Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-11/tgmwc-11-108.07
Last-Modified: 2000/01/13

Q. What form of conditions were proposed for Vienna in the
"Anschluss" in the year 1918, particularly with reference to
its previous position as capital of the Reich and residence
city?

A. There were no exact ideas about the technical form of a
union which was so far away, but every Austrian, on the
basis of his historically well-founded pride, was agreed
that the city of Vienna should be given the position of the
second capital of Germany.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm sorry. The Tribunal isn't really
concerned with whether or not any Anschluss was desirable or
whether it was just or not. The Tribunal is concerned with
whether it was obtained by violence and force. Most of this
evidence doesn't seem to be relevant at all.

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 Seyss-
Inquart, 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 guidance and the political situation
of Austria at the time these men were striving toward an
Anschluss, therefore, I am of 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.

BY DR. STEINBAUER:

Q. Witness, then, in 1938, you became Mayor of the city of
Vienna?

A. That was after the Anschluss.

Q. At the same time, Seyss-Inquart was Reich Governor for
the Gau of Vienna, or rather the State of Austria - is that
correct?

A. I became Mayor of Vienna under Seyss-Inquart on the
morning of 13th March, 1938, when he was still Austrian
Federal Chancellor. At that time Seyss-Inquart was Federal
Chancellor of Austria.

Q. Very well. How long did you remain in office as Mayor, of
the city of Vienna?

A. According to the Austrian Law, until February, 1939. Then
Burckel became Gauleiter and Reich Governor of Vienna, and
thereby automatically supreme head of the communal
administration. Thus ...

Q. That is enough. Thank you. And what was the relationship
between Seyss-Inquart on the one hand and the Commissar for
the Reich Union, Burckel, on the other hand?

A. The relationship was notoriously bad. Burckel disregarded
the authority of the Reich Governor Seyss-Inquart. He ruled
over his head, and he tried with every method of slander,
intrigue, and provocation to overthrow Seyss-Inquart and
remove him from office. And he succeeded.

DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution wish to question?

                                                  [Page 372]

COLONEL AMEN: No.

THE PRESIDENT: No questions?

COLONEL AMEN: No.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

THE PRESIDENT: 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
two days ago, to apply for one or another witness 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
whose affidavit has been submitted by the prosecution?

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 two 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 don't 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, it would seem to have some
advantages to take it now, because otherwise we have got to
stop at some particular time, and we shall not know how long
it is going to take. If we take it now, it doesn't 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.

(Apparently Dr. Dix is shaking his head and saying "No.")

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 Honour.

                                                  [Page 373]

As to the first four documents, No. 1 is a book by Sir
Nevile Henderson, "Failure of a Mission." No. 2 is also an
excerpt from that book, so is No. 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 facts.
No. 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 No. 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 No. 6 is the book by Viscount Rothermere, which was
already considered 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 No. 7 is the Messersmith affidavit, which was
offered in evidence by the prosecution. We have no objection
to that, of course.

Exhibit No. 8 is also a prosecution exhibit; no objection.

No. 9, likewise.

No. 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 No.
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 No. 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 labour of the translation.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then you go on to 18.

MR. DODD: Yes. No. 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 re-
arm. 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 No. 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 haven't been able to find out yet.

No. 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 doesn't 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 re-armament, generally, but it
doesn't say anything about Dr. Schacht or any of the
allegations here. It seems to be just a general statement
about re-armament.

We have an objection to Exhibit No 37 (31). (REVIEWER'S
NOTE: The numbers of the Schacht documents appear to have
been changed.) 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, we would
have no objection.

                                                  [Page 374]

No. 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 No. 39 (33) (REVIEWER'S NOTE: The numbers of the
Schacht documents appear to have been changed.) is a letter
written by one Richard Merton, 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 Merton thought about Schacht and
about some assistance that Merton received from Schacht. We
would suggest that if Dr. Schacht's counsellor, Dr. Dix,
feels that Merton 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 No. 43, 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 that 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 don't 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 Honour pleases, I don't 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 haven't 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 Nos. 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 re-armament. 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 so 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 - prefers the documents which are being
quoted here, to be submitted in translation so that it can
follow exactly. Therefore regarding Documents Nos. 1 to 6 -
and incidentally, the same applies to all the documents
contained in Exhibit No. 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,

                                                  [Page 375]

so 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 documents contained 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 of 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 nor mine. To cite an example:

The prosecution considers that a certain attitude of
Schacht's proves that by supporting re-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 to do in any
event, since I feel that such arguments would not fall on
fertile ground. It is not my habit to use arguments which I
believe will not be favourably received. May I continue?

Concerning No. 18 may I ... I beg to apologise. 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
No. 18, which I have just mentioned, and in which the
situation is the same as in 1 to 6, Mr. Dodd is missing the
source. That may be due to the fact that he has only had the
index to the document. The sources and documents are given
with the actual quotations.

I now turn to No. 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 "auto-copy." This auto-copy was preserved in
Switzerland during the war because of its contents. This
auto-copy, 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 No. 37. Then I have made a note
regarding No. 34. Just one moment, please. No. 34 is another
case where the source was missing. The same applies as
above. The source is stated in the Document Book, namely the
"Documents of German Politics." This compilation has been
used a great deal as a source of evidence. Then objections
have been raised -

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor