Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-14/tgmwc-14-133.01
Last-Modified: 2000/03/14

                                                  [Page 159]

HUNDRED AND THIRTY-THIRD DAY

SATURDAY, 18th MAY, 1946

MR. DODD: Mr. President, with respect to the application for
documents of the defendant Seyss-Inquart, 87 documents
altogether have been submitted to the prosecution, and we
have gone over them in the German. After numerous
conferences with counsel for the defendant Seyss-Inquart, we
find we are unable to agree now on 17 of these documents.
Yesterday the number was 20, as I stated, but we have now
reduced it to 17.

Document 5 in the defendant's list is a copy of a resolution
of the German National Assembly on 21st February, 1919,
advocating Anschluss between Austria and Germany. We have
told counsel we object to it as being really irrelevant here
and immaterial. It is a resolution of a German parliamentary
body, and it does not seem to us to make any difference what
they were thinking of the Anschluss in 1919.

Document 10 is an extract from a newspaper article published
in October, 1945 and written by a man named Walford Selby.
It is an article criticising the Treaty of St. Germain for
not avoiding the obliteration of the Austro-Hungarian
economic entity, and it discusses what it describes as the
mistakes of 1919, and so on. We understand that it is
intended to explain, with other documents, the economic
background of the Anschluss movement. Whatever may be said
for that type of proof, there are at least five other
documents on the same basis and we made no objection to
them. But we did feel that somewhere this sort of thing,
even if relevant, certainly became cumulative. Documents 7,
12, 26 and 33 are all on the same subject, the economic
background of Anschluss, and this is a long one. Therefore,
we feel that it certainly is not necessary and does not add
very much and merely creates a lot of paper work and is
cumulative.

Document 11 is a speech delivered by a Dr. Schober, giving
the area and population of the Republic of Austria. We have
not any very serious objection to this type of thing
excepting that there probably are better sources if the
defendant wishes to establish the area and population of
Austria in 1921. Further, it seems to us that the Tribunal
could very well take judicial knowledge of the area and
population of Austria at that date from reliable
publications.

Document 14 is a statement by the former Chancellor of
Austria in 1922 to the effect that Austria belongs to
Germany. Our objection is again based on the cumulative
feature of this document, because there are at least three
other documents with almost identical statements by Dr.
Renner, to which we have made no objection.

Document 19 is an extract from a book written by a man
called Kleinschmied, and the extract purports to show that a
number of politicians lived or prospered on the Anschluss
movement in Austria. That does not seem to us to be very
important here or likely to help the Tribunal very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, what exactly does "lived from the
propaganda mean? That they made their living by reason of
propaganda, or what?

MR. DODD: Yes. It purports to show that they made it a
vehicle for carrying on political activities, and made an
issue of it and sustained themselves politically.

21 is an extract from Kunschak's book Austria 1918-1934, and
it gives the increase in the National Socialist votes in
Austria between 1930 and 1932. That did not seem to us to be
very material or very helpful or likely to be helpful to the
Tribunal. We objected to it on the grounds that it was
irrelevant and immaterial.

                                                  [Page 160]

Document 22 is an extract from an article in the New Free
Press of August 1932, opposing the League of Nations loan.
This again is submitted to prove the flow or the continuity
of the Anschluss movement. There is at least one other
document, 23, which purports to establish the same principle
on the same kind of proof.

27 is an extract from an article written by Martin Fuchs, Un
Pacte avec Hitler, and it discusses the Yugoslav policy with
respect to Anschluss between Germany and Austria. Again that
does not seem to the prosecution to have any direct bearing
or any helpful bearing upon the issues here, whatever the
Yugoslavs thought about it.

31 is an extract from the Neue Zeitung of the 11th of
January of this year, wherein Gordon Walker states that the
celebration in Austria after the Anschluss was genuine.
Well, that is Mr. Walker's opinion, and there is some other
substantial opinion on the other side. We doubt very much
that his opinion is material here or competent.

THE PRESIDENT: Who is he?

MR. DODD: I understand he is a member of the Labour Party in
Great Britain, and a writer.

39 is an extract from the Archiv of 1938. This sets forth a
statement made by Senator Borah, of the United States, that
the Anschluss was a natural and inevitable affair and had
nothing to do with the United States. This was not a speech
made by the late Senator Borah in the Senate; it was his own
opinion, and it does not seem to us that it would be very
helpful. Some later opinions of Senator Borah were not so
helpful, and this does not seem to be very likely to be
helpful to the Tribunal with respect to this issue.

47 is an extract from Zernatto's book The Truth about
Austria. Zernatto was one of the State Under-secretaries of
Austria, as the Tribunal knows. He left the country after
the Anschluss and went to the United States and wrote this
book. He makes a number of statements, I might say, about
the defendant Seyss-Inquart. The Tribunal would be
interested in knowing that this Document 47, and Documents
48, 50, 54, 55, 6o and 61 are all extracts from the same
book. Now, we felt that wherever he reports a conversation
with Seyss-Inquart, that would have bearing and relevancy
before the Tribunal; but where he merely expresses his
opinion, we have more doubt about its relevancy. This one
statement, 47, seems to be nothing more than his opinion. He
does not cite any conversation or anything other than what
appears to be his impression that Seyss-Inquart
disassociated himself from Leopold's efforts.

Now, we do not object to 48 and to 50, or to 54, although we
originally thought we would, because on reviewing them they
appeared to set out actual conversations between Zernatto
and Seyss-Inquart, and it might be helpful to the Tribunal.
Therefore, we do not object to these three.

But 55, again, is a statement in Zernatto's book that, in
Zernatto's opinion, Seyss-Inquart was a figure on the chess-
board and was double-crossed by the Nazi or new Party
leadership. We object to that for the reason that I have
stated, it is the author's opinion. He is deceased, by the
way, and is certainly not available. In any event, we do not
think his opinion can be very helpful.

Document 60 is also a statement from Zernatto's book and it
sets out a conversation with an unnamed Austrian Nazi. We
felt that was altogether too vague and would not be of value
or helpful.

In 61, again, the author Zernatto expresses his opinion that
Seyss-Inquart was afraid of shouldering responsibility.

I do not want to stress our objections too heavily to these
extracts. I do not think they are very harmful, certainly,
but I rather object because we would like to cut down some
of this printing, and I do not think they will be very
helpful to Seyss-Inquart.

68 is the first document on anti-Semitism, and it is an
excerpt from the publication entitled The Elements of
National Socialism by Bishop Alois Hudal. It explains

                                                  [Page 161]

anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria, and it goes on to
discuss matters that the Tribunal has heard very much about
through other defendants, the disproportionate position of
the Jewish population in Germany, and so on. We object to it
as not being helpful and not material.

69 is another extract from Zernatto's book on the causes, as
some of these people see it, of anti-Semitism. It is his
opinion and does not to us seem to be helpful or material
here.

71 is on the Slovak question. I doubt that there has been
any serious claim made anywhere in this case that at various
times the Slovaks have not claimed autonomy. This extract
from the Archiv of 1938, in so far as we can discover, seeks
to establish that they did want autonomy. Well, we do not
think that is very important here, and it will not be
helpful to the Tribunal or to Seyss-Inquart.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it a document of State?

MR. DODD: Well, it is a document from the Archiv, and in
that sense it is a public document.

THE PRESIDENT: After Slovakia had been taken over by the
Reich?

MR. DODD: No, not afterwards, it is in 1938, and it preceded
the taking over.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.

MR. DODD: These are our objections, Mr. President. I do
think we have tried to be rather -

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, Mr. Dodd, we are only considering
now the questions of objections to translation. We are not
considering the question of admissibility, nor are we
binding you not to object to them after they have been
translated.

MR. DODD: Yes, I am aware of that, Mr. President. We tried
to be, I think, fairly generous about this list. The
excerpts, or most of them, are not too long. We did think we
would have to call a halt somewhere, and I do not think our
17 objections out of the 87 listed are very strict or really
handicap the defendant Seyss-Inquart.

DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for defendant Seyss-Inquart): Your
Lordship, High Military Tribunal, I know that you have a
great regard for my small country, Austria, not only because
of her ancient culture and scenic beauty, but also because
she was the first country to lose her freedom through
Hitler. However, with all the regard which you have for
Austria, I cannot expect of you that, as representatives of
great powers, you know the history of my country to the last
detail. I do believe that it is of the utmost importance for
the defence of Seyss-Inquart that you should understand
fully on what background and what motives this man acted in
the way he did.

I myself can see three reasons which led to the Anschluss.

First of all, the desperate economic situation which runs
like a red thread from 1918 right up to and, I am sorry to
say, through the year 1946.

The second reason, and I shall be very brief with regard to
the documents -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinhauer, will you come to the actual
documents as soon as possible, because, you will remember,
we are only discussing the question of whether they should
be translated or not.

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes.

The second reason was the disunity of the democratic
parties.

The third reason was the attitude of the surrounding powers.
It is on the basis of these reasons that I have assembled my
documents.

The first is a resolution of the Weimar National Assembly,
and I am of the opinion that it is an important fact, in
respect to a final judgement, that the Anschluss was desired
not only by the Austrian population, but by the entire
German people. It is very short and I request that it be
admitted.

                                                  [Page 162]

The second document is by Selby, who for many years was the
British Ambassador in Vienna, a genuine friend of our
country. In this article he refers to the economic
background and conditions in Austria which led to the
Anschluss. That was the reason for my including this
document.

The next document is a speech delivered by Federal
Chancellor Schober, who was held in great esteem by the
world and who, in this speech, likewise refers to the fact
that the burdens imposed on Austria were too great for her
to be able to cope with them. He described the situation as
a whole as one of bankruptcy.

The next document is a statement by the present Federal
Minister, Dr. Karl Renner in 1922. At that time Dr. Seipel
went to Geneva and, with great difficulty, arranged a loan
through the League of Nations, which was of great importance
to us because, at the same time, it was demanded of Austria,
that we should forgo independence for ten years' duration.
That meant that we were not to take any steps to change the
conditions for an Anschluss. Renner opposed Seipel in
Parliament at that time. This document is in no way
cumulative to Document 33, since in the latter I want merely
to describe the economic situation as it obtained in the
year 1938.

The next document is point 2 of my evidence, namely, the
strong political propaganda for the Anschluss. In any event,
I must dispute most strongly the assertion that Document 21,
which is very short, is irrelevant. I consider it extremely
important to prove that this new, very young party, which
arose from the fertile soil of the desperate economic
situation, grew tenfold, as far as its number of votes was
concerned, in the years 1930 to 1932; thus all the time
there existed a recognized political opposition to the
government.

The next document, 22, is an article which again illustrates
the economic situation in Austria at a very essential period
of history, namely, the moment when Federal Chancellor
Dollfuss travelled to Lausanne in order to negotiate another
loan from the League of Nations, and we again were forced to
suppress thoughts of an Anschluss for another ten years.
This document, 22, as well as the next one, 23, are not
cumulative, since one shows the political and the other the
economic position of the members of Parliament with respect
to the League of Nations' loan of the year 1932.

The next document is only an extract from the position taken
by the various surrounding States to the Anschluss question.
I selected only Yugoslavia, for Yugoslavia was the country
which most strongly supported the idea of Anschluss in its
foreign policy.

As far as Document 31 is concerned, I should like to remark,
supplementing the remarks made by the prosecution, that
Gordon Walker is not only a member of the Labour Party, but
- and this point is much more important - during the entire
war years he was head of the British Radio Division Austria,
and he was himself in Austria in the year 1938, and
experienced the Anschluss. His judgement, therefore, is of
extraordinary importance, since it is the judgement of a
prominent foreigner.

The same remark applies to the following document, the
statement by Senator Borah, who for 25 years was the
chairman of the American Committee on Foreign Affairs. His
opinion is surely deserving of notice.

The next documents concern statements made by Dr. Zernatto.
I should like to add that Dr. Zernatto was Federal Minister,
General Secretary of the Fatherland Front and Schuschnigg's
right hand man during the period of the Anschluss. He was
one of the spiritual fathers of the Schuschnigg plebiscite.
I am sorry to say that he emigrated and died abroad in 1940,
and I therefore cannot produce him as a witness here, but
his book is a document and actually tells what this man
experienced in those critical days.

I urgently request that the remaining three documents, which
are very brief, be left in the book.

The next two documents concern anti-Semitism. I regretted
having to include them, but felt that I must do so, in order
to avoid any accusation of anti-Semitic

                                                  [Page 163]

propaganda, and because, in the trial brief my client is
accused of being a member of an anti-Semitic organization.
This accusation is unjustifiable in so far as more
importance is attached to this organization than it actually
deserves. If this matter is not further emphasized by the
prosecution, I shall not attach any particular importance to
these two documents.

The last document which is being objected to, 71, contains
the Agreement of Pittsburgh which was concluded between
Masaryk and Hlinka, the Slovak leader, in which Masaryk
solemnly promised autonomy to the Slovaks, a promise which
was not kept according to the letter of the agreement and
which gave rise to a strong demand of autonomy in Slovakia,
which was supported by Hitler. For these reasons I ask that
this document also be approved.

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