dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know whether these special reports were addressed to military offices or did they-the ones you have just mentioned-sum up the situation from the military point of view?
SEYSS-INQUART: The reports of which I am speaking were predominantly political and they were addressed directly to the Fuehrer. In connection with these reports I remember they contained particularly severe criticism of the attitude of the Reich toward the Poles and toward the Catholic Church and that they were written on stationery with the Reich Security Main Office heading, which appeared to me then to be an impossible state of affairs.
DR. KAUFFMANN: You have just mentioned two criticisms. Can you perhaps tell me what was the gist of that criticism of the two phases of public life which you have just mentioned?
SEYSS-INQUART: With regard to the Poles, it demanded quite tersely that the Poles should once again be given an autonomous and independent existence as a state, or at least they should be promised it; and speaking of the Catholic Church, it demanded that all administrative and other measures should be rescinded and that the Catholic and Protestant Churches should in no way be molested.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
MR. DODD: You told the Tribunal yesterday that you became a Party member in 1938 and that your Party membership number was somewhere in the millions?
SEYSS-INQUART: Seven million. The membership came into effect from 13 March 1938. That is when I formally became a member of the Party.
MR. DODD: Well, when you say "formally," you are trying to distinguish then, as I understand it, and point out that you were in fact, although maybe not formally, a Party member for some time. You paid dues and you supported the Party, didn't you?
SEYSS-INQUART: The first two points are incorrect. I only paid subscriptions from the autumn of 1937-I beg your pardon, from the autumn of 1932 until 1933; inwardly I felt myself to be a National Socialist and a Party member, without however having made any formal declaration of loyalty.
MR. DODD: Were you a member of the Styrian Home Protective Organization (Steierischer Heimatschutz)?
SEYSS-INQUART: The Styrian Home Protective Organization, yes, from the autumn of 1932.
MR. DODD: And that organization was taken over, practically in its entirety, by the National Socialists at a time when you were a member, wasn't it?
SEYSS-INQUART: That had been the intention, but it was not carried out. There had been an agreement that the Styrian Home Protective Organization was to be taken into the Party, but Munich did not carry this out. Individual members of the Styrian Home Protective Organization had to join the Party individually.
MR. DODD: Do you know a man with the name of Dr. Andreas Morsey, M-o-r-s-e-y?
SEYSS-INQUART: Do you mean Andreas M-o-s-e-r? I think he was a solicitor, but I did not know him personally.
MR. DODD: Well, do you know that he was also a member of the Styrian Home Protective Organization?
SEYSS-INQUART: No.
MR. DODD: Do you remember having a conversation with him on 7 March 1938, just a few days before the Anschluss?
SEYSS-INQUART: I have no recollection of it.
MR. DODD: Well, let me see if I can help you. Do you remember telling him that you entered the Styrian Home Protective Organization in 1932 and that that was shortly before that organization was forbidden? [The Interpreter translated: ". . . telling him that you were Chief of the Styrian Home Protective Organization..."7
SEYSS-INQUART: That is quite out of the question. The Chief of the Styrian Home Protective Organization was Konstantin Kammerhofer. The whole of Austria knew that.
MR. DODD: You don't remember, then, having any conversation in which you said such as I have just stated to you? Is your statement that you never said it or that you don't remember the conversation? That is what I am trying to get at.
SEYSS-INQUART: I do remember that conversation; but I am stating that it is out of the question that I could have said that I was the Chief of the Styrian Home Protective Organization, because the whole of Austria knew that it was Konstantin Kammerhofer. At most I may have told him that I was very friendly with Kammerhofer, as indeed I was.
MR. DODD: Well, I want to show you then his statement, or his testimony rather, in the Case of the People versus Dr. Guido Schmidt. It is Document Number 3992. This testimony was given before the Supreme Penal Court in- Vienna on 19 March 1946 before Judge Sucher. We offer this as USA-882. I ask you to look at the second page and you will find a sentence which begins: "On 7 March 1938 Seyss-Inquart personally informed me that he had entered this organization in 1932, that is, before it was made impossible; shortly before the Styrian Home Protective Organization was forbidden." Then he goes on and makes reference to the man Kammerhofer, whom you just made reference to, and further down, in the next sentence, he says: "He (Seyss-Inquart) had entered this organization and had been admitted by the leader, Engineer Pichler (Franz), in Waltz and he had never left the organization." Therefore your statement that you had not been a member of the NSDAP can be considered formally correct; but the statement that you had not worked illegally, he says, is not true.
SEYSS-INQUART: Dr. Moser could not possibly know whether I worked illegally. He is basing his statement on the assumption that the Home Protective Organization was actually amalgamated with the NSDAP, and that is incorrect. The witness Uiberreither can confirm this. I still hold entirely to my testimony.
MR. DODD: Do you know a man named Gainer?
SEYSS-INQUART: Very well, indeed. Dr. Friedrich Rainer.
MR. DODD: Yes. You have asked for him and he is coming here as a witness on your behalf, isn't he?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes.
MR. DODD: But what do you say if he says that you became a member of the NSDAP when that Styrian Home Protective Organization went over?
SEYSS-INQUART: To that I wish to say for all...
MR. DODD: By the way, before you answer let me tell you something that will help you. This document is already in evidence, so I assume you may have seen it. It is Number 812-PS.
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes. It is a letter, a report from Dr. Rainer.
MR. DODD: So you know what he has said, I assume. You have seen the document, have you?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes.
MR. DODD: You agree that he does say in this document that you were a member through your membership in the Styrian Home Protective Organization and that you joined the Party, so to speak, when that organization was taken over?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes. I should like to say that until 1938 that was also my opinion, and I never doubted whether I was or was not. But in 1938 the Party stated clearly that it did not recognize that fusion and that the members of the Styrian Home Protective Organization were not members of the Party but that every one of them had to join the Party individually to be a Party member. Rainer will surely confirm that.
MR. DODD: Well, tell me this, whether or not you were formally a member, didn't you during all this time acknowledge the leadership of Klausner, who was the leader of the National Socialist Party in Austria; and didn't you follow his wishes and obey his directions?
SEYSS-INQUART: The leadership in Austria or in Germany?
MR. DODD: In Austria. I am talking about Klausner, who was in Austria.
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes. It was clear to me and I recognized the fact that Klausner was the leader of the Austrian National Socialists. I did not recognize Klausner as my political leader, a fact which is made clear by the same report which you, Mr. Prosecutor, have just mentioned. There Rainer says, "Seyss-Inquart recognized Klausner in political matters which were actually not binding."
MR. DODD: Well, he says precisely the opposite, if you will take a look at it.
SEYSS-INQUART: Oh, no.
MR. DODD: Well, now, wait a minute and look on Page 9, I think, of the German text, line 7 from the bottom; in the English text it is Page 7: '`Relations between Seyss-Inquart and Klausner were as follows: Seyss acknowledged unconditionally the Party leadership with respect to the whole program and thereby also Klausner's leadership. As a Party member, he therefore subordinated himself specifically and literally to Klausner's leadership." Do you find that?
SEYSS-INQUART: I have only a draft before me, but it goes on to say: "Over and above that, he declared himself, on the basis of the agreement at Berchtesgaden and particularly on the basis of the declarations made to him by the Fuehrer on the occasion of his staff: visit to Berlin, as being a trustee of the illegal NSDAP in Austria directly responsible to the Fuehrer within his political and state functions." Then there must be another passage where I say that in regard to political matters I would not subordinate myself to Klausner.
MR. DODD: Well, anyway, to move along, it is a fact, isn't it, that very early in this period you acknowledged your unqualified allegiance to Hitler, and long before the Anschluss, too? You acknowledged your political allegiance, didn't you?
SEYSS-INQUART: One can almost say that. As far as "unqualified allegiance" was concerned, that was not clear to me at the time, because it was my opinion that Hitler, too, wanted a revolutionary course.
MR. DODD: Well, all right. Didn't you have something to do with the Dollfuss matter other than what you have told the Tribunal? You know, of course, that Rainer says that you did, in this same Document 812-PS.
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes.
MR. DODD: And I think it is important that you make some answer to it. You haven't done it on your direct testimony, and the document is in evidence, and in it he says that you supported...
SEYSS-INQUART: The reason, Mr. Prosecutor, why I did not do it was because Rainer is coming here as a witness. Rainer will have to tell us here under oath on which facts he bases his statements. I can only say "no."
MR. DODD: Well, I know. I understand that, and that is another reason for asking you now. You see, you will be off the witness stand when he is on it; and I would like to know what you say now to what Rainer has said in this document, which is in evidence, to the effect that you were involved in the Dollfuss plot on 25 July 1934.
SEYSS-INQUART: No, that is quite wrong.
MR. DODD: All right. In connection with this there is one other matter I think we should clear up now if we can. You didn't mean to convey to the Tribunal, did you, that the ceremonies-if I may use that expression-commemorating the assassination of Dollfuss had nothing to do with Dollfuss at the time that they were held?
SEYSS-INQUART: I certainly do wish to create that impression, because that ceremony was for the seven National Socialists who had been hanged at that time. On that occasion, as far as I remember, there was no thought of Dollfuss' death; but only of the fact that several men of the Standarte, I think Number 107 or 108, had made an attempt to do away with a system which in National Socialist opinion was hostile to the Reich, and as a result seven were hanged. The fact that Dollfuss was shot on that same occasion was not mentioned during the ceremony..
MR. DODD: Well, I don't say that it was, but the ceremony certainly commemorated the attack on Dollfuss; and I think it is quibbling, is it not, to say that it had no reference to it?
SEYSS-INQUART: No, if Dollfuss had not been shot, then the ceremony would have been carried out just the same.
MR. DODD: Are you sure of that; you think that all would have been hanged if he hadn't been shot?
SEYSS-INQUART: At any rate, I know they were hanged.
MR. DODD: Well, you were appointed a State Councillor in 1937-and of course again we are going to talk a good deal about this in this short time, about Rainer and this document. You know Rainer also says that you were appointed through the influence of Keppler and other Nazis in Austria and Reich officials. Is that so? Did they influence your appointment in 1937? Rainer is wrong about that as well, is he?
SEYSS-INQUART: Not at all-Keppler had no influence at all on the nomination as State Councillor.
MR. DODD: And Rainer, in your judgment, is in error when he says that they did have? You disagree with his statement, as I understand it. I want to make that clear.
SEYSS-INQUART: That is absolutely incorrect.
MR. DODD: All right.
SEYSS-INQUART: I was appointed State Councillor because Zernatto had discussed the matter with a friend of mine and then suggested it to Schuschnigg. A proposal from Keppler would probably have been a reason for Schuschnigg's not nominating me. ~ 85
MR. DODD: It was just a casual thing, and Schuschnigg appointed you because somebody spoke to him; and the Nazis with whom you were familiar in those days had nothing to do with it, had they?
SEYSS-INQUART: That I would not say. I discussed with Rainer the possibility of an appointment as State Councillor, because our mutual acquaintance had previously discussed the question with Zernatto. I then discussed it with Gainer, but he exercised no influence with regard to the appointment.
MR. DODD: You have seen the document known as the Hossbach Minutes, USA-25, 386-PS, introduced before this Tribunal many months ago. Do you recall then that Hitler, in the course of this discourse, as is reported by Hossbach, stated some of the plans that he had for Austria as well as for Czechoslovakia? Do you remember that? It is in the document, I can assure you.
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes.
MR. DODD: That was the 11th of November 1937-no, I'm sorry- it was on the 5th of November 1937. When did you first hear about that meeting? For the first time in your life, when did you hear about it?
SEYSS-INQUART: Here, in this room.
MR. DODD: Now, do you remember the letter you wrote on 11 November to Dr. Jury?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes.
MR. DODD: Do you remember it very well, or would you like to see a copy of it? I will show it to you. We have a copy here. You haven't seen this; this is a new document.
SEYSS-INQUART: I have also got a copy.
MR. DODD: It is 3396 PS.
SEYSS-INQUART: That is right.
MR. DODD: What did you mean when you wrote to Jury on 11 November 1937, when you wrote: ". . . I personally believe that there will be no visible results until early next year. In the meantime, I have received an authentic report from Linz..." and you go on to talk about a newspaper article. What I wanted to know was, what did you mean by the events in the early part of 1938?
SEYSS-INQUART: In the situation prevailing in Austria at that time, it was clear that the internal political position would not remain static. The optimistic National Socialists thought that during the coming weeks either Schuschnigg would retire or 86 ~ something else would happen. I viewed the situation more correctly, and it was my opinion that the new internal political development in Austria would not take place until the spring, that is to say, developments in the direction of further permissible activities on the part of the National Socialists. The newspaper article is something quite different.
MR. DODD: I am really not concerned about that unless you feel that it is important to your answer. I wanted to go back a little bit. You see, you open your letter by referring to a conversation with Mr. Keppler. Now, he is the man who was Hitler's emissary on 11 and 12 March when Austria was handed over to the Nazis, isn't he?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes.
MR. DODD: And you say: "The conversations with Mr. Keppler today were carried on in an atmosphere of complete calm, and they were also extremely revealing. I do not believe that things are so ripe for discussion as they appear to be from the national side and in the Reich." Then you go on: "I should be pleasantly surprised if an initial solution were to be found before the end of this year." What you were really talking about was the handing over of Austria to the Nazis. Isn't that what you had in mind when you wrote this letter? Isn't that the "initial solution"?
SEYSS-INQUART: No. First of all, it does not say that my conversations with Keppler were secret, but only that they were informative.
MR. DODD: It says "in complete calm." I don't know whether that is secret. I don't know what that means.
SEYSS-INQUART: It means that we talked very realistically. The Reich was very insistent. We might have discussed the possibility of applying some diplomatic pressure, but the aim was to promote the activities of the National Socialists in Austria, with the intention, however, of achieving the ultimate goal of the Anschluss. The contents of the Hossbach Document were not mentioned at all, and I am convinced that Keppler had no knowledge of it. Keppler did not have a very strong position with the Fuehrer at all.
MR. DODD: Yes. You recall you wrote Keppler a letter a little later, in January of 1938. Do you remember that?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes.
MR. DODD: That you wanted to give up your mandate or your trust or your responsibility or whatever the proper expression is.
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes.
MR. DODD: What kind of mandate did you have from Keppler or from Goering, to which Keppler refers in his letter?
SEYSS-INQUART: No, the mandate was the Austrian State Councillorship. I wanted to give it up, as well as the task of investigating the understanding necessary for obtaining the co-operation of the National Opposition. I did not receive any mandate at all from Keppler, and I could hardly have accepted one.
MR. DODD: You know the document that is in evidence, 3397-PS. It is USA-702. And Keppler says that he informed Goering of the situation and that Goering told him to keep you at your task, or that is the sense of it. Now, my question is, why should Goering be interested in this mandate if it only had to do with your position as State Councillor in Austria? He wasn't an official of the Austrian Government, and you were.
SEYSS-INQUART: In that case may I have the document?
MR. DODD: Yes, indeed. You will also find reference in here to Dr. Jury, the very man concerning whom we talked a few minutes back and to whom you wrote that letter on 11 November.
SEYSS-INQUART: Which passage do you mean, Mr. Prosecutor?
MR. DODD: Well, my question about it is this, I am wondering why Keppler would go to Goering with your desire to withdraw from whatever position it was that you occupied with respect to the Nazis or, as you put it, with respect to your place as State Councillor; and it is even more of a problem to us with respect to your explanation. What did Goering have to do with that?
SEYSS-INQUART: Yesterday I stated that Dr. Schuschnigg had given me the task of investigating conditions for co-operating with the National Opposition. I always told Schuschnigg that the Austrian National Socialists would not accept any offers without Hitler's agreement. With the knowledge of Zernatto and Dr. Schuschnigg I visited Goering and Hess. Both these gentlemen knew that I not only had contact with the Austrian National Socialists, but also with the gentlemen in the Reich, through Keppler. This was also known to these gentlemen in the Reich, and they were interested. If now I were suddenly to say, "I'm through, I'm not going on with it," then I considered it my duty to inform these gentlemen in the Reich that they could no longer count on my co-operation. That, I believe, is a matter of course. One could not do otherwise.
MR. DODD: Yes, and the letter that you wrote to Jury on 11 November was after your meeting with Hess and Goering, too, wasn't it? Of course it was; you saw Hess and Goering in July 1937.
SEYSS-INQUART: Yes, the Reich Marshal testified to that already.
MR. DODD: Well, all right. Now I will ask you a little bit about this meeting with Von Papen in Garmisch. That just happened casually and was not planned, as I understood you. You talked about the possibility of the place of the Minister of Security being filled by a member of the Nazi Party. What I want to know is, did you also talk about the possible trip of Schuschnigg to Berchtesgaden, which didn't come so long after this meeting, did it? Was it mentioned?
SEYSS-INQUART: No, we did not talk about the technical means, whether a meeting between Dr. Schuschnigg and Hitler would take place and so forth or whether this should be accomplished through diplomatic channels-that was not discussed by us.
MR. DODD: Wasn't it discussed at all, that's all I want to know? Wasn't there any discussion about it?
SEYSS-INQUART: A meeting between these two state leaders was not discussed, but only the material content of our plan.
MR. DODD: When, for the first time, did you learn about the proposed meeting between Schuschnigg and Hitler, and from whom?
SEYSS-INQUART: I think 2 days-it must have been on 10 February that I received information from Rainer or Globocznik telling me that this meeting was expected to take place. At about the same tone Zernatto asked me to come to Vienna, but he still did not tell me what it was about.
MR. DODD: Actually, isn't it a fact that you prepared notes or, if you prefer to call it, a memorandum for Hitler which he used as the basis of his discussions with Schuschnigg at Berchtesgaden?
SEYSS-INQUART: I made a written proposal for clearing up the matter; and I gave it to Zernatto, on the one hand, and to Dr. Rainer on the other. It is perfectly possible that Rainer passed it on to the Reich. I would also have seen nothing wrong with that.
MR. DODD: You know very well, don't you, that Muhlmann was sent up there that night by you and your associates; and he got to Berchtesgaden ahead of Schuschnigg and Von Papen with that memorandum, isn't that a fact?
SEYSS-INQUART: Dr. Muhlmann is . . .
MR. DODD: Yes, the same gentlemen you referred to as having been in Holland with you, and in Berchtesgaden.
SEYSS-INQUART: Dr. Muhlmann went to Berchtesgaden at that time and was informed about my last conversation with Dr. Schuschnigg. He will probably have noted that down.
MR. DODD: Don't you know that he did, and Schuschnigg didn't know-and that's the important thing-what Muhlmann was doing up there ahead of him with the notes or the conditions that you had presented to Schuschnigg the night before. Schuschnigg didn't know that, did he, when he went there like a lamb to Berchtesgaden?
SEYSS-INQUART: I am convinced Schuschnigg did not know that Muhlmann was in Berchtesgaden and had quite probably informed Keppler who in turn informed the Fuehrer. Schuschnigg certainly did not know that. When I talked to Dr. Schuschnigg, I did not know Muhlmann would go along.
MR. DODD: When did you find out that Muhlmann would go?
SEYSS-INQUART: After the discussion with Dr. Schuschnigg I returned to my office, and there I found Dr. Rainer and perhaps someone else; and I told Dr. Rainer about our conversation. Possibly Muhlmann was present, and then we-I say we, because I do not want to except myself from this-we decided to inform Keppler of the nature of our conversation. In the meantime, Dr. Schuschnigg had probably gone to the station. I really did not see any reason for informing him directly at this time.
MR. DODD: And so you did want to inform Hitler then-did I hear you correctly-of the nature of your conversation with your Chancellor Schuschnigg that night?