dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, unfortunately I must say that my opinion differs from that of the Tribunal, because I believe- and that applies not only to the Defendant SeyssInquart, but also to the other defendants who participated in the Anschluss, namely, Goering, Ribbentrop, Papen, Neurath-that it is important to know the economic, political, and cultural auspices and the political situation of Austria at the time when these men were striving toward an Anschluss. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is important to ascertain just what the general attitude was. I have taken the liberty of including in my document book a short historical report to clarify the various views. Witness, then, in 1938 you became Mayor of the City of Vienna?
NEUBACHER: That was after the Anschluss.
DR. STEINBAUER: At the same time, SeyssInquart was Reichsstatthalter for the Gau of Vienna, or rather the State of Austria; is that correct?
NEUBACHER: I became Mayor of Vienna under Seyss-Inquart on the morning of 13 March 1938, when he was still Austrian Federal Chancellor. At that time SeyssInquart was Federal Chancellor of Austria.
DR. STEINBAUER: Very well. How long did you remain in office as Mayor of the City of Vienna?
NEUBACHER: According to the Austrian Law, until February 1939. Then Burckel became Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter of Vienna, and thereby automatically supreme head of the communal administration. Thus...
DR. STEINBAUER: That is enough. Thank you. And what was the relationship between SeyssInquart on the one hand and the Commissioner for the Reichsvereinigung, Burckel, on the other hand?
NEUBACHER: The relations were notoriously bad. Burckel disregarded the authority of the Reichsstatthalter, SeyssInquart. He ruled over his head, and he tried by every method of slander, intrigue, and provocation to overthrow SeyssInquart and remove him from of lice. And he succeeded.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to question?
COL. AMEN: No.
THE PRESIDENT: No questions?
COL. AMEN: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire. Dr. Kauffmann.
DR. KAUFFMANN: There are still six interrogatories outstanding. I hope that I will be permitted to submit them as soon as they are received; and may I also reserve for myself the right, in connection with the application I made 2 days ago, to apply for some one of the witnesses in writing, that is, witnesses from among those who appear in the affidavits submitted by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you want to cross-examine somebody from whom the Prosecution has submitted an affidavit?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you speaking of affidavits which have already been put in?
DR. KAUFFMANN: I am speaking of the affidavits which were submitted for the first time 2 days ago.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal thinks you should make up your mind very soon as to whether you want to cross-examine those persons.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Certainly. I intended to put that application to you, but the Tribunal told me to make that application in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see. Very well.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Apart from that, I have finished my case for today.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, we understood that Dr. Dix wanted to have the question of his documents settled on behalf of the Defendant Schacht. Did you anticipate that that would take long?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I might just consult Mr. Dodd- I don't think it will, but I would just like to verify that, if Your Lordship will allow.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Dr. Dix say?
DR. DIX: I do not think it will take long, perhaps a quarter of an hour. However, I shall have to reply to the Prosecution, and therefore the length of my reply depends upon the length of the statement made by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, there would seem to be some advantages in taking it now, because otherwise we have got to stop at some particular time, and we shan't know how long it is going to take. If we take it now, it does not so much matter, and then we could go on with Dr. Thoma afterwards.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, my friend Mr. Dodd thinks it will take about a half hour.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Thoma, you have no objection to that, have you?
DR. THOMA: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have before me an index which is submitted by Dr. Dix on behalf of the Defendant Schacht. First, I assume that I should proceed by taking up the exhibits to which we have objected.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am not sure that I have that index before me. Have you got a copy of it we could have?
MR. DODD: I have just the one copy, which was supplied to us by Dr. Dix.
THE PRESIDENT: Has it been supplied to the Tribunal?
MR. DODD: I don't think so; I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could indicate what the documents are without our having them before us. Would you give the numbers when you indicate the documents?
MR. DODD: Yes, Your Honor. As to the first four documents, Number 1 is a book by Sir Nevile Henderson, Failure of a Mission. Number 2 is also an excerpt from that book; so is Number 3. We object to all of those on the ground that they only represent the opinion of Sir Nevile Henderson; they do not recount historical fact. Number 4 is an excerpt from a book written about Dr. Schacht by a man by the name of Karl Bopp. We object to that on the same ground; that it is the opinion of the author and not pertinent here. Exhibit Number 5 is an excerpt from the book written by Mr. Sumner Welles, The Time for Decision . Our objection to this excerpt is based on the same grounds; it contains only an opinion of Mr. Welles and, however valuable in some places, it is incompetent here. Exhibit Number 6 is the book by Viscount Rothermere which was already passed upon by the Tribunal with respect to the application of the Defendant Goering. We renew the objection that was made at that time, citing again that it is only the opinion of this gentleman and is of no value before this Tribunal. Exhibit Number 7 is the Messersmith affidavit, which was offered in evidence by the Prosecution. We have no objection to that, of course. Exhibit Number 8 is also a Prosecution exhibit. No objection. Number 9, likewise. Number 10 is an affidavit or declaration by the late Field Marshal Von Blomberg, and we have no objection to that. Passing on, we have no objection until we reach Exhibit Number 14, Ambassador Dodd's diary-and it is not really an objection there. We ask that we be given the dates of the entries-they have not been given to us thus far-or the pages from the diary from which it is intended to quote. We go on to Exhibit Number 18. The intervening exhibits, of course, we have no objection to...
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I understand this is really a question of what shall be translated, is it not?
MR. DODD: Yes. We are objecting now, because we want to save the labor of the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then you go on to 18.
MR. DODD: Yes. Number 18 consists of three parts: (a), (b), and (c). They are statements of Paul Boncour, of Briand, and of Lord Cecil. They are statements about Germany's right to rearm. We object to them because they are not statements made by officials of any of these governments-of these two governments. No source is given in the excerpt which is to be quoted, and it appears that they are nothing more than opinions, given after these men had retired from office. Passing on, then, we come to Exhibit Number 33. That is a speech by Dr. Schacht in 1937. Our only question about it-we are not questioning at all its relevancy, of course, but we would like to know whether or not the original is available. We have not been able to find out yet. Number 34 is a speech by Adolf Hitler. It is very brief, and I am rather loath to make too much objection to it, except that I cannot see its relevancy here. It does not seem to pertain to any of the issues that have been raised in this place, and unless Dr. Dix has something in mind that we have not been apprised of, we would object to it.
THE PRESIDENT: What does it deal with, Mr. Dodd?
MR. DODD: It deals with rearmament, generally; but it does not say anything about Dr. Schacht or any of the allegations here. It seems to be just a general statement about rearmament. We have an objection to Exhibit Number 37. It is a letter from Dr. Schacht to Mr. Leon Fraser. Our objection is that we would like to know whether or not the original is available; and if it is-why, we would have no objection. Number 38 is a newspaper article from a newspaper in Zurich, Switzerland about what Dr. Schacht's thoughts were; and we object to that. The author is unknown, to begin with. It is only a newspaper account and seems to be immaterial and unimportant here. Exhibit Number 39 is a letter written by one Richard Morton, addressed to the Solicitor of the Treasury in Great Britain. It was forwarded here to the General Secretary, I believe. In any event, we object to it on the ground that it is not competent. It purports to tell what Morton thought about Schacht and about some assistance that Morton received from Schacht. We would suggest that if Dr. Schacht's counsellor, Dr. Dix, feels that Morton has really some pertinent and relevant testimony to give here, it could be done by way of an interrogatory. He is in London, and it would be, we submit, a more proper way to proceed, rather than offering this letter, which was written without any direction or basis. Then we move down to Exhibit Number 49, being correspondence between the publisher of Ambassador Dodd's diary and Sir Nevile Henderson. It is reprinted in the volume containing Dodd's diary. It is rather vague to me just what the relevance of the entry is here, or how it could be shown in that fashion.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it long?
MR. DODD: Not very long, no. Now, I am a little bit confused about the last few exhibits, running from 54 to 61. We are only informed that 54 is the record of Goering's testimony before this Tribunal, and so on-the record of so and so before the Tribunal: three excerpts from Goering's testimony and four from the statements of Lt. Brady Bryson, made in connection with the Prosecution's presentation of the case against the Defendant Schacht. I, of course, simply say that it is unnecessary to have these translated or do anything more than refer to them. They are already in the record, and I do not know just what Dr. Dix has in mind. I have no objection, of course, to his reference to them or any other such use as he may properly make.
THE PRESIDENT: Are those excerpts long?
MR. DODD: Well, I don't know. It is just a matter of copying them over again from the record. They are already in the record of this Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. DODD: You see, if Your Honor pleases, I do not have them before me. That amounts to our view on the applications of Dr. Schacht's counsel at this time. If there are any questions, I should be glad to answer them. I have not gone into much detail here.
THE PRESIDENT: No, that is all right. Dr. Dix can answer now. Yes, Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX: Concerning the objections raised to Numbers 1 to 6, I readily admit to Mr. Dodd that these documents are matters of argument rather than evidence. Schacht will argue the fact that prominent persons abroad represented the same views which were the basis for his entire attitude, including the question of rearmament. He will quote these opinions; and I, too, in my final speech, shall refer to these passages for the purpose of argument. If Mr. Dodd says, therefore, that this is not 60 much evidence as it is argument, he is right. But, in my opinion we are not now arguing the question of what is to be officially submitted as evidence to the Tribunal according to procedure. We are merely arguing-or rather we are discussing-whether these documents should be translated, so that if Schacht quotes them during his examination, or if I quote them during my speech, the Tribunal would be able to follow the quotation easily. We have observed that the Tribunal-and this seems fairly obvious-prefer the documents which are being quoted here to be submitted in translation so that they can follow exactly. Therefore, regarding Numbers 1 to 6-and, incidentally, the same applies to all the documents contained in Exhibit Number 18-I am not attempting to have them admitted in evidence: I am merely recommending that they be translated in the interest of everyone concerned, 50 that in case they are quoted the translation can be given to the Tribunal. It is merely a question of being practical. This applies to 1 to 6 and all under 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, hasn't the Tribunal already ruled that both the document books of Viscount Rothermere and the speech or book by M. Paul Boncour are not to be put in evidence and are not to be referred to?
DR. DIX: I only know of one ruling of the Tribunal to the effect that no arguments regarding the justice or injustice of the Versailles Peace Treaty will be admitted. We shall, of course, obey that ruling of the Tribunal. But we will not quote these passages in order to discuss the justice or injustice of the Versailles Treaty. That is not Schacht's intention or mine. To cite an example: The Prosecution considers that a certain attitude of Schacht's proves that by backing armament he supported and wanted aggression. He wants to disprove this by referring to the fact that certain prominent foreigners took the same view, and that these men could not possibly mean to further German aggression by adopting that view. That is only one example. But at any rate the purpose is not to give academic lectures on the justice or injustice of the Versailles Treaty-which I had not intended in any event, since I feel that such arguments would find but deaf ears. It is not my habit to use arguments which I believe will receive no response. May I continue? Concerning Number 18 may I-I beg to apologize. I have just heard Mr. Dodd's statements, and I must reply at once. I must first assemble the material. I have noted down that under. Number 18, which I 'have just mentioned-and this also applies to Numbers 1 to 6-Mr. Dodd is missing the sources. That may be due to the fact that he has had only the index to the document. The sources and documents are quoted in the actual quotations. I now turn to Number 37. It is Schacht's letter to a certain Fraser. I understood Mr. Dodd to say that he was raising no objection but that he merely wanted to know where the original document is located. It is a letter from Schacht to Fraser, the late president of the First National Bank. The original of that letter-if it still exists-would be among the papers left by the deceased Mr. Fraser, to which I have no access, nor has any one else. One moment, Mr. President. Schacht tells me that he has only a copy which bears his signature and, therefore, is a so-called autocopy.
DR. DIX: This autocopy was deposited in Switzerland during the war because of its contents. This autocopy, signed personally by Schacht, is here, and the copy in the document book has been taken from it. The fact that it is a true copy has been certified by Professor Kraus, and I think that as far as possible it has been adequately identified. So much for Number 37. Then I have made a note regarding Number 34. Just one moment, please. Number 34 is another case where the source was missing. The same applies as above. The source is stated in the document book-namely, Dokumente der Deutschen Politik. This compilation has been used a great deal as a source of evidence. Then objections have been raised. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the objection to 34 was not that the original was not available, but it was a speech by Hitler which was about rearmament and did not seem to be relevant.
DR. DIX: Yes, that is correct. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. Dodd, of course, could not recognize the relevancy of the document. Schacht could recognize it, since he alone knows his inner development. This is a speech of Hitler's in which there is a passage which confirmed the slowly developing suspicion on Schacht's part that this policy not only would lead to a war of aggression, but that possibly Hitler actually desired the war. This suspicion was particularly roused by this passage in the speech made by Hitler in the Reichstag on 28 February 1938. This speech is an important milestone in presenting Schacht's inner attitude toward Hitler and his policy, beginning with Schacht's adherence in the year 1933 through the turning-point when distrust started and developed into opposition, which was increased to continuous preparations for revolt. For that reason, I believe it is relevant evidence. That is Number 34. Then there is Number 38. That is the article from the Baster Nachrichten. In my opinion it is evidence of the greatest importance. At any rate, I shall fight to my very last breath to have that document admitted. Subject: Before the war-the fight against the war; during the war-the fight and the attempts to bring about an early peace, the fight against the spreading of the war. In 1941-that is to say, before Russia's entry into the war and before the entry of the United States into this war-Schacht had a conversation with a political economist from the United States, which he did not recollect until an acquaintance sent him the article which had appeared in the Baster Nachrichten of 14 January 1946. He said, "Of course, now I remember. Four years ago, in the spring of 1941, I had this conversation with an American political economist." The name, he has still forgotten. This conversation shows once more the efforts he made as late as 1941 to tie threads and get contacts to prevent any spreading of the war, particularly by opening pourparlers with the United States and the men around President Roosevelt.
DR. DIX: We have no other evidence to prove the fact that this conversation took place, since we cannot call upon this professor, because Schacht has forgotten his name. But it is the professor himself who is anonymously speaking In this newspaper edition of 14 January 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, what is the nature of the conversation which you say is reported in this newspaper?
DR. DIX: It is a fairly long article. Perhaps I may pick out a few points so that the Tribunal can understand the nature of the conversation. The professor relates in this interview that at that time Schacht took an extremely critical attitude toward the National Socialist system of government; that he had pointed out the dangers of maintaining such a system because this would lead to a complete mortification of intellectual activities. Thereupon, he goes on further to tell the professor that this war was entirely senseless, and that, when considered from a higher level, it would be senseless and futile even for a victorious Germany. He explained to the professor that every means should be employed to stop the war, because in an orderly world-in a world put in order by a just peace-the governments would automatically become liberal. In the end he suggests, therefore, that an attempt should be made at all costs to establish contact between the nations, particularly with representative men from the United States, before Russia and America entered the war. He goes on to regret that Roosevelt-I beg your pardon-he goes on to name Roosevelt-and his friends-as the very man who could carry out the great task of helping to contrive such a meeting artfully and carefully. It is an attempt, Your Lordship, similar to the one which appears in the letter to Fraser, which I quoted before. Fraser, too, belonged to the closer-at any rate, let us say to these people who had access to President Roosevelt. It is the last desperate effort, relying on the confidence Roosevelt had in him personally, to contribute his part to bring about peace before it was too late. Such an attitude is, of course, of extraordinary relevancy in rebutting the charge of aggression, and that is why I think that the Tribunal should under any circumstances admit this article as evidence.
DR. DIX: We cannot, after all, assume that this professor is not telling the truth Technically, it might be possible to try to discover his name from the Basler Nachrichten; but I am afraid that the Basler Nachrichten will not disclose the name without having made further enquiries from the professor in America. It is questionable whether he will permit his name to be disclosed, and we may have serious difficulties. Since personal experience shows that the professor's report in the Basler Nachrichten is true, then why would he not speak the truth here? Moreover, he is a respected man. That is why I think that this piece of evidence is equivalent to a personal examination of the professor. Therefore, I urge you to admit this document not only for translation but also in evidence. That was Number 38. As to Morton, I am perfectly agreeable to sending an interrogatory to Morton; but I believe that this would be a superfluous effort. Actually, I need this letter of Morton's only to prove the fact that Lord Montagu Norman, on his return from a BIZ meeting to England in 1939, told this man Morton-who was a respected citizen of Frankfurt am Main, associated with the Metallgesellschaft and later emigrated-that Schacht was in considerable personal danger on account of his political attitude. That is the main fact which I am to prove with this letter, and it is contained in the letter. This letter was not written by Morton to me or to Schacht. It is a letter which was addressed to the Solicitor of the Treasury, and from there it was given to the Prosecution here, and the Prosecution has been kind enough to inform us of the letter. We thought it would be too much trouble to have Morton called as a witness. I am perfectly willing to draft a questionnaire, but I think it would be a more simple and just as reliable a method if the Tribunal permitted me to quote two short passages from that letter. I am, however, equally prepared to send an interrogatory to London. That is Number 39.
DR. DIX: Regarding Number 49, this is correspondence between Sir Nevile Henderson and the editor of the diary of the late Ambassador Dodd. It is of the greatest importance in establishing the reliability of the statements in the Dodd diary, which not I but the Prosecution has quoted repeatedly to the detriment of Schacht, as far as I can remember. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, I should like to emphasize that we are far from questioning the reliability of the late Ambassador Dodd. Both Dr. Schacht and myself knew him personally, and we consider him to be an absolutely honorable man. But the Tribunal know that this diary, which was based on hasty notes made by the ambassador, was edited by his children after his death. Therefore, it is possible that mistakes may occur, bad mistakes. This becomes evident in the correspondence between Sir Nevile Henderson and the editor of the diary, where Sir Nevile Henderson points out that a conversation, or several conversations- which according to the diary Dodd is supposed to have had with him-were quoted quite wrongly. I believe there can be no better proof of the unbiased unreliability of this diary-I repeat, only the unbiased unreliability-than this correspondence between Sir Nevile Henderson and the editor. Therefore, in order to test the credibility of this evidence which was produced by the Prosecution, and to reduce its value to the proper proportion, I ask to have this document admitted in evidence. Regarding Numbers 54 to 61, I do not intend in any way to introduce evidence by means of these documents. It is perfectly agreeable to me if they are not translated, but the thought I had in mind was merely that of making the work of the Tribunal easier. I will examine Schacht with reference to these passages of Goering's testimony. If the Tribunal believe that it is not necessary to have these excerpts available when they are quoted or if it prefers to use the record only or have the record which is here brought up for use, then of course it will not be necessary to translate these passages.