Schmidt, but to Mussolini and to the High Tribunal, and I think to several other people. Had he never said it to you?
Q Did you know that it was his view?
Q You didn't know that was Goering's view?
A Please let me speak a minute. Of course, I knew that it was Goering's wish to bring about a union of these two states, and I myself was present at the talk with Mussolini.
Please consider, however, that Mr. Goering at that time was not competent for foreign policy. The question of what policy should be carried on in Austria had been agreed upon exclusively between Hitler and me, and I do not recall that, in these years between 1936 and 1938, I discussed it with Marshal Goering.
Q. I am dealing with November of 1937 at the moment, and three months later the defendant Goering was very competent in foreign politics in the Austrian question, as you, who listened to the accounts of his telephone conversations, must know.
I just want you to take the dates as we have got them now. Goering had told Schmidt his views; you and Schmidt were discussing this meeting between Schuschnigg and Hitler. In January you had a political discussion with Dr. Seyss-Inquart at Garmisch.
I am one date out of order. On the 11th of November, as Mr. Dodd put to Dr. Seyss-Inquart, he had written a letter to Dr. Jury saying "I don't think anything will happen this year, but the developments will take place in the spring." Then, after that letter, he sees you at Garmisch in January, and in February you finally arrange this meeting between Schuschnigg and Hitler.
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't you know very well that the whole object of the meeting was to get Herr von Schuschnigg to agree to the Reich's wishes, the appointment of Seyss-Inquart, a general political amnesty which would release all the members of the Nazi Party in Austria and put them at the disposal of their leaders, and a declaration of equal rights for the Party? Didn't you know that the whole object of the meeting was to get Herr von Schuschnigg to agree to these terms so that you would have the Austrian National Socialist Party unfettered and free to work for Germany's interests in Austria?
A. In my talks with Dr. Seyss-Inquart in Garmisch-Patenkirchen we discussed the necessity of making the Austrian Nazi Party indepentend, that is, under all circumstances removing it from the influence of the Reich, in the form agreed upon in the treaty of July and in the intention that a union of our two countries would be suggested and urged from the Austrian side, so far as foreign policy was concerned, and not by the Reich.
ing between Hitler and Schuschnigg. I personally could not know at all at this time whether such a talk would ever take place. That was decided only on the 5th of February, as you will recall. would go on.
You may further recall to your memory that Dr. Seyss-Inquart had been officially assigned by the Chancellor to investigate all ways which would be possible to incorporate the national opposition -- that is, the Austrian National Socialist Party -- into Schuschnigg's work. That was his official mission, and thus I had a right to discuss these things with him.
Q. Wasn't Dr. Reiner -- the witness that the Tribunal has seen -- wasn't he present at the Garnisch meeting too?
A. Please?
Q. Dr. Reiner?
A. It seems that that was the case, Sir David; I don't recall. SeyssInquart told me that it was possible that Dr. Reiner joined us on a walk. I personally do not remember. I did not carry on any political discussion with Reiner.
Q. Well now, you have given your explanation as of the turn of the year. I just want to remind you of one other point. You were very well aware of the von Blomberg and von Fritsch crisis in the Army, were you not? I don't want to go into disagreeable details again, because it is not at present before the Tribunal, but you knew that that crisis had arisen?
A. Yes.
Q. I am sure you will see the importance of this. General von Fritsch had been at the War Academy with you, had he not?
A. Yes.
Q. He was an old friend, and you knew -- as I think everyone who has mentioned his name in this court has said -- that General von Fritsch was a man of the highest character and that the sort of charge that was brought against him was one which anyone who knew him would regard with ridicule, if it wasn't so tragic and they would regard it with contempt?
That was your view?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And you had a pretty good idea, had you not, apart from the treatment of Field Marshal von Blomberg, that von Fritsch had been the subject of a trumped-up charge in order to prevent him becoming head of the Wehrmacht? You knew that, didn't you?
A. In any case, I learned of it later.
Q. No, no, that is not the important thing, defendant; your state of mind on the 5th of February, 1938. You knew by then that the Nazi clique had brought a framed-up charge against a man whom you regarded as the soul of honor, did you not?
you tell him about the fact that von Schuschnigg may come, and he jumps to it at once. He says, "go and got Schuschnigg", doesn't he? He was quite bored, if I may put it that way, with what you had to say up to that point. As soon as you say there is a chance of a meeting with Schuschnigg Hitler seizes it like a trout to a May fly doesn't he, or rather, like a lion to the kill; that is right, isn't it?
A Yes, Sir David. I told the Court what impression the events in Berlin and my own dismissal on the 4th of February had made on me. It cannot be conwould be taken--to bring about this discussion of the two Chiefs of State which had long been desired, because I hoped to clear up the differences and avoid a radical course. I told Foreign Minister Schmidt and Chancellor Schuschnigg that, when I asked both of them, if at all possible, to take part in such a clearing-up discussion. meeting of the 12th of February because I went through them with the defendant von Ribbentrop and the Court are very well seized with them. fully because the question of your own veracity may depend on it. at that interview? my report; I myself said that pressure was exerted. because the Court have heard the evidence of your friend Dr. Schmidt and a lot of other evidence. I only want to ask you the one question, and please get it clear. Schuschnigg to make him agree to the terms of the 12th of February? That is the one question I want to ask you, and I give you the chance of answering. What do you say today? Was or was it not pressure put on Herr von Schuschnigg?
A Yes; I never denied it. I don't understand why you ask me that. I never denied it.
Q The defendant Ribbentrop denied it quite strongly, but we won't go into that.
Did you arrange a meeting between Hitler and Cardinal Innitzer? apart from the French and British representatives, should be present at Hitler's entry into Vienna? at parades, and I certainly did not suggest it.
Q Did you arrange for the diplomatic corps to be present? could attend this celebration, and I told them "of course, why not?"
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: My Lord, I have now finished with Austria. I have three very minor matters which I hope will take a short time, but this might be a convenient period in which to recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
(A recess was taken.)
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE :
the anti-Semitic movement and propaganda ? action and propaganda ?
A On the contrary. It was my aim and my wish, and was the entire program of my work to have a union brought about between the two countries and to contribute as much as possible, for it was the wish of the German nation.
Q I do not think you can have understood my question. Let me repeat it I am now coming to the Jews.
A Oh, to the Jews ?
Q Yes, Now, let me repeat it again. Are the Tribunal to take it that broadly you were against anti-Semitic action and propaganda ?
A Yes; I have already told the High Tribunal just what my basic opinion was towards the racial question and towards the question of the elimination of foreign influences in certain cultural aspects of public life. They are two entirely different questions, however.
Q Yes, I appreciate that. Now, will you look at Document 3319 PS,which is Exhibit GB 287 ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE : My lord, it begins at Page 48 of Document Book 11-A. It is on pages 44 and 45 of the German book.
Q The part I want you to refer to is on Pages 58 and 59. This, defendant, is from a confidential report of the work session of the consultants on Jewish questions of the German missions in Europe, on the 3rd and 4th of April, 1944. I want you just to look at Page 44, I think, of the German version; Page 58 of the English, at the contribution to this discussion of a certain Herr Posemann, from Turkey. Was he from your staff ? If you would not mind, just say yes or no.
A Perhaps I may be permitted to tell you just who Mr. Posemann was. and if not, what was he, that is what I want to know.
A No, not at all. Not at all. Mr. Posemann was the keeper of a book shop, a German who had settled in Ankara. But he was in no way connected with my embassy staff.
Q I see. Well, at any rate, he was a consultant of the German Foreign Office for this discussion.
Now, just listen to what he says :
"Early last year the Turkish Government carried out a blow against the Jews in connection with an attempt to solve the problem of minorities. Very vigorous procedures were used in the carrying out of this action. Suspicions of Allied circles that anti-Jewish measures alone were concerned were countered by Turkey with References to simultaneous measures against the minority. At any rate, Turkey abandoned further measures towards a solution of the problem of minorities and therewith of the Jewish problem. For this reason, no anti-Jewish propaganda can be carried on under our direction at the present moment, since it is not desired and would be a burden on Turkey's present foreign policy. There are no anti-Jewish publications in Turkey, aside from caricatures and comic books about Jews. A dawning realization of the extent of International Jewish domination can be seen in the translation of the "Protocol of the Elders of Zion" and of Ford's book,"The International Jew". The marketing of these brochures and their distribution has been promoted by the Embassy. For the time being, only work within this narrow range is possible, since, as already has been emphasized, anti-Jewish propaganda that was obviously German-inspired might give rise to unfavorable political complications for us."
Now, do you believe in the " Protocol of the Elders of Zion " ? Do you believe it is a correct and authentic work ?
Q Then why was the marketing of these brochures promoted by the embassy ? High Tribunal regarding the entire matter of this meeting. This meeting had been called by the Foreign Office, and to participate with the experts of the embassies and legations that had been specifically hired for dealing with the Jewish problem, or to concern themselves with the treatment of the Jewish problem. In my embassy there was no such expert for dealing with this problem, for I always refused to have a man like that. the book-shop, Mr. Posemann, and had delegated him to attend this conference.
If Mr. Posemann here set forth that the embassy disseminated the propaganda brochures which are mentioned here, then he is gravely mistaken.
For, first of all, the Turkish Government would never have tolerated a dissemination of material like that, and secondly, you, Sir David, can convince yourself today that all of these brochures are to be found in the basement of my embassy at Ankara.
You can make sure for yourself. is wrong ?
Q You say that you are not a subject of that; that is your answer ?
I want to ask you one or two things about the Catholic Church. You remember the Fulda declaration of the bishops ?
Q That is right, is it not ? That was made and based on an assurance which Hitler gave to the Church of his good intentions, on the 23rd of March, 1933 ? Do you remember Hitler's making a statement like that ?
A Yes; not only on the 23rd of March. But with this declaration Hitler very specifically took the point of view that both Christian denominations would be the basis of any and all policy. yours at a cabinet meeting on the 15th of March, 1933, when you stressed the importance of incorporating political Catholicism into the new state; that is a correct and factual statement, is it not ? That is the way the thing works out ? basis of his policy, set forth in solemn statements, and I believe that I explained to the High Tribunal that I did everything possible, really, in order to establish this program.
Page 96; Page 78 of the German version, which is Document 2248 PS. It is your report to Hitler of the 20th July, 1935. Now in that report you use these words: "the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundations of Germany."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is on Page 99 of the English text and it is Page 86 of the German text. My Lord, it is the first paragraph, Page 99: "Cultural problems assume particular importance. The way in which Germany deals with political religious difficulties, the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundations of Germany will not only have a decisive effect on England or Catholic Poland, one can rather say that the solution of the German-Austrian question stands or falls with it." Now what I want you to bear in mind, this is your account to Hitler in July, 1935, over two years after the Concordate: "the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundations of Germany --". Now your counsel quoted one passage of His Holiness the Pope's allocution, and I would just like you to look and tell the Tribunal whether you agree with the next passage, which occurs after the bit quoted by Dr. Kubuschok.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, this is a now document -- no, My Lord, I am sorry. It is an old exhibit. It is Document 3268 PS, which is U.S.A. Exhibit 356. Your Lordship remembers that Dr. Kubuschok quoted a portion, in his document book, of the Pope's allocution. My Lord, I have some extra copies. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q Now after the bit which Dr. Kubuschok quoted as to the Concordate having prevented worse evils, His Holiness goes on to say: "The struggle against the Church did, in fact, become over more bitter: there was the dissolution of Catholic organizations; the gradual suppression of the flourishing Catholic schools, both public and private; the enforced weaning of youth from family and Church; the pressure brought to bear on the conscience of citizens, and especially of civil servants; the systematic defamation, by means of a clever, closely- organized propaganda, of the Church, the clergy, the faithful, the Church's institutions, teaching and history; the closing, dissolution, confiscation of religious houses and other ecclesiastical institutions; the complete suppression of the Catholic press and publishing houses."
Do you agree with His Holiness that that is a correct description of the action of the German Reich against the Catholic Church? "Mit Brennender Sorge", which is Document 3280 PS.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Your Lordship will find it at Page 40 of Document Book 11 -- I am sorry, My Lord, it is Page 47. I said 40. It is 40 of the German text. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: of March, 1937, four years after the Concordate, and he says in the second sentence -- well, at the beginning: "It discloses intrigues which from the beginning had no other aim than a war of extermination. In the furrows in which we had laboured to sow the seeds of true peace, others - like the enemy in Holy Scripture - sowed the tares of suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny, of secret and open fundamental hostility to Christ and His Church, fed from a thousand different sources and making use of every available means. On then and on them alone and on their silent and vocal protectors rests the responsibility that now on the horizon of Germany there is to be soon not the rainbow of peace but the threatening storm-clouds of destructive religious wars." you agree with that?
Church, how could you possibly write to Hitler, two years after the Concordate, in July, 35, that he had "eliminated political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundations of Germany. It was absolutely wrong, wasn't it, that Hitler and the Nazis had not touched the Christian foundations of Germany? They had uprooted them and were in process of destroying them?
A. Sir David, you are confusing two completely different things, political Catholicism -
Q. Defendant, I don't want to interrupt you, but I have made that point quite clear. The point I am putting to you is not the elimination of political Catholicism. I am not, for the moment, dealing with the relation between you and Msgr. Kaas. What I am dealing with is your other statement, that it had been done without touching the Christian foundations of Germany. What I am putting to you is what His Holiness is saying that the Christian foundations of Germany were being destroyed.
I don't mind, for the moment about the views that Msgr. Kaas had of you or you had of Msgr. Kaas. I know what they are.
A. Perhaps I can explain these things to you. First the struggle against the Church and its institutions, against which His Holiness the Pope, in the years 1937 and 45 turns in his encyclical, and recognizing the intensification of the situation which obtained during the war, all of these things were an attack on the Christian foundations of Germany, an attack which I rejected most strongly all the time; but this has no connection at all with the elimination of the so-called political Catholicism, something which I hoped for and desired. These are two completely different things. Perhaps it is hard for you to understand, since you are not at home in Germany circumstances and in German situations -
Q. Please believe me, Defendant, that I have spent a great deal of time in pursuing the troubles between you and Msgr. Kaas. I am not going to bring them out before the Tribunal because they are not important. I appreciate and agree -- not as well as you do -- but I appreciate the position of political Catholicism and I am not asking you about that. I am asking you about your statement. Why did you say to Hitler that he had not touched the Christian foundations of Germany ? That is what I want to know. You must have known in 35 that that wasn't true ?
A. But, Sir David, you are distorting the things that are set down in this report. I am telling Hitler that the Christian foundations of Germany may not be touched and that is what is set down in this report : that the political Catholicism should be eliminated without touching the Christian foundations of Germany.
Q. Well, you appreciate how it begins. You say that "clever hand which eliminates it without touching --". Just let me remind you. Didn't you say, in your interrogation, that your trouble -- part of your trouble in the summer of 1934, before you made the Marburg speech, was due to the nonfulfillment of the Concordate, that after it had been signed of paper and I couldn't do anything". Then there was the persecution of the churches and the Jews at the same time. That was late in 1933 and 34. Your view was, in 1934, "that there had not only been treating of the Concordate as a scrap of paper but persecution of both the churches and the Jews "?
A. I do not know which document you are quoting from, Sir David.
Q. This is your interrogation on the morning of the 19th September 1945.
A. Yes, of course. It was my opinion when I delivered the Marburg speech that the State was violating all of these matters. Otherwise, I would not have made this speech; but in this speech, Sir David, I expressly emphasized that no European state can exist without a Christian foundation and that we werethliminating ourselves from the group of Christian peoples and that we were dispensing with or foregoing our Christian foundation. I couldn't have been more specific, could I ? And perhaps I can tell you something else which concerns Political Catholicism. Referring to political Catholicism -
Q Do as you want to. I especially want to avoid burdening the Tribunal with the exchanges between you and Msgr. Kaas, because both of you used harsh language and it might not sound very good if I repeated it now. If you want to go into it, do, but don't open it up unless you must. of the most tremendous, for it violates all of my opinions. adjournment that you had introduced Cardinal Innitzer to Hitler when you went into Austria. You remember the statement to which Dr. Kubuschok has referred, that Cardinal Innitzer in a broadcast from Rome made clear that he was only accepting the Nazi rule of Austria on certain conditions. Do you remember that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: This is a new document, My Lord, D-903, which becomes GB-508. My Lord, this is a statement in the form of an affidavit from a priest Dr. Weisbacher, which I only got from Vienna on the 7th of June.
Q (Continuing): You will see that this priest -- well, at any rate I take it he is a priest; he is the Archbishop's secretary in the Cathedral chapter.
Let's just look at it.
"On the 8th of October 1938" -- that is a little over six months after you had arranged for Cardinal Innitzer to meet Hitler -- a serious attack by young demonstrators took place in the Archbishop's palace in Vienna. I was present during it and can therefore describe it from my own experience. The priests took the nuns into an inner room and hid them there. They took behind him, and "Then we two priests, who saw ourselves opposed to a crowd of invaders, took up post at the door of the Cardinal's house chapel in order to prevent any destruction there at least."
"Shortly after we had reached the chapel, the first invaders stormed into the Cardinal's rooms which the chapel adjoins. Right at the door we warded them off. pieces of wood were flung into the chapel; I received a push that caused me to fall, but we managed to prevent any entry into the chapel. The demonstrators were youths aged from 14 to 25, about a hundred of them. After we had warded off the first troop, we opened up the tabernacle and consumed the consecrated wafers so as to prevent the most holy from being descrated. But new invaders stormed up already, whom we warded off. In the meantime, in the remaining rooms an orgy of destruction that cannot be described took place against all the fittings. With the brass rods that held the carpet in place on the staircase the youths destroyed tables and chairs, candelabras and valuable paintings , particularly all crucifixes." alarm when the Cardinal was discovered. This priest himself was dragged from the chapel by about six people and dragged across the anteroom to the window with shouts of "We'll throw the dog out of the window." what was proper reparation.
"Then there came a police lieutenant colonel and apologised; then there appeared a representative of the Gestapo and expressed his regret, stating, however, that the police had not had much desire to intervene."
Then there was a further demonstration against the cathedral rector's house in 3 Stefansplatz, where they threw the cathedral curate Krawatik out of the window into the yard. This priest lay in the hospital until February with a fracture of both thighs.
Now I ask you to look at the penultimate paragraph:
"That the demonstration was not the result of youthful wantonness or the embitterment, but a well thought out plan known to official quarters is obvious from the speech of Gauleiter Buerckel who, on the 13th October in the Heldenplatz, represented the Cardinal as the guilty one in the nearest possible manner." Cardinal Innitzer, had you not? You had introduced him to Hitler. You must have learned from the ramifications and communications of the Catholic church of this attack on the Cardinal's house six months after the Anschluss, did you not?
You must have learned of this. on the principles of the church, the throwing of the cathedral curate out of the window and breaking both his thighs, the desecration of the chapel, the breaking of crucifixes? What protest did you make about it? months I had left my office, that I had nothing whatsoever to do with these matters. This incident was regrettable and was a criminal attack, but the details were not in the press, and I can tell you that I am seeing them for the first time here. But permit me to say the following as well -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): But, Defendant, you haven't answered the question. The question was: What complaint did you make about it?
THE WITNESS: No protest at all, My Lord, for I was in no official position at the time. I was just a private citizen at that time, and obviously all I learned about these things was what the German papers were permitted to publish at that time about these things. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: leading Catholic laymen in Germany. You are not going to tell the Tribunal that in the Catholic Church it wasn't known to every bishop in Germany and probably to every parish priest that this abominable and sacrilegious insult had been offered to a Prince of the Church in his own house in Vienna. Surely it would permeate through the Church in a few days.
of me, a private citizen, to do anything special? What should I have done? The Tribunal perhaps is not cognizant of the fact that there was a discussion which I brought about between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler, that I was responsible for that. You mentioned that fact for the first time here today. that you were responsible for bringing about the meeting between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler in March of 1938. When His Eminence was attacked in October, I should have thought -- it is not for me to express my thoughts -- that you might have taken the trouble to protest to Hitler, and all that you do is to take another job under Hitler within six months, in April 1939.
What I am asking you is why you didn't make a protest. You could have written to Hitler. The defendant Goering has expresses his great religious interests. A number of the other defendants have said that they had great religious sympathies. Why couldn't you have got in touch with them? matters, I was living in seclusion in the country and did not concern myself with political matters at all. But perhaps I may be permitted to state just why I was responsible for bringing about a meeting with Cardinal Innitzer. the moment, the meeting on the 15th of March. I am interested in the fact that this took place, you knew of it and made no protest.
Now I am going to come to another point. Dr. Kubuschok can raise it later on, if he wants. ing evidence and saying that they didn't know of the terrible repressive measures that were taking place in Germany. You knew very well about these repressive measures, did you not? You knew about the action of the Gestapo, the concentration camps, and late you knew about the elimination of the Jews, did you not?
1934 political opponents were interned in the concentration comps and very frequently I protested against the methods of concentration camps. In various cases I was successful in liberating people from these concentration camps. But at that time it was not known to me that even murders had been committed in these concentration camps.
Q Well now, just let me take that up. It is good to get down to a concrete instance. tary Herr von Tschirschky was ordered to return from Vienna to Berlin for examination by the Gestapo. Do you remember that? a detailed report of his reasons for not going? Do you remember that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is Document D-635, which would become Exhibit GB-509, and your Lordship will find it at page 87 of Document Book 11 A, and it is at page 60 of the German version.
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q Now, at page 87 there is Herr von Tschirschky's own letter to you in which he says at the end of the second paragraph:
"I am not in a position to comply with the Gestapo demand to report to Berlin for interrogation." influenced only by the "human, understandable desire to live" and then he sends a report, he encloses a report to you of what had happened to him on the 30th of June which got him into the bad books of the Gestapo.
Do you remember that? humorous if it did not show such a dreadful state of affairs, your secretary, Herr von Tschirschky, was arrested simultaneously by two competing groups of Reich policemen, I think the criminal police and the Gestapo and there was a severe danger of Herr von Tschirschky and some of the police being shot before they could decide who was to take him into custody.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is at page 89 and it is at the end of page 65 of the German version, defendant. necine struggle and it got possession of the body of Herr von Tschirschky and then he says, just toward the end--My Lord, it is the middle of page 89.
He is told the other police are following the Gestapo and he says:
"This was finally done and the journey took us to the Gestapo building in the Prince Albertstrasse, through a courtyard to a back entrance. There another exchange of words took place between the two groups of criminal police officials. I again joined in this debate and suggested as a way of clearing up the misunderstanding that a man from each group should see someone in the building of higher authority, and let him decide what should be done. To guard myself and the other two gentlemen, there were still three criminal police officer and four SS men available. This way out was accepted. The men eventually came back and explained that the misunderstanding was now cleared up, we could be taken away. Whereupon we were taken by three SS men, not accompanied by the criminal police officials, on a longish trip through the building into the basement.