dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Very well, if you do not understand, we are not going to argue about this question. In February 1943, in connection with your jubilee, various articles about you were published in many newspapers. I am not going to submit all these papers to the Tribunal or quote these articles, but I should like to read just two excerpts from the newspaper Frankischer Warier of 2 February 1943. We shall submit to you one of the copies of this so that you can follow me as I read this document into the record. This newspaper is being submitted to the Tribunal under Document Number USSR-495. In connection with your anniversary, it was stated: "The most outstanding events in the field of foreign policy after Hitler's coming to power, in which Freiherr von Neurath played a most important role as Reich Foreign Minister and with which his name will always be connected, are: Germany's leaving the Geneva Disarmament Conference...the reuniting of the Saar to Germany . . . and the denouncing of the Locarno Pact." And further on: "Reich Protector Freiherr von Neurath was repeatedly decorated by the Fuehrer for outstanding services in the interest of the people and the Reich. He was decorated with the Golden Party Badge of Honor, received the rank of SS Gruppenfuehrer, was a knight of the Order of the Eagle, and received the Gold Badge of Honor for Faithful Service for his 40 years of diplomatic service. "In appreciation of his outstanding services in the field of military efforts in the post of Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia, the Fuehrer decorated him with the Military Cross, First Class." Are the facts correctly stated in this article?
VON NEURATH: If I had to investigate the correctness of every article written by some journalist or other, I would have had a lot to do. These statements are the opinion of a journalist and nothing more.
THE PRESIDENT: That was not the question. The question was whether they were correctly stated, as a matter of fact. You can answer that.
VON NEURATH: Yes-no.
THE PRESIDENT: Which do you mean, "yes" or "no)'?
VON NEURATH: The decorations are correctly stated. Apart from that it is not correct.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have no further questions to put.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ludinghausen, do you wish to re-examine?
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, yesterday afternoon I had the feeling and impression, probably not without reason, that Herr Von Neurath was visibly tired and strained after the previous examination and that he was no longer in a position to do complete justice to the questions which were put to him. This, after all, is not surprising, if one considers that Herr Von Neurath is in his seventy-fourth year and besides that he is also suffering from a fairly serious heart disease. I feel obliged, therefore, to refer back to various points of the cross-examination of yesterday and put a few questions to him. [Turning to the defendant.] Herr Von Neurath, you stated yesterday that because of the excesses of the SA and other radical groups in 1933 and later, you frequently protested to Hitler. What was the reason why you remonstrated with Hitler directly and did not raise your objections at the Cabinet meetings which were still taking place at that time?
VON NEURATH: I had already learned from personal experience that Hitler could not stand contradiction of any kind and that he was not amenable to any kind of petition if it was made before a fairly large group, because then he would always develop the complex that he was facing some sort of opposition against which he had to defend himself. It was different when one confronted him alone. Then, at least during the earlier years, he was accessible, thoroughly amenable to reasonable arguments, and much could be achieved in the way of moderating or weakening radical measures. Moreover, I should like to mention again that just after the excesses mentioned in Mr. Geist's affidavit there was a meeting of the Cabinet, during which strong protests were raised against the repetition of such occurrences by various ministers including non-Nazi ministers. At that time Hitler thoroughly agreed with these objections, and declared that such excesses would not be allowed to recur. Shortly afterward he also made a speech in which he publicly expressed an assurance to this effect. From then until June 1934 no more excesses took place.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: But in April 1933 there was the well-known anti-Jewish boycott, which lasted 24 hours, if I am not mistaken?
VON NEURATH: Yes, that was one of Herr Goebbels' provocations. But actually there were no excesses and acts of violence whatsoever on that occasion. It was confined merely to boycotting. Moreover, the fact that no further disturbances arose in that case was the result of a joint intercession by Herr Von Papen and myself with Hitler and especially with Hindenburg. A perfectly correct description of this episode is to be found, as I recall, in an article of Time for April 1933, which is also contained in my document book.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, it was submitted in my document book, Document Number Neurath-9. [Turning to the defendant.] In connection with the events that occurred at that time, arrests, and so forth, Sir David yesterday referred particularly to the arrest of the well-known author Ossietzski. Do you recall that this Ossietzski had already been sentenced to a fairly' long prison term by a German court even before the seizure of power?
VON NEURATH: Yes, I remembered that afterward. I remember that even before the seizure of power-I do not know under which government-Herr Ossietzski had been sentenced by a Reich court to a fairly long term in the penitentiary for high treason, but he had not yet served it, and consequently was arrested again.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Now I should like to ask you another question with reference to the report submitted by the Prosecution yesterday. It is the letter of Ministerial Director Kopke on 31 May 1934. That is Document D-868. In this report, from the information noted down by Herr Kopke, do you see any proof that the Foreign Office was drawn into the subversive activities of the Austrian Nazis?
VON NEURATH: No, not at all. This has to do with a report which Ministerial Director Kopke made to me about a visit by Herr Wachter, whom he described as an Austrian with a sense of responsibility. This Herr Wachter had tried to establish a connection with the Foreign Office and with Hitler in order to draw attention to the dangers arising from the growing radicalism of the Austrian Nazis. The head of the Political Department, Herr Kopke, identifies himself with Wachter regarding these apprehensions and agreed to make an oral report to that effect. I do not think that anyone can doubt that my attitude was not quite the same as that of Herr Kopke and I passed this report on to Hitler in order to draw his attention to the matter.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: The Prosecution-or rather, Sir David-referred yesterday to reports which deal with the treatment of the Czech problem by you and Frank. This is Document 3859-PS, a letter which you sent to the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers, on 31 August 1940, for the preparation of your oral report to Hitler. Were these reports, that is, the one drafted by Frank, identical with the memorandum mentioned in the Friderici document of 15 October?
VON NEURATH: Yes, apparently these are the same reports.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Now, during your examination you spoke about the Friderici document, which you said was based on plans of the SS, various Party circles, and the Gauleiter of the Lower Danube district, regarding a deportation of Czechs to the Eastern Territories. You went on to say that in order to stop these plans, which you yourself described as nonsensical, you had Frank prepare this memorandum in which a less radical solution was recommended, which later had also been approved to a certain extent by Hitler; and that in reality nothing happened, which was what you intended, and that the idea of incorporation had practically been buried. Is that right?
VON NEURATH: Yes, that is true. This entire affair and the origin of these memoranda are extremely difficult to explain. It can be understood only from the entire domestic political development. The efforts of the Gauleiter of the surrounding districts to divide up the Protectorate had proceeded rather far. They had all submitted memoranda and Herr Himmler backed them up. All these memoranda envisaged a radical solution of these problems; that meant there was reason to fear that Hitler would comply with the wishes of these Gauleiter. In order to stop this I had to make several proposals which I myself had said were impracticable, and I identified myself with them primarily so as to declare them absurd later on. That is the only explanation of the origin of these memoranda. I did not draft the memoranda myself, but that was done in my office, in accordance, to be sure, with instructions given by me. This was, however, and I should like to emphasize this expressly, a purely tactical maneuver to get at Hitler, because I was afraid that he would follow the radical suggestions made by Himmler and his associates. I did actually manage to get Hitler to issue a strict order, which is what I had requested, to the effect that all these plans were no longer to be discussed, but that only the so-called assimilation plan was left, which could be carried out only over a period of years; and, as a matter of fact, nothing more happened, and that was exactly what I was aiming at.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: A decree was submitted by the Prosecution yesterday, which was issued to the German authorities in the Protectorate, regarding the treatment to be given of the German-Czech problem publicly. That is Document 3862-PS, dated 27 June 1941. Is that in any way connected with these memoranda or the discussion you had with Hitler about it?
VON NEURATH: Yes, it is most closely interconnected, and I think I said so yesterday. In the following year the same agitation started all over again for this Germanization and partitioning of the Protectorate, and I opposed it, and, once the question was decided, I prohibited it from being reopened.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: A document was submitted yesterday, USSR-487, the Chief of the Security Police, addressed to State Secretary Frank, dated 21 July 1943, that is to say, after you had resigned. From that document the Prosecution are attempting to draw the conclusion that, in accordance with a decree dated 5 May 1939, you appointed the leader of the SA and Security Police in Prague as your political expert. In what way did the latter act in this capacity? Did he act at all?
VON NEURATH: No, he did not; that is just it. It is clearly apparent from this letter of reminder, dated 21 July 1943, that he never became at all active in this respect.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, I should like to state here that the question was incorrectly put. This document is not dated in the year 1943 or 1942, but it is dated 21 July 1939.
VON NEURATH: May I remark here that it makes no difference, as nothing had happened. I did not appoint any political expert.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: What measures followed Documents 3851-PS and 3858-PS, which were introduced yesterday by the Prosecution, and which were proposals submitted by various departments and department heads of your administration regarding the utilization for labor of the students who became unemployed through the closing down of the Czech universities?
VON NEURATH: I have already told you yesterday that this apparently concerned a proposal from an adviser which never even reached me, but was rejected by my State Secretary before it got to me. Just how I could possibly be held responsible for the contents of a draft submitted by an adviser, I cannot understand.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Now I should like to put one more question to you regarding the German-Austrian agreement of July 1936. As is mentioned in a report by Dr. Rainer to Burckel which the Prosecution have already submitted-I refer to Document 812-PS-is it correct that Hitler, immediately after the signing of that agreement, had personally declared to Dr. Rainer and the Austrian Nazi Leader Globocznik that this agreement of 11 July 1936 was signed by him in all honesty and sincerity, and that the Austrian National Socialists, too, should under all circumstances adhere strictly to this agreement, and that they were to let themselves be guided by him in their conduct toward the Austrian Government?
VON NEURATH: Yes, that is correct. As I think I said to you yesterday, I believe I can also remember that Rainer actually confirmed it when he was here on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Ludinghausen.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: I would like to put a last question . . .
THE PRESIDENT: He answered these questions perfectly clearly, according to his view, yesterday.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Yes, I am all through now. I should like to ask him only one more question in conclusion of the entire examination of my client. [Turning to the defendant.] The Prosecution and also Sir David brought the following charge against you yesterday: They charged that although by your own admission you were not in agreement with the Nazi regime and its methods, and although you considered many of the things that occurred reprehensible and immoral and abhorred them, you did not resign, but remained in the Government. Will you please explain that to us once more?
VON NEURATH: I have already mentioned in the beginning that I had given my promise to Hindenburg to enter the Government and to remain there as long as it was at all possible for me to follow a course unfavorable to any use of violence and to protect Germany from warlike entanglements. That was my task and nothing else. But it was not only this promise I had given to Hindenburg, but also my sense of duty, and my feeling of responsibility toward the German people, to protect them from warlike entanglements as long as it was at all possible, which bound me to this office. Beside these considerations all my personal wishes, which were quite different, had to take second place. Unfortunately, my power and influence as Foreign Minister did not reach far enough to enable me to prevent pernicious and immoral actions in other spheres, as for instance, that of domestic policy, although I did try in many cases, not least of all in the Jewish question itself. However, I considered that my highest duty was to carry out the work assigned to me and not try to escape it, even if in another sphere where I had no influence, things occurred which hurt me and my opinions very deeply. There may be many people who have different ideas and a different attitude than I. I experienced similar attacks when I placed myself at the disposal of a Social Democrat Cabinet in the year 1919 after the first revolution; at that time, too, the strongest attacks and the most serious accusations were made against me.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Yet you yourself have struggled hard with your conscience, you have often told me.
VON NEURATH: Yes, of course I have. It is not easy to belong to a government with whose tendencies you do not agree, and for which one is to be made responsible later on.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, this completes my examination. I would suggest we adjourn now and then I might be permitted to begin the examination of my witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you have some questions to ask?
DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): Mr. President, I ask permission for my client to be absent from the session this afternoon and tomorrow, because I have important questions to discuss with him.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Von Ribbentrop?
DR. HORN: Von Ribbentrop, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
DR. HORN: Thank you.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President, yesterday afternoon General Raginsky asked whether Rosenberg interfered in Neurath's foreign policy. The interpreter just told me that she translated it wrongly. She translated it "whether Ribbentrop interfered in Neurath's policy." This question, therefore, has not been answered yet; consequently, I ask permission to ask Baron von Neurath whether Rosenberg interfered in Neurath's foreign policy.
VON NEURATH: No, in no way. I never talked to Rosenberg about matters of foreign policy.
DR. THOMA: Then I ask that the transcript be corrected accordingly, so it should not read "whether Ribbentrop interfered in Neurath's policies," but "whether Rosenberg interfered in Neurath's policies."
THE PRESIDENT: The record will be corrected.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): I want to ask you just a very few questions. You will remember that the Baroness von Ritter said that after the 5th of November 1937 you recognized-I want to read it exactly: "When Herr Von Neurath had to recognize for the first time from Hitler's statement on 5 November 1937 that the latter wanted to achieve his political aims by using force toward neighboring states, this shook him so severely mentally that he suffered severe heart attacks." That is a correct description, is it not, of what you then recognized? [The defendant nodded assent.]
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, you stated that you spoke immediately after that meeting to General Beck and General Von Fritsch. Do you remember?
VON NEURATH: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I think you said to Sir David that you did not speak to the Defendant Goering. What I am asking you now is whether you spoke of what Hitler had said to anyone else during the next 2 or 3 months. Did you speak to anyone in the Foreign Office?
VON NEURATH: I spoke to my State Secretary.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And with whom else from the Foreign Office?
VON NEURATH: No one, for Hitler had laid down the condition that silence should be preserved about all these meetings; and for that reason I did not speak with my officials about them. They knew nothing. They had learned nothing from the military men, either.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you speak to the Defendant Von Papen when you saw him next?
VON NEURATH: No. I believe I did not see him at all at that time.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And did you discuss it with anybody else before your resignation?
VON NEURATH: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, I have only one other question. You recognized, did you not, that Himmler would use methods which you would not approve of; is that right?
VON NEURATH: Yes, but only gradually; that could not have been foreseen from the beginning.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is just what I wanted to know. When did you first realize that? When did you first begin, just as well as you could tell? About when did you realize what sort of man Himmler was?
VON NEURATH: That was very difficult to recognize, because Himmler had two faces; he was a perfect Janus; one could not see immediately what his real thoughts were at all.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I am not asking you what he was like. If you would just try to remember, you certainly realized that at some time. Did you know it in 1937? You knew it in 1937 or 1938? Certainly in 1938, did you not?
VON NEURATH: Probably in 1938, but it is hard for me to give a date at the moment.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I do not want a specific date. My point is that you knew it before you went to the Protectorate; you knew what Himmler was before you went to the Protectorate, of course? There is no question about that, is there?
VON NEURATH: Yes, certainly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all.
THE TRIBUNAL (Major General I. T. Nikitchenko, Member for the U.S.S.R.): Did you ever express yourself openly against the policy of the Hitlerite Government?
VON NEURATH: I am sorry, but the translation was not good.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): In your explanations made before the Tribunal you stated that you were not in agreement with the policy of Hitler's Government, either on individual questions or taken as a whole, as well. Is that true?
VON NEURATH: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Did you ever express yourself openly with a statement of your disagreement with Hitler's policy?
VON NEURATH: I did so more than once.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): In what manner was it, then? I am asking you about your public statements, either in the press or while addressing any meeting?
VON NEURATH: No. It was no longer possible either to have a voice in the press, or to hold a meeting. It was quite out of the question. I could only speak to Hitler personally or, at the beginning, in the Cabinet in protest against this policy. There was no freedom of the press any longer, any more than in Russia. In the same way no meeting was possible. Consequently...
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): I am not asking you about Russia; I am asking you about your expressing your views publicly. In other words, you never expressed them.
VON NEURATH: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And in that way nobody in Germany could know, or did know, about the fact that you were not in agreement with the policy on the part of Hitler's Government?
VON NEURATH: I always expressed myself quite unmistakably about it, but not in articles, nor in meetings either; but otherwise I always expressed myself clearly about it. Am; TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Yes, but only in your tete-a-tete with Hitler, only personally to Hitler. You said so, did you not?
VON NEURATH: No; I tell you I said that to everyone who would listen, but I could not do so in public meetings, in speeches, or in articles.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And you remained a member of the Government in spite of the fact that you were not in agreement with the Government's policy; is that so?
VON NEURATH: Yes, for that very reason.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): In order to counteract his policy?
VON NEURATH: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Do you know the results of such counteracting?
VON NEURATH: I did not understand that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): What were the results of counteracting the policy of Hitler's Government?
VON NEURATH: Well, I am not in a position to give the details on that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): In particular, as to the question of aggression, were you against the joining of Germany and Austria?
VON NEURATH: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): The German Government, in spite of this, joined Austria to Germany; is that so?
VON NEURATH: I believe it has been clearly expressed here that at the last moment Hitler did that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): You were against the seizing of Czechoslovakia?
VON NEURATH: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And the German Government, in spite of this, seized Czechoslovakia?
VON NEURATH: I was no longer a member of the Government at that time.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): But as a statesman whose opinion should have been considered, you, of course, expressed your opinion against it, did you not?
VON NEURATH: Always.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): You were against the attack on Poland?
VON NEURATH: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And in spite of that Germany did attack Poland.
VON NEURATH: I repeat, I was no longer a member of the Government. I learned of it only at the last moment.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): You were against the attack on the U.S.S.R.?
VON NEURATH: Yes, more so indeed; I always wanted the exact opposite. I wanted co-operation with the Soviet Union, I said that as early as 19...
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And still Germany attacked the Soviet Union?
VON NEURATH: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Judging from your explanations, Hitler must have known about your political opposition and your disagreement with his policy; is it correct?
VON NEURATH: He knew that very well, for I resigned in 1938 for that reason.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Yes. And you know how Hitler made short work of his political opponents?