations with Italy. But Germany would tolerate no solution of the Austrian question other than the consolidation of Austria in the German Reich.

“He then added a statement which went further than any I have heard on this subject. He said:

“‘There are schemes being pushed now for a union of Austria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, either with or without a Hapsburg at the head of the union. Such a solution is absolutely unacceptable to us, and for us the conclusion of such an agreement would be an immediate _casus belli_.’ Göring used the Latin expression _casus belli_; it is not a translation from the German, in which that conversation was carried on.

“I asked Göring if the German Government was as decided in its views with regard to the Germans in Bohemia, as it was with regard to Austria. He replied that there could be only one final solution of this question. The Sudeten Germans must enter the German Reich as all other Germans who lived contiguous to the Reich.”

These, if the Tribunal please, are official reports made by the accredited representative of the United States in the regular course of business. They carry with them the guarantee of truthfulness of a report made by a responsible official to his own government, recording contemporaneous conversations and events.

My next subject is pressure and threats resulting in further concessions by Austria: a meeting at Berchtesgaden, 12 February 1938.

As I have stated before, the Austrian Government was laboring under great difficulties imposed by its neighbor. There was economic pressure, including the curtailment of the important tourist trade; and there was what the Defendant Von Papen called “slowly intensified psychological pressure.” There were increasing demonstrations, plots, and conspiracies. Demands were being presented by Captain Leopold and approval of the Nazis was being espoused by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, the new Councillor of the State of Austria. In this situation, Chancellor Schuschnigg decided to visit Hitler at Berchtesgaden.

The official communiqué of this conference is quite calm; I invite the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. It is Document 2461-PS, the official German communiqué of the meeting of Hitler and Schuschnigg at Obersalzberg, 12 February 1938, taken from the official _Dokumente der Deutschen Politik_, Volume 6, I, Page 124, Number 21-a.

The communiqué states that the unofficial meeting was caused by the mutual desire to clarify by personal conversation the questions relating to the relationship between the German Reich and Austria.

The communiqué lists among those present:

Schuschnigg and his Foreign Minister Schmidt, Hitler and his Foreign Minister Ribbentrop, and the Defendant Von Papen.

The communiqué concludes on a rather bright note saying, and I quote:

“Both statesmen are convinced that the measures taken by them constitute at the same time an effective contribution toward the peaceful development of the European situation.”

A similar communiqué was issued by the Austrian Government. But in fact, and as I think history well knows, the conference was a very unusual and a very harsh one. Great concessions were obtained by the German Government from Austria. The principal concessions are contained in the official Austrian communiqué of the reorganization of the Cabinet and the general political amnesty, dated 16 February 1938.

That communiqué, as taken from the _Dokumente der Deutschen Politik_,