[Page 113]

"The unity of the racial and national will, created through Nazism with unprecedented elan, has made possible a foreign policy through which the bonds of the Versailles Treaty were slashed, the freedom to arm regained and the sovereignty of the whole nation re- established. We have again become master in our own home, and we have produced the means of power to remain so for all times. The world should notice from Hitler's deeds and words that his aims are not aggressive war."

If I might first put the defendant's policy in a sentence, I would say that it can be summarised as breaking one treaty only at a time. He himself put it - if I may say so - slightly more pompously, but to the same effect, in a speech before the Academy of German Law on 30 October, 1937, which appears in " Das Archiv," October 1937, Page 921, and which the Tribunal will find in the document book on Page 73. The underlining is mine:

"In recognition of these elementary facts the Reich Cabinet has always interceded in favour of treating every concrete international problem within the scope of methods especially suited to it; not to complicate it unnecessarily by involvement with other problems; and, as long as problems between only two powers are concerned, to choose the direct way for an immediate understanding between these two powers. We are in a position to state that this method has fully proved itself good not only in the German interest, but also in the general interest."

In 1935 the action was directed against the Western Powers. That action was the rearmament of Germany. When that was going on another country had to be reassured. At that time it was Austria, with the support of Italy - which Austria still had up to 1935. And so you get the fraudulent assurance, the essence of the technique, in that case given by Hitler, on 21 May, 1935. And that is clearly shown to be false, by the documents which Mr. Alderman put in. Then, in 1936, you have still the action necessary against the Western Powers, in the occupation of the Rhineland. You still have a fraudulent assurance to Austria in the treaty of 11 July of that year and that is shown to be fraudulent by the letters from the defendant von Papen, Exhibits USA 64 and 67, one of which my friend Major Barrington has just referred to.

Then in 1937 and 1938 you move on a step, and the action is directed against Austria. We know what that action was. It was absorption, planned, at any rate finally, at the meeting on 5 November, 1937 ; and action taken on 11 March 1938.

Reassurance had to be given to the Western Powers, so you have the assurance to Belgium on 13 October, 1937, which was dealt with by my friend Mr. Roberts. (See Part 2, pp. 198- 211).

We move forward a year and the object of the aggressive action becomes Czechoslovakia. Or I should say we move forward six months to a year. There you have the Sudetenland obtained in September; the absorption of the whole of Bohemia and Moravia on 15 March 1939.

Then it was necessary to reassure Poland; so an assurance to Poland is given by Hitler on 20 February, 1938, and repeated up to 26 September, 1938. The falsity of that assurance was shown over and over again in Colonel Griffith-Jones's presentation on Poland. (Part 2, pp. 125-176).

Then finally, when they want the action as directed against Poland in the next year for its conquest, assurance must be given to Russia, and so a non

[Page 115]

With regard to that tabular presentation, one might quote the Latin tag, res ipsa loquitur. But quite a frank statement from this defendant, with regard to the earlier part of that, can be found in the account of his conversation with the United States Ambassador, Mr. Bullitt, on 18 May, 1936, which is on Page 74 of the document book, Document L-150, Exhibit USA 65, and if I might read the first paragraph after the introduction, which says that they called on this defendant, Mr. Bullitt remarks:

"Von Neurath said that it was the policy of the German Government to do nothing active in foreign affairs until 'the Rhineland had been digested.' He explained that he meant that, until the German fortifications had been constructed on the French and Belgian frontiers, the German Government would do everything possible to prevent rather than encourage an outbreak by the Nazis in Austria, and would pursue a quiet line with regard to Czechoslovakia. 'As soon as our fortifications are constructed and the countries of Central Europe realise that France cannot enter German territory at will, all those countries will begin to feel very differently about their foreign policies, and a new constellation will develop,' he said."

Then I come to the actual aggression against Austria, and I remind the Tribunal that this defendant was Foreign Minister.

First: During the early Nazi plottings against Austria in 1934.

Second: When the false assurance was given to Austria on 21 May, 1935, and the fraudulent treaty made on 11 July, 1936.

Third: When the defendant von Papen was carrying on his subterranean intrigues in the period from 1935 to 1937.

This defendant von Neurath was present when Hitler declared, at the Hoszbach interview on 5 November, 1937, that the German question could only be solved by force, and that his plans were to conquer Austria and Czechoslovakia. That is Document 386-PS, Exhibit USA 25, which the Tribunal will find at Page 82. If you will look at the sixth line of Page 82, after the heading, you will see that one of the persons in attendance at this highly confidential meeting was the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, Freiherr von Neurath.

Without reading a document which the Tribunal have had referred to them more than once, may I remind the Tribunal that it is on Page 86 that the passage about the conquest of Austria occurs, and the next sentence is:

"For the improvement of our military political position, it must be our first aim in every case of entanglement by war to conquer Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously, in order to remove any threat from the flanks in case of a possible advance Westwards."

[Page 116]

Then the next point. During the actual Anschluss he received a note from the British Ambassador dated 11 March, 1938. That is Document 3045-PS, Exhibit USA 127. He sent the reply contained in Document 3287-PS, Exhibit USA 128. If I might very briefly remind the Tribunal of the reply, I think all that is necessary - and of course the Tribunal have had this document referred to them before - is the at top of Page 93. I wish to call attention to two obvious untruths.

The defendant von Neurath states in the sixth line: "It is untrue that the Reich used forceful pressure to bring about this development, especially the assertion, which was spread later by the former Chancellor Schuschnigg, that the German Government had presented the Federal President with a conditional ultimatum. It is a pure invention."

"The truth of the matter is that the question of sending military or police forces from the Reich was only brought up when the newly formed Austrian Cabinet addressed a telegram, already published by the Press, to the German Government, urgently asking for the dispatch of German troops as soon as possible, in order to restore peace and order and to avoid bloodshed. Faced with the immediate threat of the danger of a bloody civil war in Austria, the German Government then decided to comply with the appeal addressed to it."

In this abundance of proof of the untruthfulness of these statements, the Tribunal may probably think that the most clear and obvious correction is in the transcription of the defendant Goering's telephone conversations, which are so amply corroborated by the other documents.

The prosecution submits that it is inconceivable that this defendant who, according to the defendant Jodl's diary - may I ask the Tribunal just to look at Page 116 of the document book, the entry in the defendant Jodl's diary for 10 March so that they have this point clear? It is the third paragraph, and it says

"At 1300 hours General Keitel informs Chief of Operational Staff and Admiral Canaris. Ribbentrop is being detained in London. Neurath takes over the Foreign Office."

His position can be shown equally clearly by the account which is given of

[Page 117]

"I should emphasise here in this statement that the men who made these promises were not only the dyed-in-the- wool Nazis, but more conservative Germans who already had begun willingly to lend themselves to the Nazi programme.

In an official dispatch to the Department of State from Vienna, dated October 10, 1935, I wrote as follows :

'Europe will not get away from the myth that Neurath, Papen and Mackensen are not dangerous people, and that they are diplomats of the old school. They are in fact servile instruments of the regime, and, just because the outside world looks upon them as harmless, they are able to work more effectively. They are able to sow discord just because they propagate the myth that they are not in sympathy with the regime.'"

(The Tribunal adjourned until 24th January 1946 at 1000 hours)

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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