dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: fixed the duties of the Armed Forces and the other Reich authorities in case of war, it was also the fundamental ruling for the development and activity of the war economy organization." The third point is the introduction of compulsory military service. On the 16th of March 1935 this defendant signed the law for the organization of the Armed Forces which provided for universal military service and anticipated a vastly expanded German army. This was described by the Defendant Keitel as the real start of the large-scale rearmament program which followed. I will give the official reference in the Reichsgesetzblatt, year 1935, Volume I, Part 1, Page 369; and the references in the transcript are 411 (Volume II, Page 305), 454, and 455 (Volume II, Page 340). The fourth point was the remilitarization of the Rhineland. The Rhineland was reoccupied on the 7th of March 1936. 1 remind the Tribunal of the two complementary documents: 2289-PS, Exhibit USA-56, the announcement of this action by Hitler; and C-139, Exhibit USA-53, which is the "Operation Schulung," giving the military action which was to be given if necessary. Again the reference to the transcript is Page 458 to Page 464 (Volume II, Pages 342 to 347). These were the acts for which the defendant shared responsibility because of his position and because of the steps which he took; but a little later he summed up his views on the actions detailed above in a speech before Germans abroad made on the 29th of August 1937, of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice, as it appears in Das Archiv, 1937, at Page 650. But I quote a short portion of it that appears on Page 72 of the document book: "The unity of the racial and national will created through Nazism with unprecedented elan has made possible a foreign policy by which the fetters of the Versailles Treaty were forced, the freedom to arm regained, and the sovereignty of the whole nation re- established.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have really again become master in our own house and we have created the means of power to remain henceforth that way for all times.... The world should have seen from ... Hitler's deeds and words that his aims are not aggressive." The world, of course, had not the advantage of seeing these various complementary documents of military preparation which I have had the opportunity of putting before the Tribunal. The next section-and the next point against this defendant-is that both as Minister of Foreign Affairs and as one of the inner circle of the Fuehrer's advisers on foreign political matters, this defendant participated in the political planning and preparation for acts of aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and other nations. If I might first put the defendant's policy in a sentence, I would say that it can be summarized as breaking one treaty only at a time. He himself put it-if I may say so-slightly more pompously but to the same effect in a speech before the Academy of German Law on the 30th of October 1937, which appears in Das Archiv, October 1937, Page 921, and which the Tribunal will find in the document book on Page 73. The underlining (italics) is mine: "In recognition of these elementary facts the Reich Cabinet has always interceded in favor of treating every concrete international problem within the scope of methods especially suited to it, not to complicate it unnecessarily by involvement with other problems; and, as long as problems between only two powers are concerned, to choose the direct way for an immediate understanding between these two powers.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We are in a position to state that this method has fully proved itself good not only in the German interest, but also in the general interest." The only country whose interests are not mentioned are the other parties to the various treaties that were dealt with in that way; and the working out of that policy can readily be shown by looking at the tabulated form of the actions of this defendant when he was Foreign Minister or during the term of his immediate successor when the defendant still was purported to have influence. In 1935 the action was directed against the Western Powers. That action was the rearmament of Germany. When that was going on another country had to be reassured. At that time it was Austria, -with the support of Italy-which Austria still had up to 1935. And so you get the fraudulent assurance, the essence of the technique, in that case given by Hitler, on the 21st of May 1935. And that is shown clearly to be false, by the documents which Mr. Alderman put in-I give the general reference to the transcript on Pages 534 to 545 (Volume II, Pages 388 to 398). Then, in 1936, you still have the action necessary against the Western Powers in the occupation of the Rhineland. You still have a fraudulent assurance to Austria in the treaty of the 11th of July of that year; and that is shown to be fraudulent by the letters from the Defendant Von Papen, Exhibits USA-64 (Document 2247-PS) and 67 (Document 2246-PS), to one of which my friend Major Barrington has just referred. Then in 1937 and 1938 you move on a step and the action is directed against Austria. We know what that action was. It was absorption, planned, at any rate finally, at the meeting on the 5th of November 1937; and action taken on the 11th of March 1938. Reassurance had to be given to the Western Powers, so you have the assurance to Belgium on the 13th of October 1937, which was dealt with by my friend Mr. Roberts. The Tribunal will find the references in Pages 1100 to 1126 (Volume III, Pages 289 to 307) of the transcript.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We move forward a year and the object of the aggressive action becomes Czechoslovakia. Or I should say we move forward 6 months to a year. There you have the Sudetenland obtained in September; the absorption of the whole of Bohemia and Moravia on the 15th of March 1939. Then it was necessary to reassure Poland; so an assurance to Poland is given by Hitler on the 20th of February 1938, and repeated up to the 26th of. September 1938. The falsity of that assurance was shown over and over again in Colonel Griffith-Jones' speech on Poland, which the Tribunal will find in the transcript at Pages 966 to 1060 (Volume II, Pages 195 to 261). Then finally, when they want the action as directed against Poland in the next year for its conquest, assurance must be given to Russia, and so a non-aggression pact is entered into on the 23rd of August 1939, as shown by Mr. Alderman, at Pages 1160 to 1216 (Volume III, Pages 328 to 366). With regard to that tabular presentation, one might say, in the Latin tag, res ipsa loquitor. But quite a frank statement from this defendant with regard to the earlier part of that can be found in the account of his conversation with the United States Ambassador, Mr. Bullitt, on the 18th of May 1936, which is on Page 74 of the document book, Document L-150, Exhibit USA-65; and if I might read the first paragraph after the introduction which says that he called on this defendant, Mr. Bullitt remarks: "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.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: '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 win develop,' he said." I remind the Tribunal, without citing it, of the conversation referred to by my friend, Major Barrington, a short time ago, between the Defendant Von Papen, as Ambassador, and Mr. Messersmith, which is very much to the same effect. Then I come to the actual aggression against Austria, and I remind the Tribunal that this defendant was Foreign Minister: First, during the early Nazi plottings against Austria in 1934. The Tribunal will find these in the transcript at Pages 475 to 489 (Volume II, Pages 352-364), and I remind them generally that that was the murder of Chancellor Dollfuss and the ancillary acts which were afterwards so strongly approved. Secondly, when the false assurance was given to Austria on the 21st of May 1935, and the fraudulent treaty made on the 11th of July 1936. References to these are Document TC-26, which is Exhibit GB-19, and Document TC-22, which is Exhibit GB-20. The reference in the transcript is at Pages 544 and 545 (Volume II, Page 383). Third, when the Defendant Von Papen was carrying on his subterranean intrigues in the period from 1935 to 1937. 1 again give the references so the Tribunal will have it in mind: Document 2247-PS, Exhibit USA-64, letter dated 17 May 1935; and Exhibit USA-67, Document 2246-PS, I September 1936. The references in the transcript are Pages 492 (Volume II, Pages 363, 364), 516-518 (Volume II, Pages 372-374), 526-545 (Volume II, Pages 378 to 391), and 553-554 (Volume II, Pages 394, 395). This Defendant Von Neurath was present when Hitler declared, at the Hossbach interview on the 5th of November 1937 , that the German question could only be solved by force and that his plans were to conquer Austria and Czechoslovakia. That is Document 386- PS, Exhibit USA-25, which the Tribunal will find at Page 82.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you will look at the sixth line of Page 82, after the heading, you will see that one of the persons in attendance at this highly confidential meeting was the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, Freiherr von Neurath. Without reading a document which the Tribunal have had referred to them more than once, may I remind the Tribunal that it is on Page 86 that the passage about the conquest of Austria occurs, and if the Tribunal will look after "2:" and "3:" the next sentence is: "For the improvement of our military-political position, it must be our first aim in every case of warlike entanglement to conquer Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously, in order to remove any threat from the flanks in case of a possible advance westwards." That is developed on the succeeding page. The important point is that this defendant was present at that meeting; and it is impossible for him after that meeting to say that he was not acting except with his eyes completely open and with complete comprehension as to what was intended. Then the next point. During the actual Anschluss he received a note from the British Ambassador dated the 11th of March 1938. That is Document 3045-PS, Exhibit USA-127. He sent the reply contained in Document 3287-PS, Exhibit USA-128. If I might very briefly remind the Tribunal of the reply, I think all that is necessary-and of course the Tribunal have had this document referred to them before-is at the top of Page 93. 1 wish to call attention to two obvious untruths. The Defendant Von Neurath states in the sixth line: "It is untrue that the Reich used forceful pressure to bring about this development, especially the assertion, which was spread later by the former Federal Chancellor, that the German Government had presented the Federal President with a conditional ultimatum. It is a pure invention." According to the ultimatum, he had to appoint a proposed candidate as Chancellor to form a Cabinet conforming to the proposals of the German Government. Otherwise the invasion of Austria by German troops was held in prospect.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: "The truth of the matter is that the question of sending military or police forces from the Reich was only brought up when the newly formed Austrian Cabinet addressed a telegram, already published by the press, to the German Government, urgently asking for the dispatch of German troops as soon as possible, in order to restore peace and order and to avoid bloodshed. Faced with the imminent danger of a bloody civil war in Austria, the German Government then decided to comply with the appeal addressed to it." Wet, as I said, My Lord, these are the two most obvious untruths, and all one can say is that it must have, at any rate, given this defendant a certain macabre sort of humor to write that, when the truth was, as the Tribunal know it from the report of Gauleiter Rainer to Burckel, which has been put in before the Tribunal as Document 812-PS, Exhibit USA-61, and when they have heard, as they have at length, the transcripts of the Defendant Goering's telephone conversation with Austria on that day, which is Document 2949-PS, Exhibit USA-76, and the entries of the Defendant Jodl's diary for the 11th, 13th, and 14th of February, which is Document 1780-PS, Exhibit USA-72. In this abundance of proof of the untruthfulness of these statements the Tribunal may probably think that the most clear and obvious correction is in the transcription of the Defendant Goering's telephone conversations, which are so amply corroborated by the other documents. The Prosecution submits that it is inconceivable that this defendant who, according to the Defendant Jodl's diary-may I ask the Tribunal just to look at Page 116 of the document book, the entry in the Defendant Jodl's diary for the 10th of March, so that they have this point quite clear? It is the third paragraph, and it says: "At 1300 hours General Keitel informs Chief of Operational Staff, Admiral Canaris. Ribbentrop is being detained in London.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Neurath takes over the Foreign Office." I submit that it is inconceivable when this defendant had taken over the Foreign Office, was dealing with the matter, and as I shall show the Tribunal in a moment, co-operating with the Defendant Goering to suit the susceptibilities of the Czechs, that he should have been so ignorant of the truth of events and what really was happening as to write that letter in honor and good faith. His position can be shown equally clearly by the account which is given of him in the affidavit of Mr. Messersmith, Document 2385-PS, Exhibit USA-68. If the Tribunal will look at Page 107 of the document book, I remind them of that entry which exactly describes the action and style of activity of this defendant at this crisis. Two-thirds of the way down the page the paragraph begins: "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 10 October 1935, 1 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.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now. [The Tribunal adjourned until 24 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]
MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): If it please Your Honor, the Defendant Streicher and the Defendant Kaltenbrunner are absent this morning due to illness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, before the Tribunal adjourned, I was dealing with the share of the Defendant Neurath in the aggression against Austria. Before I proceed to the next stage, I should like the Tribunal, if it be so kind, to look at the original exhibit to which I am referred, Document 3287-PS, Exhibit USA-128, which is the letter from this defendant to Sir Neville Henderson, who was then the British Ambassador. The only point in which I would be grateful is if the Tribunal would note Page 92 of the document book. When I say original, that is a certified copy certified by the British Foreign Office, but the Tribunal will see that the heading is from the President of the Secret Cabinet Council. That is the point that the Tribunal will remember. The question was raised as to the existence or activity of that body and the letterhead is from the defendant in that capacity. The next stage in the Austrian aggression is that at the time of the occupation of Austria, this defendant gave the assurance to M. Mastny, the Ambassador of Czechoslovakia to Berlin, regarding the continued independence of Czechoslovakia. That is one document at Page 123, TC-27, which I have already put in as Exhibit GB-21. It was to Lord Halifax, who was then Foreign Secretary; and if I may read the second paragraph just to remind the Tribunal of the circumstances in which it was written, M. Mastny says: "I have in consequence been instructed by my Government to bring to the official knowledge of His Majesty's Government the following facts: Yesterday evening (the 11th of March) Field Marshal Goering made two separate statements to M.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mastny, the Czechoslovak Minister in Berlin, assuring him that the developments in Austria will in no way have any detrimental influence on the relations between the German Reich and Czechoslovakia, and emphasizing the continued earnest endeavor on the part of Germany to improve those mutual relations." And then there are the particulars of the way it was put to Defendant Goering which have been brought to the Tribunal's attention several times, and I shall not do it again. The 6th paragraph begins: "M. Mastny was in a position to give him definite and binding assurances on this subject"-that is, to give the Defendant Goering on the Czech mobilization-and then it goes on: "... and today spoke with Baron Von Neurath, who, among other things, assured him on behalf of Herr Hitler that Germany still considers herself bound by the German Czechoslovak Arbitration Convention concluded at Locarno in October 1925." In view of the fact that the Defendant Von Neurath had been present at the meeting on the 5th of November, 4 months previously, when he had heard Hitler's views on Czechoslovakia-and that it was only 6 months before that really negotiated treaty was disregarded at once-that paragraph, in my submission, is an excellent example on the technique of which this defendant was the first professor. I now come to the aggression against Czechoslovakia. On 28 May 1938 Hitler held a conference of important leaders including Beck, Von Brauchitsch, Raeder, Keitel, Goering and Ribbentrop at which Hitler affirmed that preparations should be made for military action against Czechoslovakia by October; and it is believed, though not-I say frankly-confirmed, that the Defendant Von Neurath attended. The reference of that meeting is in the transcript of Pages 742 and 743 (Volume III, Page 42).
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, is there any evidence?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. Your Lordship will remember the documents, a long series of them, and it does not state who was present; therefore, I express that and put it with reserve. On the 4th of September 1938 the government of which Von Neurath was a member enacted a new Secret Reich Defense Law which defined various official responsibilities in clear anticipation of war. This law provided, as did the previous Secret Reich Defense Law, for a Reich Defense Council as a supreme policy board for war preparations. The Tribunal will remember that I have already referred them to Document 2194-PS, Exhibit USA-36, showing these facts. Then there came the Munich Agreement of 29 September 1938, but in spite of that, on the 14th of March 1939 German troops marched into Czechoslovakia; and the proclamation to the German people and the order to the Wehrmacht is Document TC-50, Exhibit GB-7, which the Tribunal will find at Page 124, which has already been referred to and I shall not read it again. On the 16th of March 1939 the German Government, of which Von Neurath was still a member, promulgated the "Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor on the Establishment of the Protectorate 'Bohemia and Moravia."' That date is the 16th of March. That is at Page 126 of the document book, TC-51, Exhibit GB-8. If I may leave that for the moment, I will come back to it in dealing with the setting up of the Protectorate. I will come back in a moment and read Article 5.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But taking the events in the order of time, the following week the Defendant Von Ribbentrop signed a treaty with Slovakia, which is at Page 129 (Document 1439-PS, Exhibit GB-135); and the Tribunal may remember Article 2 of that treaty, which is: "For the purpose of making effective the protection undertaken by the German Reich, the German Armed Forces shall have the right at all times to construct military installations and to keep them garrisoned in the strength they deem necessary in an area delimited on its western side by the frontiers of the State of Slovakia, and on its eastern side by a line formed by the eastern rims of the Lower Carpathians, the White Carpathians, and the Javornik Mountains. "The Government of Slovakia will take the necessary steps to assure that the land required for these installations shall be conveyed to the German Armed Forces. Furthermore, the Government of Slovakia will agree to grant exemption from custom duties for imports from the Reich for the maintenance of the German troops and the supply of military installations." The Tribunal will appreciate that the ultimate objective of Hitler's policy disclosed at the meeting at which this defendant was present on the 5th of November 1937, that is the resumption of the "Drang nach Osten" and the acquisition of Lebensraum. in the East, was obvious from the terms of this treaty as it has been explicit in Hitler's statement. Then we come to the pith of this criminality. By accepting and occupying the position of Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, the Defendant Von Neurath personally adhered to the aggression against Czechoslovakia and the world. He further actively participated in the conspiracy of world aggression and he assumed a position of leadership in the execution of policies involving violating the laws of war and the commission of crimes against humanity. The Tribunal will appreciate that I am not going to trespass on the ground covered by my colleagues and go into the crimes.