dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
RAINER: A particularly good impression was made on me by one camp attached to some water works at Mund on the Drau River; the same applies to Schwabeck.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did these foreign workers behave at the end of the war? Were there riots?
RAINER: No. Due to the considerable number of workers in my small Gau I was worried about the food supply. Relations with the population were good because the Carinthian is a good-natured and agreeable type of person. I myself have experienced that French workers who had already been collected by the British in camps to be transported away, went back to their farmers, preferring to wait there rather than in the Camp.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the National Socialist Party strongly represented in Carinthia?
RAINER: Yes. . There were so many National Socialists in Carinthia that Schuschnigg said on one occasion: "One ought to put barbed wire around that county and the concentration camp would be complete."
DR. SERVATIUS: But their relations with the foreign workers were good?
RAINER: Yes, naturally.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
MR. DODD: Witness, when did you come to the conclusion that this Defendant, Seyss-Inquart, was not a member of the Party as you stated in your letter? When did you change your mind about that?
RAINER: I did not learn until fairly late after the Anschluss that he was not a member of the Party. I cannot tell you the exact year any more.
MR. DODD: But it was not long after you wrote this report, was it, that you found out that what you had said in here was not exactly so? You had misunderstood?
RAINER: In that report I made various attempts to describe matters in a manner favorable to Seyss-Inquart, because I refused to support the Prosecution against Dr. Seyss-Inquart.
MR. DODD: Now that is not what I asked you. I asked you if it was a fact that you found out soon after you wrote this letter that you were in error in stating that Seyss-Inquart had been a member of the Party. Now you can answer that very directly, I think, without any long statement.
RAINER: I do not believe that I noticed it shortly afterwards.
MR. DODD: Well, when was it? That is all we want to know. If at any time you actually did receive such information, when did you receive it?
RAINER: That I can no longer say and it did not appear important to me at the time.
MR. DODD: All right. Now when did you change your mind or find that you were in error in saying that Seyss-Inquart knew about and participated in the staged demonstrations or the arrangements for the demonstrations which were to take place in Vienna? When did you find that that was misinformation or a mistake?
RAINER: I am not aware that Dr. Seyss-Inquart participated in demonstrations in Vienna.
MR. DODD: Now that is not what I said. If you misunderstood me, I am sorry. Now turn around and maybe if you will look at me it will help a little. You told the Tribunal, in answer to a question from Dr. Steinbauer, that Seyss-Inquart did not provoke the demonstrations and he could not prevent them at that stage. But what Dr. Steinbauer asked you was if what you said in your letter about his participation in the plans was true. You know what you say in your letter or your report, do you not? Do you remember what you said in this report about Seyss-Inquart and his participation?
RAINER: The details of my report are no longer in my memory.
MR. DODD: Would you like to look at it?
RAINER: Yes, please.
MR. DODD: While you are waiting for it I can clear some other things up here. Now as a matter of fact, you gave us an affidavit in November, swearing that this was true, did you not?
RAINER: I specifically stated in this connection that I was partly relying on information received from authoritative individuals and that afterwards I had further information showing me that not everything had been correctly represented. I also stated specifically, and had it included in the record, that I had made these statements with a certain bias. A supplement to my affidavit was also made.
MR. DODD: Just a minute. On 15 November 1945, right here in Nuremberg, under oath, you executed this affidavit in which you said that you confirmed the facts of this report and that they were all true to the best of your knowledge and belief. Now what information have you received since 15 November and from whom, that warrants you in making statements contrary to this report today before this Tribunal?
RAINER: I wish to state in this connection that the point of view which I adopted on 15 November is maintained by me today.
MR. DODD: Well, is this report true or not in its entirety, as you told us it was on 15 November?
RAINER: The report must not be taken literally. Partly it is based on statements made by reliable people, and I made it to the best of my knowledge and belief according to the situation existing, I believe, in July 1939, with a certain bias.
MR. DODD: Well, you told us it was true in November, did you not?
RAINER: I did not say that. I said specifically...
MR. DODD: I will show you your affidavit. Your affidavit is attached to that document that you have, and that is your signature, is it not, and you have sworn to the truth of it?
RAINER: I made a specific statement in connection with it, and as a precaution I made a short note about it afterward. The formulation of the reservations was discussed at length.
MR. DODD: Now you answer my question. Is that the affidavit that you executed under oath on 15 November here in Nuremberg? Yes or no?
RAINER: Yes.
MR. DODD: Now, in there you say that you testify and confirm that "The facts which form the basis of the above-mentioned letters and reports are true to the best of my knowledge and belief," and you also say further up that you have read the letters and the report. Now, is that affidavit true? Were you telling the truth when you said that to us under oath in November?
RAINER: That affidavit is correct, but I demand that the explanations which I gave in connection with it and which were made apart from the record at that time-at least they were taken down in shorthand-be added to it.
MR. DODD: Why did you not ask that there be included in the affidavit anything that you wanted about this report if it was not altogether true? You were swearing to it. Did you ask that something be added to it or that it be changed?
RAINER: I considered this statement to be a statement of the genuine character of the documents which had been submitted to me. The record of my statements contained my opinion of the contents of these documents, and as a precaution I added a statement that in this case, too, I wished certain reservations to be taken down. They were subsequently formulated by one of the gentlemen interrogating me, stating ". . . to the best of my knowledge and belief..." and then he went on to say that all these reservations which I had stated had been expressed in accordance with the method customary with you.
MR. DODD: Now, are you really serious in telling this to this Tribunal today about this affidavit? Are you really serious about this last statement?
RAINER: I am absolutely serious about it. I have nothing to hide.
MR. DODD: Now maybe we can shed a little more light on the kind of reports that you make. I have another one here that you have not seen. You made a speech in 1942. This is Document 4005-PS. It becomes USA-890. You had better have a copy of this in front of you, USA-890. Do you remember that speech that you made on 11 March 1942 in Klagenfurt before the Leader Corps and the bearers of honor insignia and blood orders of the Gau Carinthia, in which you told the whole story of the development of the events of March 1938? Do you remember the day you made that speech? is 40
RAINER: I did make a speech of that kind. .MR. DODD: All right. Now, let us look at it. Were you telling the truth the day you made that speech?
RAINER: I represented the events in a way in which my audience would understand.
MR. DODD: Were you telling the truth when you made that speech? I did not ask you if you made it interesting; I asked you if you told the truth.
RAINER: I believe I spoke the truth at the time, but I also believe that there were certain things on which I was not correctly informed.
MR. DODD: Now, let us take a look and see what you said in 1942 with reference to this report, 812-PS. Now, if you will turn to-I think it is Page 8 of your text, I am trying to locate for you the sentence that begins: "Only in co-operation with us, Jury and a number of coworkers of Leopold, and also with Leopold's consent, was it possible to achieve Seyss-Inquart's appointment to the post of State Councillor. More and more Seyss turned out to be the clever negotiator. We knew he was the one who would best represent the interests of the Movement in the political forefield. He also unconditionally subordinated himself to Klausner's leadership. He always conducted himself as Klausner's deputy and conscientiously followed Klausner's instructions. "With Seyss' appointment to the post of Staatsrat, we found a new possibility to enter into further negotiations. At that time there were a number of grotesque situations. We were informed on events in the Schuschnigg camp by the political apparatus; our own connection to Ribbentrop, Goering, and Himmler we had via Keppler." Did you say that in your speech as reported there in the text of it, and how do you reconcile that now with what you have told the Tribunal about the report to Burckel?
RAINER: It is not known to me where that record of the speech originates. I should have to have an opportunity. . .
MR. DODD: I will tell you. It is a captured document that was found down there in the files, so you need not worry about that. What I want to know is whether or not you now admit that you made this speech and you said these things at the time that you made it.
RAINER: I made the speech, but I declare emphatically that whatever I have said under oath today about that point is the true version. This is a broad statement designed for the audience of that time, which cannot be taken as literally as something which I say today, conscious of my responsibility.
MR. DODD: You are not speaking broadly for the benefit of an audience here today, are you?
RAINER: That is correct.
MR. DODD: Let us turn a page and see what you said about Papen, and about the conference. You go on to say how you got information, how you met in the Ringstrasse, and so on. If you will follow right along now, we will not lose the places. "Papen had been expressly told to handle preparations for the conference confidentially. In Austria, only Schuschnigg, Schmidt, and Zernatto knew about it. They believed that on our side only Papen was informed. Papen, too, thought that only he knew about it, but we too were informed and had had conversations with Seyss about the subject." That is the Berchtesgaden conference. Now, were you telling the truth when you said this in 1942, or not? Or was that a broad statement for the benefit of the audience?
RAINER: I cannot today check this document against a correct reproduction of what I said then.
MR. DODD: Well, why not? It was in 1942. Do you not remember? Do you mean that you do not know whether you told the truth or not, or you do not know whether you said this or not?
RAINER: In those days I gave a description before the simple people of Carinthia and I...
MR. DODD: Did you lie to them or did you tell them the truth?
RAINER: No, but I speak to people like that differently than I would speak under oath before this Tribunal, having to make concrete statements about concrete points. It seems impossible to me that I should today be required to confirm individual points of a speech which was made 4 years ago.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you have an answer? He is not answering your question.
MR. DODD: No, Sir, he is not. [Turning to the witness.] I asked you whether or not you made these statements on that day, and if you did so, were they true? Now, you can tell us that very simply and we do not need any long answer. You have read it over and you have heard me read it. Now, please give us an answer. You do not need to read ally more. You have read it once and I have read it to you. Was that true and did you say it?
RAINER: In details it is not correct.
MR. DODD: Well, is it true in any respect? Is it true that Papen was informed and that Seyss-Inquart knew about that conference long before it took place or sometime before it took place? That is what we want to know.
RAINER: When we met during the Olympic winter games in Garmisch, we encountered...
MR. DODD: Now, just a minute. You are not answering my question. That is the next paragraph or the next sentence which you have been reading. I know that is coming and I am going to ask you about the meeting in Garmisch. I am now asking you if what you said about Von Papen and Seyss-Inquart is the truth, and that is all I want to know.
RAINER: It is correct that at about this time we were informed about the intention of having a conference.
M. DODD: And that Seyss-Inquart knew about it. Now, let us go on a little bit further and find out about this Garmisch meeting. You were invited down there to the Olympic games, you say, and you had a meeting with Papen and SeyssInquart and they went through some negotiations, and then you went on to Berlin. Now, I want to move down a little bit. There is a lot of interesting material here. We do not have the time to go into it all just now. You go on down quite a bit, and I want to ask you about what you say you had already prepared. "We had already prepared the following"-and you are talking about Schuschnigg and the impending conference. It is on the back of Page 9 of your text, Witness, and it is on Page 5 of the English text, the last paragraph. You say: "We had already prepared the following: "The last result of the conversation Seyss communicated to me in a shop in the Karntnerstrasse. I called the telephone number where Globus was to be reached in Berlin. . ." By the way, for the benefit of the Tribunal, Globus is Globocznik, is he not? He is the same person, is he not?
RAINER: Yes.
MR. DODD: "...and told him about the negative result of the conversation. I could speak with Globus entirely freely. We had a secret code for each name, and besides we both spoke a terrible dialect so that not a soul would have under stood us. Globus immediately wrote down this report..." and so on. "In the meantime, Keppler had gone to Munich by sleeping car." Then, a sentence or two further down: "I then forwarded instructions by Party member Muhlmann, who proved to be an excellent liaison man to government offices in the Reich. He left for Salzburg on the same train as Schuschnigg. While Schuschnigg had his car taken off at Salzburg and spent the night there and went on by car to the Obersalzberg, Muhlmann continued on and got to Berchtesgaden. Keppler and he went to the Fuehrer before Schuschnigg and were able to tell him everything. Schuschnigg arrived in the morning, was received, and experienced boundless surprise that the Fuehrer took up the negotiations where they had been broken off without results the day before between Seyss and him. The Fuehrer did not conduct the negotiations as Schuschnigg expected. He went the whole hog. Schuschnigg was finished off that time, in a manner one can hardly imagine. The Fuehrer got hold of him, assaulted him, and shouted at him and reproached him for all the dirty tricks Schuschnigg had committed during the past years. Schuschnigg had become a heavy smoker. There was connection even with his bedroom. We knew about his way of life. Now he was smoking 50, now 60 cigarettes. Now, in the presence of the Fuehrer, he was not allowed to smoke. Schuschnigg could not even smoke. "Ribbentrop told me he really pitied Schuschnigg He only stood at attention before the Fuehrer, held his hands against the seams of his trousers and all he said was 'Yes, sir,' 'Jawohl."' Now, what about that? You say all these things in your speech and were they true when you said them? Right up to that point, Witness, you have read it with me. Did you say this or not, and was it true when you said it?
RAINER: The events as I have described them here are, as a whole, correct. Individual expressions which I read here are not mine. In that point this document has been supplemented by somebody else. Whether the events described here are correct in detail, is something I cannot say for certain because much of it did not happen in my presence.
MR. DODD: I just wanted to know if you said it; that is all. Very well, we will go on. You also told them that Schmidt finally went to Ribbentrop and asked him to give Schuschnigg one cigarette and so they gave him one. Let us go on quite a few pages to a more important matter. It is on Page 13.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, will you be able to finish tonight, because we were going to adjourn at a quarter to.
MR. DODD: Yes, I will. I shall need only 2 more minutes to finish. I do not think it takes much time. I just have one or two items in this speech. [Turning to the witness.]You know in this speech you told your listeners about the day that Seyss-Inquart came to a meeting and told you that he had been bound by his word of honor not to talk about the plebiscite. You know what you told your listeners that day. You will find it on-well, you can find it, I can assure you it is in the text and it will save time if you believe me. It is on Page 13 of the English text. You say: "We asked Seyss: Is it true? Seyss said: I am bound by my word of honor not to speak, but we want to act as if it is true." "Diplomat that he was..."-was your observation- ". . . the matter was clear to us." He let you know, did he not, that Schuschnigg had told him about the plebiscite. He let you know, did he not? Please, can you not answer my question without-you will not find the answer to that on that page. - RAINER: The description here coincides with my memory.
MR. DODD: [Turning to the Tribunal.] Just one last matter and I am not going to have many more questions for him. You also told your listeners that in the night from Thursday, 10 March to Friday, 11 March, all Gauleiter were in Vienna waiting for information: "On 10 March we issued orders to the SA and SS, Lukesch and Kaltenbrunner, to call out, beginning Friday, half of the formations, and that the best men were to remain armed in their barracks in the event of a civil war," and so on. Did you say that?
RAINER: With arms and in barracks? That cannot be right. The instructions at that time were, and it is unlikely that I recounted them otherwise, that half the strength should remain assembled at home, that is, in assembly areas. There is no question of barracks, and weapons we had almost none.
MR. DODD: You know, in this whole speech almost everything, except in more detail, that you wrote in your report to Burckel, is contained. The truth of the matter is that you were telling, in both instances, what you believed to be the truth, is it not? That is the truth of the matter. When you made your report to Burckel and when you made the speech to the leaders and the members of the blood order, you were reporting what you thought were the facts, and what of course, you know now are still the facts.
RAINER: I cannot recognize this matter as being authentic.
MR. DODD: Well, I certainly do not have many more questions, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now. [The Tribunal adjourned until 13 June 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has considered the question of the time to be taken by counsel in their concluding speeches. The provisions of Article 18 of the Charter directing the Tribunal to confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing must be observed, and counsel clearly could not be permitted to speak at any length they choose. Necessity dictates that there must be some limitation, or this already lengthy Trial might be prolonged beyond all reason. The Tribunal understands that the Prosecution will voluntarily limit their concluding speeches to 3 days in all, and some voluntary limitation should be made by Counsel for the Defense. The evidence for the defendants has been fully heard in great detail, and what is now needed is not a detailed analysis of the evidence but a concise review of the main matters. The Tribunal wishes to make clear that no admission will be inferred from failure to mention any particular matter in argument. On this view, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the speeches of the Counsel for the Defense-including the speech to be made on behalf of all the defendants on the' submission of law-should be concluded in 14 days in all. This will allow the Defense double the time taken by the Prosecution, both in opening and in summing up. By mutual arrangement between counsel, these 14 days could be apportioned as they think fit; and the Tribunal would prefer that they make the apportionment rather than make the apportionment itself. The Tribunal expects, therefore, that Counsel for the Defense will prepare their speeches in accordance with what I have said and will advise the Tribunal as soon as possible of the apportionment of time that they have made. If they find themselves unable to agree on this apportionment, the Tribunal will give further consideration to the matter. The Tribunal desires also to point out to counsel-both for the Prosecution and for the Defense-that it will materially help the Tribunal if counsel would submit translations of their speeches at the time they make them. That is all.
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Mr. President, the decision which you have just announced to us has surprised the Defense, since they have not been previously heard with reference to this question. This appears to us to be all the more regrettable since the decision is against the most elementary rights of the Defense, because it prevents us from stating in Court what, in this most important Trial, has to be said with regard to the defendants and the problems with which they are confronted. At this moment we are not yet in any position to survey the entire material. If I were to state, without wishing to forestall the other defendants' counsel the case of the Defendant Keitel as an example, you will understand that the material alone which has appeared after the cross-examination puts me in an extremely difficult position. I am sure that a large number of the other defendants' counsel will also share my opinion that these matters cannot be dealt with collectively. While every attempt should be made to deal comprehensively with these matters, nevertheless, in my opinion, the cases of the individual defendants should be dealt with separately. Fourteen days appears to me a very short time. In practice, it is almost impossible to make a fair apportionment, that is, to deal properly with the individual questions. Might I suggest, therefore, that the decision which you have just announced-I am not sure whether it was only a suggestion- should be reconsidered after consultation with the Defense. Without wanting to anticipate the argument which the whole Counsel for the Defense intends to offer; I wish, nevertheless, formally to raise objection now to the decision limiting the Defense beyond the limits of what is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Do counsel either for the Prosecution or the Defense wish to make any other observations to the Tribunal upon this subject?
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I would like to state that I take exception to Dr. Nelte's argument. What I wish to say very briefly is that with respect to Dr. Nelte's argument that a restriction in time with respect to the final argument is a violation of a fundamental right of these defendants, I wanted to call the Tribunal's attention that in our country it is, I would say, rather common practice for our courts to restrict counsel in time in final argument, as the Tribunal has pointed out.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other counsel wish to make any other observations?