Morning Session
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?
DR. OTTO FREIHERR VON LÜDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for Defendant Von Neurath): Mr. President, to begin with, I should like to make some remarks regarding the limit imposed upon our time. If we are limited to 14 days, then that means approximately 4 hours per defendant for our final speeches. But in reality these 4 hours are not 4 hours, since, because of the technical arrangements in this courtroom, we are forced to speak much more slowly than we would speak in a direct final speech, in a free statement. That is to say, from the 4 hours left to us on an average, we must deduct the time which we lose through having to speak more slowly. In my opinion, 4 hours would in reality amount to only 3 hours.
Mr. President, I believe that if you consider these facts you will agree with us that in these 3 hours we cannot possibly do justice to all the material available for every defendant, and thus fulfill that purpose which the final address is intended to fulfill.
The main purpose of this Tribunal, which is unique in history, is to establish the truth; but we cannot establish the truth by merely making an arbitrary selection of individual actions. Our main task must be to show what led to these individual actions. Accordingly, it is for me in my capacity as defense counsel for the Defendant Von Neurath, who was the responsible leader of the foreign policy of the Reich until 1938, to show that all the actions of which my client is accused were logically and unavoidably the outcome of the circumstances as they developed. This sequence of historical events explains everything that happened up to the day when my client handed in his resignation. But I can make that clear only if I am able to present the different stages of development, at least in broad outline. Moreover, Gentlemen, if you take into consideration that I still have to deal with the activities of my client as a Reich Protector, which for legal reasons is not altogether as simple as it might appear, you will no doubt admit that I cannot possibly do that in a period which is tantamount to only 3 hours.
I want to say to the statement of the American prosecutor, that we are not before an American court here. I have just been trying to make inquiries about this, and there is no information to the effect that in international tribunals, such as, for instance, the Hague Courts, or the courts in Egypt, a limitation has ever been imposed upon the duration of the final speeches of the defense. That is why I beg to take into consideration that we are not before an American court here but that this is an international tribunal and that this International Tribunal goes far beyond anything that has existed before. It also goes far beyond the task of any military tribunal in Germany which has up to now dealt with small particles of this tremendous complexity, and never have the military tribunals imposed a time limit upon the defense when making their final speeches.
Gentlemen, if you take all this into consideration, then I hope you will allow me to ask you once more to reconsider your decision and not have us give the impression that we are not able to do our duty in presenting our cases for our clients.
GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I will only add very little to what my colleague Mr. Dodd has already said. The penal code of our country admits the right of the tribunal to impose limitations upon both the prosecution and the defense in their final plea.
I believe that the argument of the Defense, to the effect that this decision of the Tribunal is putting limits on their rights and is unjust, is unfounded. In practice the Defense is already submitting evidence now in the case of their clients and has every opportunity to give a complete presentation. I believe, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, that justice does not consist in the endless conduct of the present Trial.
I therefore uphold the argument of Mr. Dodd and consider the decision of the Tribunal quite just.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, will you please permit me to make a brief statement? At no stage of the proceedings can the duration of a trial be foreseen.
At the beginning one cannot foresee the time required and therefore one cannot limit the time which the taking of evidence will require. Neither can the following stages of the proceedings, the length of the statements presented by the Defense, be forecast and cannot therefore be limited. The value of the Defense—and, after all, that is the only reason why a defense is included in these proceedings at all—is that a man who is given that professional task and who possesses the necessary qualities must be able to put before the Tribunal all the material which, after long hours of work and intimate conversations with his client, he has found worthy of presentation.
That must be done through such an intermediary; and to what extent he should state his case is something that he, as an expert, must be able to decide. Nobody participating in the proceedings, whether of the Tribunal or of the defendants’ counsel, can even approximately foresee what might be necessary in this connection.
That is why I believe that no dates should be fixed for the case for the Prosecution or the hearing of evidence or the case for the Defense. During the other stages of this Trial we have had to contend with the same difficulties. In limiting the proceedings as to time we can only be guided by what is relevant and expedient. Thus in this Court we have witnessed again and again how the President has steered the proceedings with skill and benevolence, always keeping them within the necessary limits. I cannot understand why the same procedure should not be applied to the final speeches, and I believe that the self-discipline which naturally every experienced counsel applies to himself, will keep the speeches within suitable limits. But I honestly believe that no one, with the exception of the immediate participant, and he probably only after all the evidence has been heard, can anticipate how much time will be required; and this, in my opinion, precludes the imposing of a time limit at this stage. If the statement made by the Tribunal should be considered as a suggestion to limit our speeches—and in this connection we are particularly grateful for the indication given as to the way the evidence should be handled—then by following the Tribunal’s suggestion we shall most certainly be able to impose upon ourselves a limitation which will do justice to all parties.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t propose to go fully or at all into the argument which led the Tribunal to make the announcement which I made this morning, but I think it would be desirable for Counsel for the Defense, before they make any formal objection to that announcement, to study it. But I do desire to say on behalf of the Tribunal that that announcement was not made without consultation both with Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense and that was done in closed session; and we heard both Counsel for the Prosecution and counsel whom we understood to be representative counsel for the Defense, and they made the suggestion which they thought right to us at that time, and we fully considered it. We intimated to them that they should draw the attention of their brethren to what passed at that hearing in closed session. Therefore, it is entirely inaccurate to say, as Dr. Nelte did, that the announcement was made without hearing Counsel for the Defense.
I only desire to add to that that in the circumstances the Tribunal will give further consideration to the matter, but the suggestion made in the announcement was that the 14 days, which the Tribunal thought sufficient for the speeches for the defendants, should be apportioned voluntarily among counsel. Those 14 days are full days and will not be taken up at all by any argument on the organizations; and until the defendants’ counsel have attempted to make that apportionment, it must be obviously impossible for them to know whether they will be able to make their speeches, which are not speeches that are necessarily detailed examinations of the evidence but are arguments drawing the attention of the Tribunal to the main points which they desire to draw the attention of the Tribunal to. It will not be possible for them to know whether they can make their speeches satisfactorily within the 14 days. The Counsel for the Defense ought, therefore, to go into the matter together, as the Tribunal understood they were doing, and see whether they can satisfactorily present their speeches within that time. All the arguments which have been presented to us this morning were fully presented to us by Counsel for the Defense who appeared before us at the closed session, one of whom has addressed us this morning.
Now the Tribunal will go on with the hearing of the case.
[The witness Rainer resumed the stand.]
DR. STEINBAUER: Witness, in answer to the last question put by the American prosecutor yesterday you stated that you wrote your letter with a certain purpose, and I now ask you what that purpose was?
RAINER: Some time after the Anschluss there were hostile activities, intrigues against Dr. Seyss-Inquart and some other people. They came from dissatisfied radical elements in Austria and the Reich. They took advantage of Dr. Seyss-Inquart’s hesitant attitude on 11 March, his clinging to the revolutionary line and to the principles of the two agreements between the two States, to accuse him of being a separatist or even worse...
DR. STEINBAUER: Perhaps, Witness, you can be a little more brief.
RAINER: These people seemed to be dangerous, because Bürckel and, I believe, Heydrich too, were behind them. I considered these attacks to be unfair and therefore I brought out certain facts and arguments and worded my report in such a way that the addressees would understand it and be calmed down.
DR. STEINBAUER: So that, if I have understood you correctly, in this letter you sought to stress the merits of the Party on the one hand, and to claim indulgence for Seyss-Inquart on the other hand?
RAINER: Yes. That is how I would express it.
DR. STEINBAUER: Now, my second question. In this letter you mentioned that Seyss-Inquart had taken a letter of ultimatum to Schuschnigg. Have you any recollection to the effect that he himself dictated it and had this letter written in his office?
RAINER: Dr. Steinbauer, you mean the letter of ultimatum written in the afternoon of 11 March?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, that is the one.
RAINER: I believe that that letter was written in his office and I also believe I participated in writing it.
DR. STEINBAUER: Then you go on to say, in the letter put to you by the prosecutor, that, through the collaboration of Dr. Jury and Dr. Leopold, Seyss-Inquart had become State Councillor. I ask you whether Dr. Jury and Dr. Leopold had any influence at all on Schuschnigg?
RAINER: No, that cannot have been the intention.
DR. STEINBAUER: The prosecutor, in support of his statement yesterday, submitted a second document. It was a speech which you had made as Gau speaker in Carinthia. Do you remember that?
RAINER: Yes.
DR. STEINBAUER: Was that a typical Gau speech? I mean, from the point of view of the propaganda of Goebbels? A speech which gives prominence to one’s own merits and disparages one’s opponents?
RAINER: I would not say that. It was a comradely meeting of the Old Guard on the occasion of the 11th of March. We drank beer and there was music and I described events rather like telling a story; I spoke for a very long time: in fact, it was the longest speech I ever made. I spoke more than 3 hours. I spoke quite freely and without any notes, and the shorthand record which is submitted here appears to me not to tally with my statements on every point.
DR. STEINBAUER: You mean, therefore, that it was more your intention to procure an effect upon the members of the Party than to write history?
RAINER: Yes, of course.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you very much. That is enough for me and I have no further questions.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: During the cross-examination yesterday it was mentioned that on one occasion you were with Von Papen at Garmisch. What did you talk about to Von Papen at the time, and how did that conversation come about at all?
RAINER: Dr. Seyss-Inquart and I had been invited to Garmisch by the Reich Sport Leader. The German-Austrian Alpine Club was to be discussed. Together with Von Tschammer we were watching the bobsled races at the Riesser Lake and there we met Von Papen. Herr Von Papen, Seyss-Inquart, and I then walked from there to Garmisch, and on the way we discussed the political situation and the...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, you don’t need to give the details of it. I suppose the point of the question is that the conversation was not political. Is that the point of the question?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The conversation was political, but it is a question of the type of political conversation it was.
Perhaps, Witness, you can confine yourself to the facts. You just said it was an accidental meeting. You were coming back from the bobsled track. What did you talk about?
RAINER: We talked about the situation in Austria, about the pacification of the country; and while we did not exhaust the subject, we did discuss other matters which interested us and which dealt with the immediate future.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: So that nothing was discussed which could not have been put before the Austrian public?
RAINER: No.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Were these matters in keeping with the July Agreement?
RAINER: Yes, of course they were.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: But then, in the course of the speech which has already been mentioned, you said that you had been with others in Von Papen’s apartment on the evening of 9 March 1938. I should like to know whether that was a prearranged meeting or whether it was a more or less chance meeting?
RAINER: It was just a casual meeting. I do not remember who arranged it. The conversation dealt, naturally, with the situation arising out of Schuschnigg’s plan for the plebiscite, which was an entirely new and most surprising move, so that we had to think it over from every point of view and clarify it by discussion.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What stand did Von Papen take during that conference?
RAINER: I remember that Von Papen, who just happened to be in Vienna that evening, acted in a reserved way. I think he considered that an affirmative vote would have met the situation perfectly.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What reason had you for thinking he considered that an affirmative vote was plausible and necessary? Was it for practical reasons or was it due to the plebiscite which the Austrian Government had suggested?
RAINER: It was because of the plebiscite.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Once again, my question is: Would the matters which were discussed have led one to believe it was a specially called conference, or rather was it a social gathering during which political questions cropped up and this topical matter came up for discussion?
RAINER: It was a casual meeting which had been improvised because Von Papen’s presence in Vienna coincided with the new political situation.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Were any resolutions passed?
RAINER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
[The witness left the stand.]
DR. STEINBAUER: With the permission of the Tribunal I shall now call the witness Dr. Guido Schmidt.
[The witness Schmidt took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
GUIDO SCHMIDT (Witness): Dr. Guido Schmidt.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.
[The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. STEINBAUER: Witness, what positions did you hold in the Austrian Republic?
SCHMIDT: I was a diplomat by profession. I was in the Austrian Foreign Service under Dr. Seipel and for about 6 years I was a member of the Austrian Legation in Paris. In 1936 I was recalled and assigned to the Austrian State for service with the diplomatic corps and the Foreign Office. In 1936 I became State Secretary under Dr. Schuschnigg, and later Foreign Minister.
I was a member of the Schuschnigg Government until his resignation by violence. From that time on, I had no political activity.
DR. STEINBAUER: Witness, what were the reasons in regard to foreign policy and economics which led to the Agreement of 11 July 1936?
SCHMIDT: At the beginning of 1936, the situation of Austria with regard to foreign policy had changed to Austria’s disadvantage. After the events of July 1934, England, France, and Italy drew up a three-power declaration at Stresa concerning the maintenance of Austrian independence. Over and above the international obligations existing up to that time, the three powers now set up a new guarantee for the maintenance of Austria, the Stresa Front, which during the whole year of 1935 gave protection to Austria. The collapse of the Stresa Front, as a result of Mussolini’s Abyssinian enterprise, meant for Austria the loss of the only practical international guarantee, and for Federal Chancellor Schuschnigg the creation of a completely new situation. According to his conception of foreign policy, Austrian independence should rest not only on the shoulders of Italy, but if possible on other shoulders as well, that means of England and France. Then there were difficulties resulting from the developments of the situation in Europe from 7 March 1936, the day on which Adolf Hitler started his surprise tactics by occupying the Rhineland without encountering serious resistance from the Western Powers. This gave the Austrian Government cause for anxiety and fear lest some day the Austrian question as well might be solved by surprise or, as we later saw, by violence.
These are the reasons we must give if we are asked about the considerations on which the agreement was based. There was also the rapprochement between Rome and Berlin which began at this time and was due to the sanctions policy of the League of Nations. Austria, lying between Italy and Germany, had to expect that one day that Austrian-Italian friendship, which had existed since the time of Dollfuss, would fall victim to the closer relationship between Rome and Berlin.
For this reason and for other considerations, Dr. Schuschnigg sought a means to improve relations, that is, to restore relations, between Austria and the German Reich.
It would perhaps be useful in this connection to give a few of the guiding rules of Austria’s foreign policy. The underlying idea was the maintenance of Austrian independence. Austrian foreign policy was furthermore based on the knowledge of the extremely difficult and delicate geographical situation of the country between two totalitarian states at the crossroad of European ideologies. Therefore, it had to be the task of Austrian foreign policy to reach an understanding with her big neighbor, the German Reich. The foreign policy further had to be based on the determination to avoid everything that could lead to a conflict with the German Reich, to avoid everything that could antagonize the Reich, in order to prevent any violent action which, after 7 March, was to be feared.
There were reasons in practical politics which were decisive in this determination to restore relations with the German Reich, to the ethnographic area of which we belonged, relations which had been unnaturally interrupted. Apart from the reasons of foreign policy, there were also economic considerations. Because of Austria’s economic constitution, which, although alive, was nevertheless extremely weak, the world economic crisis had affected Austria very seriously.
This can be understood only if we look back to the beginnings of this young state. From the very start, all Austria’s neighbors had carried on an economic policy of egotism, of chauvinistic self-interest, and in no case had it been possible to reach really close co-operation of all the Danube countries. It is true that some separate agreements had been reached, such as the Rome Protocols; but the mutual distrust which all had brought from their former home, their common home, the Austrian Monarchy, continued to exist and obstructed any healthy development.
From 1931, the beginning of the world economic crisis, there were a number of attempts to relieve the situation. I will mention them one after the other. It begins with the attempt of the Government to create a customs union, which failed because of the resistance of the League of Nations. In 1932, there was an attempt by France to bring Austria and Hungary into the Little Entente and to reach economic co-operation here. Germany and Italy opposed this. England was also against it. In 1933, the economic crisis was aggravated by the internal struggle against National Socialism. That also had its effect on the economic life of Austria, because the economic life of Austria was also used as a weapon in the internal struggle.
THE PRESIDENT: This is undoubtedly interesting, but it has rather a remote bearing, perhaps, upon the questions which the Tribunal has to decide. I don’t know whether the witness has dealt with it sufficiently for your purposes.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, in this presentation of the facts I wanted to show that from the economic and foreign policy point of view the situation was such that the role of the defendant was forced into the background; but we can continue now.
Witness, will you speak quite briefly.
SCHMIDT: All this led to the breaking-off of economic relations with the German Reich, and now Austria’s life-and-death struggle for economic existence entered upon a very serious phase. Because of these considerations, that is, for economic reasons, too, Federal Chancellor Schuschnigg attempted to reach an agreement with the German Reich and to restore economic relations which had been completely broken off, to remove the “1,000 mark blockade,” to restore tourist traffic, to restore the flow of economic goods, to silence the complaints which were coming from the provinces in Austria because of the lack of a market for agricultural products, wood, grain, cattle and so forth. These were, generally speaking, the main considerations.
DR. STEINBAUER: Witness, I now ask you: Did Dr. Seyss-Inquart help in preparing or concluding this Agreement of July 1936?
SCHMIDT: No. The Chancellor worked with Glaise-Horstenau who represented the so-called National Opposition.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid there is a defect in the sound equipment, so we had better adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. STEINBAUER: Witness, in the spring of 1937 Seyss-Inquart entered politics, and presumably you met him then.
SCHMIDT: Yes, I met him first in the summer of 1937.
DR. STEINBAUER: Now, I shall go on, and I should like to ask you what reasons in domestic and foreign policy led to the well-known meeting between Adolf Hitler and Dr. Schuschnigg in Berchtesgaden.
SCHMIDT: This question calls for a detailed answer. I ask for permission to express myself in somewhat more detail.
By New Year 1938, the Austrian foreign policy situation had become worse. Italy had entered into an engagement in Spain in favor of Franco, which reduced still further her military and political influence in Central Europe. What we called “The Watch at the Brenner” had in effect ceased to exist, and Germany had more or less a free hand with regard to Austria.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, the Tribunal has common knowledge of the history of this time. It is not necessary, really, to go into it.
DR. STEINBAUER: Witness, I should like to ask you to tell me if you were present at the Obersalzberg at that time.
SCHMIDT: Yes, I should like to add, if I am to pass over the historical events—that is how I understood the question—that the Federal Chancellor accepted the invitation in order to prevent Austria’s being reproached for having refused a peaceful attempt to clear up existing differences between Austria and the German Reich. The Chancellor was by no means optimistic, the more so because the existing differences of opinion were very great and also because of the personality of his partner in the talks. I recall that Schuschnigg, before leaving for this meeting, told me that he was of the opinion that instead of him it might have been better to send Professor Wagner-Jauregg, the greatest psychiatrist of Vienna; but he believed, in view of the exposed position of Austria, that he had to accept in order to forestall a coup and to gain time until the international situation should improve in Austria’s favor.
Unfortunately, we were right. Our fear of a coming attack or of coming difficulties was justified. The fear that Austria would be left entirely alone was also justified. The realization of the fact that we were completely deserted was perhaps one of the primary reasons which carried greatest weight with Schuschnigg together with the need of bridging over this difficult period and gaining time. Austria had to tread this path in the dark winter days from the end of 1937 until March 1938 without the hope of any immediate or prospective assistance. And then we came to Berchtesgaden.
DR. STEINBAUER: As Foreign Minister, did you inform the big powers of the events of Berchtesgaden?
SCHMIDT: Yes. Contrary to frequent press reports, the interested big powers were informed in detail both before and after Berchtesgaden. I gave all the material to the head of the political section to whom the diplomatic corps applied first. The Federal Chancellor himself and I gave detailed reports to the accredited foreign representatives in Vienna and drew their attention to the dangerous situation of the country.
THE PRESIDENT: Forgive my interrupting you. We don’t want the details. You said you informed the foreign powers beforehand and after. That is sufficient.
DR. STEINBAUER: Now we return to the defendant. Did Dr. Seyss-Inquart take part in these talks?
SCHMIDT: What talks?
DR. STEINBAUER: The talks in Berchtesgaden.
SCHMIDT: No.
DR. STEINBAUER: He became Minister of the Interior and Police Minister, and went to see Hitler in Berlin. Did he report to Schuschnigg the substance of his first talk with Adolf Hitler?
SCHMIDT: I do not know, but I do know of individual statements by State Secretary Zernatto, the head of the Fatherland Front, from which I can conclude that a conversation between Minister Zernatto and Seyss-Inquart, at which this talk was mentioned, must have taken place.
DR. STEINBAUER: It can therefore be assumed that, through Zernatto, Schuschnigg also learned of it?
SCHMIDT: Yes, I assume so.
DR. STEINBAUER: Now we will pass over events until we come to March. Schuschnigg planned a plebiscite. Do you know whether Schuschnigg informed Seyss-Inquart of this and discussed it with him?
SCHMIDT: Yes, Seyss-Inquart was informed of it. I learned that an agreement between Seyss-Inquart and the Federal Chancellor was reached on or about 10 March. The Chancellor told me that Seyss-Inquart had declared himself willing to speak on the radio in favor of the election.
DR. STEINBAUER: When Glaise-Horstenau reported that there was a threat of invasion, did you, in your capacity as Foreign Minister, inform the foreign powers of this?
SCHMIDT: Yes. I did not receive a direct report from Glaise-Horstenau. I learned of the critical situation only from the ultimatum which demanded the cancellation of the plebiscite planned by the Federal Chancellor on 13 March. From then on there was constant contact during 11 March with the diplomatic corps in Vienna and later, during the hours which followed, with our foreign representatives also.
DR. STEINBAUER: Then the demands of the German Reich followed closely upon one another. Especially, the demand was made that Schuschnigg should resign. The ministers were assembled, and a member of the Government is said to have told Seyss-Inquart the following: “We now see clearly that the Reich is putting an end to Austria. It would be best for Seyss-Inquart to take over the office of Chancellor so that the transition may at least be bearable.”
Do you remember such a statement?
SCHMIDT: No. Only later did I hear of a statement by Minister Glaise-Horstenau which contained this request to Seyss-Inquart.
DR. STEINBAUER: Did you have the impression that with the farewell speech of Schuschnigg, the Fatherland Front which was directed by him had also collapsed?
SCHMIDT: I believe the question does not quite fit the situation. The resignation of the Chancellor was demanded by ultimatum; and finally the State itself was taken over, so that the Fatherland Front no longer existed. With the entry of the German troops, National Socialism had become a reality and developments showed that it did not permit the Fatherland Front to live any longer.
DR. STEINBAUER: Seyss-Inquart was then appointed Chancellor. He set up his Cabinet; and you, Witness, were proposed as Foreign Minister, is that correct?
SCHMIDT: That is correct. I refused. I was approached again, and I refused again, and I was asked to give my reasons. Seyss-Inquart told me that he intended to keep Austria independent as long as possible; but he was afraid that with his Government, which had a National Socialist majority, he would encounter difficulties in the West. Therefore, he wanted to retain my diplomatic experience and connections for the Government. He added that he intended to create a broader platform for this Government by calling in positive Austrian representatives.
DR. STEINBAUER: Did you find the names of such positive Austrians on the list of ministers?
SCHMIDT: There were names of such men. I have been puzzled about it myself, but I cannot recall any individual names with any certainty.
DR. STEINBAUER: Do you know why another list of ministers was drawn up which was the final list?
SCHMIDT: In the evening State Secretary Keppler arrived from Berlin; and as I learned later, he rejected me, and others too, I believe. I think I can remember one name. I believe that he suggested at the request of Berlin that Weber should take over the Foreign Ministry. Thus this list was discarded and Seyss-Inquart no longer tried to persuade me to go back on my decision.
DR. STEINBAUER: Do you believe that Seyss-Inquart had the intention of keeping Austria independent, even under National Socialist leadership?
SCHMIDT: As a witness, I can only say what I know. Opinions are very difficult to express. I have stated what he told me.
DR. STEINBAUER: I have no further questions to put to this witness.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: According to a statement by the American Ambassador in Vienna at that time, Mr. Messersmith, Herr Von Papen, at the beginning of his activity in Vienna, is said to have stated that his real task in Vienna was the economic and political incorporation of southeast Europe into Germany, and that southeast Europe was the natural hinterland of Germany.
Did you, Witness, ever hear of such a statement?
SCHMIDT: No. In view of the close contact which I had already with Mr. Messersmith before my appointment as a member of the Government, and especially later, I would probably have heard of it. I assume, however, that no special significance was attached to this question at the time, because in first visits between diplomats, as a rule, a tour d’horizon is usually made and questions are discussed which interest both countries, that is, general political questions. Nor did I observe later that a southeast Europe policy was being carried on from the German Legation.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: According to Mr. Messersmith, Herr Von Papen is supposed to have said at that time that he was working to weaken and undermine the Austrian Government.
Did the witness Messersmith report such a statement by Herr Von Papen to you?
SCHMIDT: No.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did the Austrian Government consider it advisable and necessary to normalize relations with the Reich by an agreement in July 1936?
SCHMIDT: Yes. I have already explained the reasons for conducting a realistic policy which were of an economic nature and based on foreign policy.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In these and in later negotiations, did the international political situation, particularly the settlement of the Party question, also have a part in deciding this?
SCHMIDT: Of course, it was the task of the Government to ease inner political tension. The Federal Chancellor had to try to find a way out of the difficult situation which he had inherited from Dollfuss by liquidating the inner political fronts.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Do you believe that Herr Von Papen concluded the July 1936 Agreement with treacherous intent?
SCHMIDT: No, I have no reason to disbelieve that he considered this agreement a serious endeavor to create a modus vivendi between Austria and the Reich. The fact that it resulted in a modus male vivendi does not alter this.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did the Germans complain that after the Agreement of 11 July 1936 there was no essential change in the inner political course of the Austrian Government?
SCHMIDT: Yes, many reproaches were made; and thus we come to the last and the real cause of the conflict with the Reich. The struggle against National Socialism within the country in the interests of maintaining the independence of the country and, on the basis of the Agreement of 11 July, insuring co-operation with the German Reich, whose leaders were National Socialists—these were the two imperative demands which, after a time, the Austrian Government found to be irreconcilable. This also explains the difficulties encountered by all persons entrusted with carrying out this agreement in Vienna, including the German Minister.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: As a result of these conditions, particularly those arising out of the July Agreement, were questions of internal policy, such as questions of policy and personnel of the so-called National Opposition, the subject of discussions between the Federal Chancellor and Herr Von Papen?
SCHMIDT: The situation as just described shows that such discussions were unavoidable; and talks on the inner political situation also took place between the Chancellor and the German Minister, as well as with the Italian Minister, in a general way that is not unusual. I know of no diplomatic memoirs which do not contain such entries. The Chancellor would never have tolerated interference of any kind. In questions of personnel Schuschnigg was especially reticent, because, if I may say so, he was afraid of “Trojan Horses.”
That, more or less, represents the situation which was discussed in talks between the Chancellor and the German Minister.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did Herr Von Papen make it clear that he was opposed to the methods of the illegal Party?
SCHMIDT: Yes. According to the information received by the Government, Papen opposed the leaders of the illegal Party, that is, Leopold in particular. This was doubtless due to fundamental differences, differing political ideas and differing political methods, which Von Papen on the one hand and the leaders of the illegal Party on the other were determined to pursue.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did Herr Von Papen, on the basis of the July Agreement, ever adopt an aggressive attitude in Austrian foreign policy?
SCHMIDT: There existed between Austria and the Reich, not only in cultural and inner political relations, but also in the field of foreign policy, irreconcilable differences of opinion. I will only mention the demand of the Reich that Austria should leave the League of Nations, which we rejected by pointing to the fact that Austria, by reason of her geographical position and her history, had a continental mission, and also to the loans received from the League of Nations. A second point was Austria’s attitude...
THE PRESIDENT: Is this at all answering the questions that you have put to him?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: He is introducing the answer to the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Try and get on with the answer to it, will you? Get the witness on to the answer rather than the introduction.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to know whether Herr Von Papen took advantage of the opportunities for an aggressive intervention in Austrian foreign policy in the individual cases mentioned by you.
SCHMIDT: I wanted to say that in spite of the deeply rooted differences this did not occur and that an ambassador with a more radical point of view would certainly have had the opportunity and the occasion to adopt a more severe attitude towards Austria. There was not a single case where we reached an agreement with the German Reich on a joint foreign policy. Von Papen did remind us of that, but that was all. As for aggression, or aggressive activities, I cannot say anything about this.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On the contrary, did Herr Von Papen act on occasion as mediator? I would like to recall the Pinkafeld case.
SCHMIDT: The Pinkafeld flag incident is an example of Von Papen’s activity as mediator. In itself it was a minor incident, but it led to threats of invasion by Hitler. Von Papen was called to Berlin and had a great deal of difficulty in calming down Hitler’s fury, who, as I said, threatened to invade Austria.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, if it is convenient to you, it would be more convenient to the Tribunal if you spoke a little faster.
SCHMIDT: He succeeded in settling the matter and there were no consequences.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: He settled the matter. Did Herr Von Papen speak to you about the reasons for his being recalled on 4 February 1938?
SCHMIDT: On the occasion of a visit on the 5th he expressed his astonishment—and I might say his anger—at his being recalled, which in his opinion and also in our opinion was due to the events of 4 February 1938, the dismissal of General Von Fritsch and of 30 other generals, and the dismissal of Von Neurath. He thought that Austria would not be unaffected either, especially in view of the man who had been proposed to succeed him. At that time, Bürckel or Consul General Kriebel was proposed. That was approximately what Von Papen said to me and I believe also to the Federal Chancellor.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Then he believed and feared that his successor would adopt a more severe policy against Austria?
SCHMIDT: That conclusion was inevitable in view of the two persons just mentioned.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did Von Papen take part in the pressure exerted on you and Schuschnigg in the Berchtesgaden talks?
SCHMIDT: No, he did not.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: On the contrary, did he not, insofar as he had any opportunity of taking part in the negotiations, attempt to tone down Hitler’s demands?
SCHMIDT: In view of the atmosphere of violence which prevailed and the program of demands which was presented, this was not difficult. I believe that he, like many others who were present, endeavored to restore calm and thus enable the negotiations to proceed in an atmosphere of reason.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the course of the negotiations, a number of concessions were made. Do you believe that Von Papen’s attitude and his part in these negotiations had a restraining effect, and led to your obtaining these practical results?
SCHMIDT: His attitude on the whole was no doubt mediatory. One cannot speak of success at Berchtesgaden as far as the result is concerned; but that is not Von Papen’s fault.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, do you think you will be able to finish in a few moments?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
[Turning to the witness.] In order to answer my question I believe it would be better if you would not consider the final result of Berchtesgaden but rather the fact that Hitler had presented to you a very large program of demands going far beyond the final results, and if you would consider that actually some points which were of great importance to you were changed in the course of the negotiations.
SCHMIDT: As far as there was any help coming from the other side it came from Von Papen.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Do you perhaps recall that the Hitler-Schuschnigg negotiations were especially violent because Hitler was trying to win Schuschnigg over to his German attitude and Von Papen came to Schuschnigg’s aid and thereby put Schuschnigg in a better position to negotiate than at the beginning?
SCHMIDT: I was not present for the first hour or two of the talk. I cannot answer the question.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: My last question is this: Did Herr Von Papen, after 26 February, the day on which he took leave of the Austrian President, still carry on any official activity in Vienna?
SCHMIDT: No; the Vienna Embassy was administered by the Chargé d’Affaires, Embassy Counsellor Von Stein, who made the two official démarches of the Reich, on the afternoon of the 9th or the morning of the 10th, against the plebiscite planned by Schuschnigg. Von Stein, together with General Muff and State Secretary Keppler, also handed to the Austrian President the ultimatum demanding the resignation of Federal Chancellor Schuschnigg. This shows that Ambassador Von Papen was no longer active.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until a quarter past two.