dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You may rest assured, the Tribunal will correct me if I am wrong, that I put these paragraphs to Herr Schmidt and he agreed with them when he was giving evidence before this Tribunal. But now just look at one other statement at the end of Paragraph 6. Well, we'll just-we will read Paragraph 6, because I want to ask you about the end: "The re-entry of the German military forces into the Rhineland was preceded by Nazi diplomatic preparation in February. A German communiqué of 21 February 1936 reaffirmed that the Franco-Soviet Pact of mutual assistance was incompatible with the Locarno Treaties and the League Covenant. On the same day Hitler argued in an interview that no real grounds existed for conflict between Germany and France. Considered against the background statements in Mein Kampf, offensive to France, the circumstances were such as to suggest that the stage was being set for justifying some future act. I do not know how far in advance the march into the Rhineland was decided upon. I personally knew about it and discussed it approximately 2 or 3 weeks before it occurred. Considerable fear had been expressed, particularly in military circles, concerning the risk of this undertaking. Similar fears were felt by many in the Foreign Office. It was common knowledge in the Foreign Office, however, that Neurath was the only person in Government circles consulted by Hitler who felt confident that the Rhineland could be remilitarized without armed opposition from Britain and France. Neurath's position throughout this period was one which would induce Hitler to have more faith in Neurath than in the general run of 'old school' diplomats, whom he (Hitler) tended to hold in disrespect." Well, now, if this minor official, of whom you just talked, knew about and discussed the march into the Rhineland some 2 or 3 weeks before it occurred, how much before it occurred had you discussed it?
VOW NEURATH: Herr Schmidt must have been clairvoyant, for 2 or 3 weeks in advance even I did not know anything about it. I heard of it about 1 week before Hitler's decision, and if I-if it says here that I-that it was generally known in the Foreign Ministry that I was the only one in the Government circles consulted by Hitler who was confident that the Rhineland could be remilitarized without armed opposition from Britain and France, it certainly turned out that I was right.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You were right-but is it true that you were the only person in Government circles who thought that it could be occupied without interference by Britain and France? Is that true?
VON NEURATH: I am not in a position to say whether I was the only one, but at any rate, I was convinced of this on the basis of my knowledge of international conditions.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And so that at any rate, whatever the limitations of Paul Schmidt, he knew what your position was quite accurately. Was he not right about it in the last sentence, that your position throughout the period was one which would make Hitler look to you rather than to the rest, the other figures of pro-Nazi diplomacy and foreign affairs, because you were the person who was encouraging him? Is that not the position?
VON NEURATH: I did not encourage him in any way, but I described the situation to him as I saw it, and it was later proved that I had been right.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, I just want you to deal with one other point, which is really 1936, but we will deal with it as I have been dealing with Austria. You have said once or twice that you objected very strongly to the description of the Austrian treaty, the treaty between the Reich and Austria of the 11th of July as being a subterfuge or a facade. That is right; is it not? You objected very strongly to that view?
VON NEURATH: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you know that Hitler had given instructions to the Gauleiter of the Austrian NSDAP to carry on the struggle at the same time as the treaty was signed?
VON NEURATH: No, I do not know anything about that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let me remind you. I do not want to put anything that seems unfair. My Lord, it is Document Book 12, Page 97. [Turning to the defendant.] This is the report of Dr. Rainer, whom the Tribunal has had the advantage of seeing, and if you will look at the end of one paragraph he says: "The agreement of 11 July 1936 was strongly influenced by the activities of these two persons."-That is Defendant Seyss Inquart and Colonel Glaise-Xorstenau-"Papen mentioned Glaise-Horstenau to the Fuehrer as being a trusted person." Now the next paragraph: "At that time the Fuehrer wished to see the leaders of the Party . . ."
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you say 97 of Document Book 12?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did, My Lord, yes. Yes, My Lord; it is the third paragraph and begins, "At that time . . ."
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, I see it. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE If Your Lordship please: "At that time the Fuehrer wished to see the leaders of the Party in Austria, in order to tell them his opinion on what Austrian National Socialists should do." (Document Number 812-PS)
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid it was another "at that time" that we were looking at. Could you give us some other indication?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is in the middle.
THE PRESIDENT: It is on 98 in ours.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am so sorry, My Lord. The paging must be different. I beg Your Lordship's pardon. [Continuing.] "At that time the Fuehrer wished to see the leaders of the Party in Austria in order to tell them his opinion on what Austria National Socialists should do. Meanwhile Hinterleitner was arrested, and Dr. Rainer became his successor..." Mind you, this is the man who is making this statement. ". . . successor and leader of the Austrian Party. On 16 July 1936 Dr. Rainer and Globocznik visited the Fuehrer at the Obersalzberg, where they received a clear explanation of the situation and the wishes of the Fuehrer. 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 Fuehrer and his political instructions for carrying out the fight. At the same conference the Gauleiter received organizational instructions from Globocznik and Hiedler." Did you not know-did Hitler not tell his Foreign Minister, who had just supervised the conclusion of this treaty, that he intended to give the illegal Gauleiter instructions as to how to carry on the fight? Didn't he tell you that?
VON NEURATH: No, he did not tell me that, but I do remember-I believe it was the same Dr. Rainer who appeared here as a witness-who stated that Hitler summoned him and other Gauleiter and told them that in the future they were to observe strictly the agreements of 1936. By the way, the matter that you just quoted is not mentioned at all in the document which was submitted to me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, that's not mentioned. What is mentioned is the political instructions for carrying out the fights and the organizational instructions from Globocznik. At any rate, you knew nothing about that?
VON NEURATH: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, it is rather difficult for you to judge whether the treaty is made sincerely if you do not know the instructions that are given to the illegal Party in Austria by Hitler, is it not?
VON NEURATH: Yes, naturally.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, just let's deal with one or two other points. I would just like you to look at what Mr. Messersmith says at the end of 1935. You remember this statement-I will give you the reference in a moment-that: ". . . 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." Now, can you tell us up to the date on which Mr. Messersmith wrote that-on October 10, 1935-of a single instruction of Hitler's that you had not carried out?
VON NEURATH: I did not quite understand. A single instruction . . . SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE My Lord, I am sorry; I mislaid the reference. It is Document Book 12, Page 107. That is the reference to it. [Turning to the defendant.] You see, Mr. Messersmith is there saying that you and the Defendant Von Papen and Von Mackensen are servile instruments of the regime. Now, I am just asking you whether you could tell us up to the date that Mr. Messersmith wrote, on 10 October 1935, any instruction of Hitler's that you had refused to carry out.
VON NEURATH: Not only one, but quite a few. I have testified as to the number of times I contradicted Hitler, and I have expressed myself about what Mr. Messersmith is assuming here again-about the importance of Mr. Messersmith's affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I put it this way: Up to October 10, 1935, what did you tell the Tribunal was the most serious thing that Hitler had ordered you to do and you had refused to carry out? What was the most serious-the one that mattered most?
VON NEURATH: Well on the spur of the moment, that is a question that I cannot answer. How should I know what the most serious question was which I opposed? I opposed all sorts of things.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you can't remember what you think is the most serious, I shan't trouble you with it any more, but I want...
VON NEURATH: Well, you are quite welcome to submit it to me, but don't produce an allegation out of a clear sky without giving me the chance to refute it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was asking you to tell us, but I will pass on to what another American diplomat put. I would like to ask you about Mr. Bullitt's report, with which I gather you agree. My Lord, that is L-150, and it is at Page 72 of the Document Book 12. My Lord, I hope that there is no difference, of the paging-72 of mine.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; it is 74.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it is 74. I am sorry, My Lord. [Turning to the defendant.] Now, it is the second paragraph there. After saying that he had a talk with you, he says: "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 that 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 at will, all those countries will begin to feel very differently about their foreign policies and a new constellation will develop . . ."' You agree you said that? '
VON NEURATH: Yes, yes, certainly. Yesterday or the day before I testified in detail about what that was supposed to mean. Moreover, it does not make any difference. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE I would like to see if you agree with the meaning I suggest. That is that as soon as you had-got your fortifications in sufficiently good order on your western frontier, you would proceed to try and secure an Anschluss with Austria and to get back the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia Isn't that what it means? '
VON NEURATH: No, no, not at all. That is quite clear in the document. What I meant by this and what I expressed was that these countries, particularly Czechoslovakia and France, would change their policy toward Germany, because they could no longer march through Germany so easily.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You appreciate, Defendant, what I am putting to you? I think I made it quite clear-that at the time that you were facing the Western Powers with the remilitarization of Germany and the Rhineland-that is in 1935 and 1936-you were then giving assurances to Austria, which Hitler did in May 1935, and you made this treaty in 1936. As soon as you had digested your first steps, you then turned against Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938. I am suggesting, you see, that you were talking the exact truth and prophesying with a Cassandra-like accuracy. That is what I am suggesting-that you knew very well that these intentions were there.
VON NEURATH: What?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say you didn't?
VON NEURATH: Not at all, not at all, not at all! That is an assumption on your part, for which there is absolutely no proof.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We win not argue it further because we will come on to just one other point before we proceed to 1937. You have told the Tribunal, not once but many times that you did not support the Nazi attitude toward the Christian churches, of oppressing the churches. That is I have understood you correctly, have I not?
VON NEURATH: Yes, indeed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, and you say that you resisted and actively intervened against the repression of the Church. Would you just look at Document 3758-PS. My Lord, that will become Exhibit GB-516. My Lord, Your Lordship will find it in Document Book 12a, Page 81. [Turning to the defendant.] This is an entry which must have been fairly early in 1936 in the diary of the Reich Minister of Justice: "The Reich Foreign Minister transmits, with a personal note for confidential information, Q letter from Cardinal State Secretary Pacelli"-that is the present Pope-"to the German Ambassador in the Vatican, in which he urges an act of pardon for Vicar General Seelmeyer. He, the Reich Foreign Minister, remarks to this that after the heavy attacks on German justice by the Holy See in the note of 29 January, there is no reason in his opinion to show any deference to the Vatican. He recommends it, however, since for foreign policy reasons it is to our interest not to let our good personal relations with Pacelli cool off." Now, Defendant, will you tell me anything that showed the slightest personal interest in the fate of Father Seelmeyer, or were you only concerned with showing a firm front to the Vatican and not losing your good relations with Cardinal Pacelli?
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, the document has just been submitted to me; I have had no opportunity whatsoever to look this document over and inform myself about it. Likewise, I do not know of there having been any talk about a diary of the Reich Minister of Justice up to now in this Trial. Therefore, I am not in a position to judge how the Reich Minister of Justice could have made this entry in his diary at all. Since these notes have apparently been taken out of their context, it is not possible for me to form any kind of a picture of the significance of the entry as a whole, and naturally it is even less possible for the defendant to do so. Therefore, I must protest against the admissibility of this question and against the submission of this document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is a perfectly good captured document. It is a copy of the original diary of the Reich Minister of Justice, and it is therefore admissible against the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von LUDINGHAUSEN, you can see the original document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, actually, I am just told by my American colleagues that this diary has been used before, that extracts were put in in the case against the Defendant Von Schirach.
VON NEURATH: Mr. President, I have no objection . . .
THE PRESIDENT: One moment.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: I could not understand a word, Mr. President. I am sorry, I could not understand. I can hear now.
THE PRESIDENT: When you make an objection, you should see that the instrument is in order. What I said was that you can see the original document. And I am told now that the original document has been used before, and that therefore there is nothing to prevent its being used in crossexamination. It is a captured document, and you can see the original.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: I did not know that, Mr. President.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I am putting to you, Defendant, is that your statement to the Minister of Justice shows no concern for the individual priest about whom the complaint had been made; it is merely concerned with your relations with the Vatican and with Cardinal Pacelli, as he then was. Is that typical of your interferences? Is this typical of your interferences for the sake of ill-treated priests?
VON NEURATH: I naturally cannot remember this case any more, but the way it stands there in the entry I was perfectly justified. According to the entry, I said that we had no reason to show any special consideration after the then Cardinal State Secretary, or Pope had attacked German justice, but that, as Foreign Minister I considered it important not to disturb our relations with Pacelli. I cannot see what conclusions you want to draw from this.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I don't want to trespass on the ground of my Soviet colleagues, but you know that the Czech report accuses you, with complete impartiality as far as sect is concerned, of your Government ill-treating the Catholics, Protestants, Czech National Church, and even the Greek Church in Czechoslovakia. You know that all these churches suffered during your protectorate-do you agree that all these churches suffered under your protectorate?
VON NEURATH: No, not at al!.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: All right, I won't go into the details, but I am suggesting to you that your care about the various religious confessions did not go very deep.
VON NEURATH: That is again an assertion on your part which you cannot prove.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I would just like to put one thing. You remember telling the Tribunal this morning of the excellent terms that you were on with the archbishop of Prague?
VON NEURATH: I said that I had good relations with the archbishop.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would just like you to look at this copy. My Lord, this is a copy, but General Ecer assures me that he can get the original from the Czech Government files. I received it only a half hour ago. General Ecer, who is here from Czechoslovakia, says that he can vouch for the original. I'd like the defendant to look at it. Is that a letter which you received from the archbishop? My Lord, it is Document D-920, and it will be Exhibit GB-517: "Your Excellency, very esteemed Herr Protector of the Reich: "Your last letter has filled me with such sorrow because I could not but gather from it that not even Your Excellency is prepared to believe me-that I lost consciousness and had to call university Professor Dr. Jirasek, who remained beside my sickbed for an hour-he is coming again today, together with the specialist on internal diseases...." And then he gives his name. "Your Excellency may be sure that I shall always do what I can to please you. But please, have mercy on me, too, and do not demand that I should act against the laws of the Church. "Yours, et cetera, Karl Cardinal Kaspar, M. P. prince archbishop." Do you remember that?
VON NEURATH: I cannot say what this refers to. I have no idea; there is nothing in it, and I cannot tell you what it referred to.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You can't remember this occasion when the prince archbishop wrote to you and told you the effect, the illness that he had suffered from and beseeched you not to ask him to do something against the laws of the Church? It doesn't remain in your mind at all, does it?
VON NEURATH: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: All right, we'll leave that. Well now, I want you to just tell me this, before we pass on to the later occurrences in 1937. You remember you dealt yesterday with your speech-I think it was to the German Academy of Law. You remember the speech, in August of 1937? I can give you a reference. Would you like to look at it?
VON NEURATH: I only need the reference to where I spoke. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE You remember it, I only wanted to save time. Don't you remember? I will put it to you if you like. It is the speech of the 29th of August 1937, and I will give you the reference in one moment. What I wanted to ask you was this-you said: "The unity of the racial and national will created through Nazism with unprecedented elan has made possible a foreign policy by means of which the chains of the Versailles Treaty were broken." What did you mean by "the unity of the racial will" produced by Nazism?
VON NEURATH: By that I probably meant that all Germans were unified more than ever before. At this date I can no longer tell you what I meant by this, either. But nevertheless I was merely establishing a fact.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Now tell me. That was in August 1937. You told the Tribunal the effect that the words of Hitler, on the 5th of November 1937, had upon you, and your counsel has put in the statement by Baroness van Bitter. After these words...
VON NEURATH: In November?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, November of 1937.
VON NEURATH: Yes, indeed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, after these words had had that effect, with whom did you discuss them among the people who had been present at the Hossbach interview?
VON NEURATH: This speech was not made at Berchtesgaden at all. That is a mistake; it was at Berlin, this address.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I didn't say Berchtesgaden; I said at the Hossbach conference. We call it the Hossbach conference because he took the minutes.
VON NEURATH: I have already told you yesterday with wham I spoke, General Von Fritsch, and with Beck, who was then Chief of the General Staff; and I also testified that we agreed at that time jointly to oppose Hitler and the tendency which he had revealed in this speech.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you speak about it to Hitler?
VON NEURATH: Yes. I testified yesterday in detail that I did not have a chance to speak with Hitler until 14 or 15 January, because he had left Berlin and I could not see him. That was the very reason why I asked for my resignation at that time. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE Did you speak about it to Goering or Raeder?
VON NEURATH: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now I want you to just tell me one word or two about this Secret Cabinet Council to which you were appointed after you left the Foreign Office. Would you look at the first sentences of the report of that meeting on the 5th of November? My Lord, it is Page 81 in the English Document Book 12, and Page 93 of the German document book. It is only the first two sentences, Defendant: "The Fuehrer stated initially that the subject matter of today's conference was of such importance that its detailed discussion would certainly, in other states, take place before the Cabinet in full session. However, he, the Fuehrer, had decided not to discuss this matter in the larger circle of the Reich Cabinet because of its importance." Then, if you will look at the people who were there: There is the Fuehrer; the Minister for War; the three Commanders-in-Chief; and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Now, Defendant, supposing that in February or March 1938, Hitler had wanted to discuss Austria before the same Council, the same limited number of people. Just let us see who would have taken the places of the people who were there. Instead of Von Blomberg and Von Fritsch, you would have had the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW, and Von Brauchitsch as Commander-in-Chief, would you not?
VON NEURATH: Yes, I believe so.