His only condition is that the Freedom Union would guarantee to take a stand directed against Germany. Mr. Staud has simply refused this offer. It is shown by that how one even in the enemy's camp already evaluates the new grouping of Forces. From that the further necessity results for us, to support as before this movement financially, and namely mostly in reference to the continuation of its fight against Jewry."
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I must point out here a difficulty which has apparently been caused by the translation. In the German text of the original concerning the forwarding it is said "concerning the fight against the Jewish race." This word "Mit Bezug" means that the money should be sent, concerning the sending of money, but that that should not be the real object, but that the Freedom League was not a league which forfeited Jews, but was a professional organization , and actually a member of that league had been Dollfuss. The words "Mit Bezug" means only that the sending of the money should get the certain designation because the money was sent to a legal organization. Money could not be sent from abroad to such an organization which is shown by the refusal of the checks. I would like to point out here that the words "in reference" could give the wrong impression and should preferably be translated by "referring." In any case I would like to point out that this was a camouflage in transferring the money.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know which word you are referring to, but as I understand it the only purpose of referring to this letter was to show that von Papen was suggesting that a certain organization should be financially assisted in its fight against Jewry. That is the only purpose of referring to the letter. I don't know what you mean about some word being wrongly translated.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is exactly how the error originated. Not to combat the Jewish movement, the money was sent because that was not the object of this Christian Trade Union, but it was necessary to give a certain term in translating this in order to give that idea. The purpose was not to fight Jewry but elimination of another foreign influence, that means Czechoslovakia.
THE PRESIDENT: I should have thought myself that the point which might have been taken against you was that the letter was after the time with which you were then dealing.
MR. BARRINGTON: That is so, My Lord; it was not at the time of the previous one.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the previous one was marked 1933, and this was 193
MR. BARRINGTON: Oh yes. I only put it in, My Lord, to show it was by then, at any rate. If Your Lordship has any doubt as to the translation I would suggest that it might now be translated by the interpreter. We have the German original, a photostat.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you can have it translated again tomorrow; if necessary, you can have it gone into again then.
MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, My Lord.
I come now to the Catholic Church. The Nazi treatment of the church has been fully dealt with by the United States prosecution. In this particular field von Papen, the prominent Catholic, helps to consolidate the Nazi position both at home and abroad as perhaps nobody else could have done. the Tribunal Hitler's assurance given to the church on the 23rd of March, 1933, in Hitler's speech on the Enabling Act, an assurance which resulted in the well-known Fulda Declaration of the German bishops. That was document 3387-PS, which was U.S. Exhibit 566. This deceitful assurance of Hitler's appears to have been made at the suggestion of von Papen eight days earlier at the Reich cabinet at which the Enabling Act was discussed, on the 15th of March, 1933. I refer to document 2962-PS, which is U.S. Exhibit 578, and it is on page 40 of the English document book. I read from page 44. That is at the bottom of page 6 of the German text, and the minutes say:
"The Vice-chancellor and Reich Commissar for Prussia stated that it was of decisive importance to coordinate into the new state the masses standing behind the Parties.
The question of the incorporation of political Catholicism into the new State was of particular importance." That was a statement made by von Papen at the meeting at which the Enabling Act was discussed prior to Hitler's speech on the Enabling Act, in which he gave his assurance to the church.
THE PRESIDENT: Which page is that on in the document book?
MR. BARRINGTON: It is page 44, My Lord, about the middle.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BARRINGTON: On the 20th of July, 1933, Papen signed the Reich Concordat negotiated by him with the Vatican. The Tribunal has already taken judicial notice of this as document 3260-A-PS. The signing of the Concordat, like Hitler's upon an inspired speech on the Enabling Act, was only an interlude in the church policy of the Nazi conspirators. The policy of re-assurances was followed by a long series of violations which eventually resulted in Papal denunciation in the Encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge," which is 3476-PS, U.S. Exhibit 567. he has asserted during interrogations that it was Hitler who sabotaged the Concordat. If von Papen really believed in the very solemn undertakings given by him on behalf of the Reich to the Vatican, I submit it is strange that he, himself a Catholic, should have continued to serve Hitler after all those violations and even after the Papal Encyclical itself. I will go furt*---* I will say that Papen was himself involved in what was virtually, if not technically, a violation of the Concordat. The Tribunal will recollect the elocution of the Pope, dated the 2nd of June 1945, which is 3268-PS, U.S. Exhibit 356, from which on page 1647 of the transcript Colonel Storey read the Pope's own summary of the Nazis' bitter struggle against the church. The very first item the pope mentioned is the dissolution of Catholic organizations and, if the Tribunal will look at document 3376-PS, on page 56 of the English document book which I now put in as GB-244 and which is an extract from "Das Archiv," they will see that in September 1934 von Papen ordered -- and I say "ordered" advisedly -- the dissolution of the Union of Catholic Germans, of which he was at the time the leader. The text of "Das Archiv" reads as follows:
"The Reich Leadership Party announces the seal of dissolution of the Union of Catholic Germans.
"Since the Reich Party Leadership, through its department for spiritual peace, increasingly and immediately administers all cultural problems and those concerning the relationship of State and Churches, the tasks at first delegated to the Union of Catholic Germans are now included in those of the Reich Party Leadership in the interest of a stronger coordination.
"Vice-chancellor von Papen, up to now the Leader of the Union of Catholic Germans, declared about the dissolution of this organization that it was done upon his suggestion, since the attitude of the national socialist State toward the Christian and Catholic Church had been explained often and unequivocally through the Leader and Chancellor himself." said it was a seal of dissolution on his suggestion, but I submit that such a suggestion from one in Papen's position was equivalent to an order, since by that date it was common knowledge that the Nazis were dropping all pretense that rival organizations might be permitted to exist.
After nine months' service under Hitler, spent in consolidating the Nazi control, von Papen was evidently well content with his choice. I refer to document 3375-PS, page 54 of the English document book, which I put in as GB-245. On the 2nd of November 1933, speaking at Essen from the same platform as Hitler and Gauleiter Terboven, in the course of the campaign for the Reichstag election and the referendum concerning Germans leaving the League of Nations , von Papen declared:
"Ever since Providence called upon me to become the pioneer of national resurrection and the rebirth of our homeland, I have tried to support with all my strength the work of the national socialist movement and its leader; and just as I at the time of taking over the Chancellorship" -- that was in 1932 -- "have advocated to pave the way to power for the young fighting liberation movement, just as I on January 30 was selected by a gracious fate to put the hands of our Chancellor and Fuehrer into the hand of our beloved Field Marshal, so do I today again feel the obligation to say to the German people and all those who have kept confidence in me:
"The kind Lord has blessed Germany by giving it in times of deep distres a leader who will lead it, through all distresses and weaknesses, through all crises and moments of danger, with the sure instinct of the statesman into a happy future."
And then the last sentence of the whole text on page 55:
"Let us in this hour say to the Fuehrer of the new German, that we believe in him and his work." he had given all his strength had abolished the civil liberties; had sanctioned political murder committed in aid of Naziism's seizure of power, had destroyed all rival political parties; had enacted the basic laws for abolition of the political influence of the Federal states; had provided the legislative basis for purging the Civil Service and judiciary of anti-Nazi elements; and had embarked upon a state policy of persecution of the Jews.
Papen's words are words of hollow mockery:
"The kind Lord has blessed Germany--" preparations for war. Knowing as he did the basic program of the Nazi Party, it is inconceivable that as Vice-chancellor for a year and a half he could have been dissociated from the conspirators' warlike preparations; he, whom Hitler wrote to Hindenburg on the 10th of April 1933, his collaboration in the Reich Cabinet for which he now offers all his strength is infinitely valuable. political planning and preparations for wars of aggression in violation of international treaties. In Papen's case this allegation is really thestory of the Anschluss. His part in that was a preparation for wars of aggression in two senses: First, that the Anschluss was the necessary preliminary step to all the subsequent armed aggressions; secondly, that even if it can be contended that the Anschluss was in fact achieved without aggression, it was planned in such a way that it would have been achieved byaggression if that had been necessary.
I need do no more than summarize Papen's Austrian activities since the whole story of the Anschluss has been described to the Tribunal already, though with the Tribunal's permission I would like to read again two short passages of a particularly personal nature regarding Papen. But, before I deal with Papen's activitiesin Austria, there is one matter that I feel I ought not to omit to mention to the Tribunal. University. I do not propose to put it in evidence, nor is it in the document book because it is a matter of history, and in what I say I do not intend to commit myself in regard to the motives and consequences of his speech which are not free from mystery, but I will say this: That as far as concerns the subject matter of Papen's Marburg speech, it was an outspoken criticism of the Nazis. One must imagine that the Nazis were justly angry and, although he escaped death in the blood purge twelve days later, he was put under arrest for three days. Whether this arrest originally intended to end in execution or whether it was to protect him from the purge as one too valuable to be lost, I do not now inquire. After his release from arrest he, not unnaturally, resigned the Reich Chancellorship. Now the question that arises -- and this is why I mention thematter at this point -- is why after these barbaric events did he ever go back into the service of the Nazis again? What an opportunity missed. If he had stopped then he might have saved the world much suffering. Suppose that Hitler's own Vice-Chancellor, just released fromarrest, had defied the Nazis and told the world the truth; there might never have been a reoccupation of the Rhineland; there might never have been a war. But I must not speculate. The lamentable fact is that he slipped back; he succumbed again to the fascination of Hitler. 25th of July 1934, the situation was such as to call for the removal of the German Minister Rieth, and for the prompt substitution of a man who was an enthusiast for Anschluss with Germany, who could be tolerant of Nazi objectives and methods, but who could lend an aura of respectability to official German representation in Vienna.
This situation is described in the transcript at pages 478 and 489. Hitler's reaction to the murder of Dolfuss was immediate. He chose his man as soon as he heard the news. The very next day, the 26th of July, he sent von Papen a letter of appointment. This is on page 37 of the English document book; it is 2799-PS and it has already been judicially noticed by the Tribunal. Mr. Alderman read the letter, and I only wish now to refer to the personal remarks towards the end.
Hitler in this letter, after reciting his version of the Dolfuss affair and expressing his desire that Austrian-German relations should be brought again into normal and friendly channels, says in the third paragraph:
"For this reason I request you, Dear von Papen, to take over this important and unlimited confidence ever since we have worked together in the cabinet." And the last paragraph of the letter:
"Thanking you once more for all that you once did for the coordination of the Government of the National Revolution and since then together with us for Germany."
THE PRESIDENT: This might be the time we might break off for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken from 1530 to 1540 hours.) sent to von Papen on the 26 July 1934, the letter of appointment as Minister in Vienna. This letter, which, of course, was made public, naturally did not disclose the realintent of von Papen's appointment. The actual mission of von Papen was stated frankly shortly after his arrival in Vienna in the course of a private conversation he had with the American Minister, Mr. Messersmith. I quote from Mr. Messersmith's affidavit, which is 1760-PS, USA Exhibit No.57, and it is on page 22 of the Document Book, just about half way through the second paragraph: Mr. Messersmith said:
"When I did call on von Papen in the German Legation, he greeted me with 'Now you are in my Legation and I can control the conversation.
' that all of Southeastern Europe, to the borders of Turkey, was Germany's for Germany.
He blandly and directly said that getting control of Austria was to be the first step.
He definitely stated that he was in the South and Southeast.
He said that he intended to use his reputation Cardinal Innitzer, towards that end."
Throughout the earlier period of his mission to Austria, von Papen's activity was characterized by the assiduous avoidance of any appearance of intervention. His true mission was re-affirmed with clarity several months after its commencement, when he was instructed by Berlin that during the next two years nothing can be undertaken which will give Germany external political difficulties, and that every appearance of German intervention in Austrian affairs must be avoided, and, von Papen himself said to BergerWaldenegg, an Austrian Foreign Minister: "Yes, you have your French and English friends now, and you can have your independence a little longer." All of that was told in detail by Mr. Alderman, again quoting from Mr. Messe rsmith's affidavit, and which is in the transcript at pages 492, 506 and 507. Austria without openly admitted German intervention, and Germany needed more time to consolidate its diplomatic position. These reasons for German policy were frankly expressed by the German Foreign Minister von Neurath in conversation with the American Ambassador to France, and, this was read into the transcript at page 520 by Mr. Alderman from Document L-150, USA Exhibit No. 65. to the normal ambassadorial function of cultivating all respectable elements in Austria, and ingratiating himself in these circles. Despite his facade of strict non-intervention, von Papen remained in contact with subversive elements in Austria. Thus in his report to Hitler dated 17 May 1935, he advised concerning Austrian-Nazi strategy as proposed by Captain Leopold, Leader of the illegal Austrian Nazis, the object of which was to trick Dr. Schuschnigg into establishing an Austrian coalition government with the NSDAP. This is Document No. 2247-PS, USA Exhibit No. 64, and it is in the transcript at pages 516 to 518. It is on page 34 of the English Document Book. I don't want to read this letter again, but I would like to call attention of the Tribunal to the first line of what is called the second paragraph in the English Text, where von Papen talking about this strategy of Captain Leopold says, "I suggest that we take an active part in this game."
Document No. 812-PS, USA No. 61, which the Tribunal will remember was a report from Rainer to Buerckel, and which is dealt with in the transcript at pages 498 to 505. negotiated by von Papen. This is already in evidence as TC-22, GB-Exhibit No. 20. The Public form of this agreement provides that while Austria in her policy should regard herself as a German state, yet, Germany would recognize the full sovereignty of Austria, and would not exercise direct or indirect influence on the inner political order of Austria. More interesting was the secret part of the agreement, revealed by Mr. Messersmith, which ensured the Nazis an influence in the Austrian cabinet, and participation in the political life of Austria. This has already been read into the transcript at page 522 by Mr. Alderman. policy by maintaining contact with the illegal Nazis by trying to influence appointments to strategic cabinet positions, and by attempting to secure official recognition of Nazi front organizations. Reporting to Hitler shortly after the agreement of 11 July 1936, he summarized his program for normalizing Austrian-German relations in pursuant of the agreement of 11 July. This is Document 2246-PS, USA Exhibit No. 67, on page 33 of the English Document Book. extract, he recommended as a guiding principle continued, patient psychological manipulations, with slowly intensified pressure directed at changing the regime, and then he mentioned his discussion with the government officials. is aiming at the corporative representation of the movement in the Fatherland Front, but nevertheless refraining from putting National Socialists in important positions for the time being. of Schuschnigg with Hitler in February 1939, which von Papen arranged and which he attended, and to the final invasion of Austria in March 1938. It is enough to quote from the Biography again on Page 66 of the document book. It is about two-thirds of the way down the page:
"After the events of March 1938 which caused Austria's incorporation into the German Reich, von Papen had the satisfaction to be present at the Fuehrer's side when the entry into Vienna took place, having just been admitted on 14 February 1938 into the Party in recognition of his valuable collaboration and having received the Golden Party Badge from the Fuehrer."
And the Biography continues:
"At first, von Papen retired to his estate Wallerfangen in the Saar district but soon the Fuehrer required his services again in that he on the 18 April 1939, appointed von Papen German Ambassador in Ankara." time it was at a date when the seizure of Czechoslovakia could have left no shadow of doubt in Papen's mind that Hitler was determined to pursue his program of aggression.
the last paragraph but one:
"After his return to the Reich--" That was in 1944--"von Papen was awarded the Knight's Cross of the War Merit Order with Swords."
In conclusion, I draw the Tribunal's attention again to the fulsome praises which Hitler publicly bestowed upon von Papen for his services, especially in the earlier days. I have given two instances where Hitler said "his collaboration is infinitely valuable", and again, "You posses my most complete and unlimited confidence." the diplomat, Papen, the man of breeding and culture--there was the man who could overcome the hostility and antipathy of those respectable elements who barred Hitler's way. Papen was--to repeat the words by Sir Hartly Shawcross in his opening speech--"One of the men whose cooperation and support made the Nazi Government of Germany possible."
That concludes my case. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe will now follow with the case of von Neurath.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the presentation against the defendant von Neurath falls into five parts, and the first of these is concerned with the following positions and honors which he held. he was awarded the Golden Party Badge on 30 January 1937.
He was General in the SS. He was personally appointed Gruppenfuehrer by Hitler September 1937 and promoted to Obergruppenfuehrer on 21 June 1943. the defendant von Papenfrom 2 June 1932 and under the Chancellorship of Hitler from 30 January 1933 until he was replaced by the defendant von Ribbentrop on 4 Febuary 1938. appointed on 4 Febuary 1938, and he was a member of the Reich Defense Council. 1939 until he was replaced by the defendant Frick on 25 August, 1943.
as Reich Protector. The defendant Ribbentrop was the only other German to receive this decoration. which is US Exhibit No. 19, and in that document, which is signed by the defendant and his counsel, the defendant makes comments on certain of these matters with which I should like to deal. January 1937 against his will and without his being asked. the allegedly unwanted honor, but after receiving it, attended meetings at which wars of aggression were planned, actively participated in the rape of Austria and tyranized over Bohemia and Moravia.
against his will and without his being asked. the receipt of the further promotion to Obergruppenfuehrer and the actions against Bohemia and Moravia must be considered when the defendant's submission is examined. president von Hindenburg. of the defendant von Papen and Hitler and to the fact that President von Hindenburg died in 1934. This defendant continued as Foreign Minister until 1938. February 1938 until May 1945.
At. the moment, attention is drawn to the activities which will be mentioned below and to the terrible evidence as to Bohemia and Moravia which willbe forthcoming from our friend, the Soviet Prosecutor.
This defendant's next point is that the Secret Cabinet Council never sat or conferred. committee of the Cabinet for the deliberation of foreign affairs, and the Tribunal will find that description in Document 1774-PS, which I now put in as Exhibit GB 246. This is an extract from a book by a well-known author, and on Page 2 of the document book -- the document book is numbered in red at the top right hand corner -- the first page of that document, in about the seventh line from thebottom of the page, they will see that among the bureaus subordinated to the Fuehrer for direct counsel and assistance, number four is the Privy Cabinet Council; President: ReichMinister Frh. von Nuerath. about ten lines from the top, they will see the paragraph beginning;
"A privy cabinet council, to advise the Fuehrer in the basic problems of foreign policy, has been created by the decree of 4 February 1938," and a reference is given.
"This privy cabinet council is under the direction of Reich-Minister v. Neurath, and includes the Foreign Minister, the Air Minister, the Deputy Commander for the Fuehrer, the Propaganda Minister, the Chief of the Reich-Chancellery, the Commanders-in-Chief of the Army and Navy and the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces.
The privy cabinet council constitutes a select staff of collaborators of the Fuehrer which consists exclusively of members of the Government of the Reich; thus, it represents a select committee of the Reich Government for the deliberation on foreign affairs." document 2031-PS, which is Exhibit GB 217. I believe that has been put in. I needn't read it again. he was not a member of the Reich Defense Council. Tribunal that the Reich Defense Council was set up soon after Hitler's accession to power on 4 April 1933, and the Tribunal will find a note of that point in document 2261-PS, US Exhibit 24, and they will find that on the top of page 12 of the document book there is a reference to the date of the establishment of the Reich Defense Council. United States Exhibit 409, which is the affidavit of the Defendant Frick, which the Tribunal will find on page 14. In about the middle of that short affidavit, Defendant Frick says:
"We were also members of the Reich Defense Council which was supposed to plan preparations in case of war which later on were published by the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich." Foreign Affairs, who was then the Defendant von Neurath, is shown by Document EC-177, United States Exhibit 390. If the Tribunal will turn to page 16 of the document book, they will find that document, and at the foot of the page, the composition of the Reich Defense Council, permanent members including the Minister for Foreign Affairs. That document is dated "Berlin, 22 May 1933" which was during this Defendant's tenure of that office. That is the first stage.
Defendant's department, von Beulow, present, is shown by the minutes of the 12th meeting on 14 May 1936. That is Document EC-407, which I put in as GB-247. The Tribunal will find at page 21 that the minutes are for the 14th of May 1936, and the actual reference to an intervention of von Beulow is in the middle of page 22. This Defendant was, under the terms of that law, a member of the Reich Defense Council by virtue of his office as president of the Secret Cabinet Council. That is shown by the document 2194-PS, U.S. Exhibit 36, which the Tribunal will find at page 24, and if you wall lock at page 24, you will see that the actual copy which was put in evidence was enclosed in a letter addressed to the Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia on the 6th of September, 1939. It is rather curious that the Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia is now denying his membership in the Council when the letter enclosing the law is one addressed to him. is still that document, the last words on that page describe the tasks of that Council and say, "The task of the Reich Defense Council consists, in peacetime, of the decision on all measures for the preparation of Reich defense, and the gathering together of all forces and means of the nation according to the directions of the Leaders and ReichsChancellor. The tasks of the Council in wartime will be especially determined by the Leader and ReichsChancellor." permanent members of the Council are listed, and then the seventh one is the President of the Secret Cabinet Council, who was, again, this Defendant. Defendant's statement that he was not a member of the Reich Defense Council. Defendant is that in assuming the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs in Hitler's Cabinet, this Defendant assumed charge of a foreign policy committed to breach of treaties.
We say first that the Nazi Party had repeatedly and for many years made known its intention to overthrow Germany's international commitments, even at the risk of war.
We refer to Sections 1 and 2 of the Party Program, which, as the Tribunal has heard, was published year after year. That is on page 32 of the document book. It is Document 1708-PS, U. S. Exhibit 255.
I just remind the Tribunal of these points 1 and 2:
"1. We demand the unification of allGermans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.
"2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain."
But probably clearer than th is the statement contained in Hitler's speech at Munich on the 15th of March, 1939, and the Tribunal will find one of the references to that on page 40. And, if I may warn the Tribunal, in the document book page 40 appears directly after page 34. I'm sorry, some of the pages have got out of order. But on page 40, at the middle of the page, you will find a reference to that speech. It begins:
"My foreign policy had identical aims. My program was to abolish the Treaty of Versailles. It is futile nonsense for therest of the world to pretend today that I did not reveal this program until 1933 or 1935 or 1937. Instead of listening to the foolish chatter of emigrees, these gentlemen would have been wiser to read what I have written thousands of times."
It is futile nonsense for foreigners to raise that point. It would be still morefutile for Hitler's Foreign Minister to suggest that he was ignorant of the aggressive designs of the policy. But I remind the Tribunal that the acceptance of force as a means of solving international problems and achieving the objectives of Hitler's foreign policy must have been known to anyone as closely in touch with Hitler as the Defendant von Neurath, and I remind the Tribunal, simply by reference to the passages from Mein Kampf which were quoted by my friend Mr. Elwyn Jones, especially those towards the end of the book, pages 552, 553 and 554.
So that the Prosecution say that by the acceptance of this foreign policy, the Defendant von Neurath assisted and promoted the accession to power ofthe Nazi Party.
Affairs this Defendant directed the international aspects of the first phase of the Nazi conspiracy, the consolidation of control in preparation for war. this Defendant must have known the cardinal points of Hitler's policy leading up to the outbreak of the World War, as outlined in retrospect by Hitler in his speech to his military leaders on the 23rd of November, 1939.
This policy had two facets: internally, the establishment of rigid control; externally, the program to release Germany from its international ties.
The external program had four points:
1. Secession from the disarmament conference;
2. The order to re-arm Germany;
3. The introduction of compulsory military service; and 4. The remilitarization of the Rhineland.
find after page 41 - in the document book, at the end of the first paragraph they will find these points very briefly set out, and perhaps I might just read that passage. It is Document 789-PS, U.S. Exhibit 23 - about ten lines before the break:
"I had to reorganize everything beginning with the mass of the people and extending it to the armed forces. First, reorganization of the interior, abolishment of appearance of decay and defeatist ideas, education to heroism. While reorganizing the interior, I undertook the second task, to release Germany from its international ties. Two particular characteristics are to be pointed out: secession from the League of Nations and denunciation of the disarmament conference. It was a hard decision. The number of prophets who predicted that it would lead to the occupation of the Rhineland was large, the number of believers was very small. I was supported by the nation, which stood firmly behind me, when I carried out my intentions. After that, the order for rearmament. Here a ain there were numerous prophets who predicted misfortunes, and only a few believers. In 1935 the introduction of compulsory armed service. After that, militarization of the Rhineland, again a process believed to be impossible at that time. The number of people who would trust in me were very small. Then the beginning of the fortification of the whole country, especially in the West."
Now, these are summarized in four points. The defendant von Neurath participated directly and personally in accomplishing each of these four aspects of Hitler's foreign policy, at the same time officially proclaiming that these measures did not constitute steps toward aggression.
The first is a matter of history. When Germany left the disarmament conference this defendant sent telegrams dated the 14th of October, 1933, to the President of the Conference - and that will be found in the document, Dokumente Der Deutschen Politik, on page 94 of the first volume for that year. Similarly this defendant made the announcement of Germany's withdrawal from the League of Nations on the 21st of October, 1933. That again will be found in the official documents. These are referred to in the transcript of this Tribunal on page 402 and 450, and I remind the Tribunal of the complementary documents of military preparation which of course were read, and which are documents C.140, U.S. Exhibit 51, the 25th of October, 1933, and C.153, U.S. Exhibit 43, the 12th of May 1934.
These have already been read and I merely collect them for the memory and assistance of the Tribunal.
The second point of the rearmament of Germany: When this defendant was Foreign Minister, on the 10th of March 1935, the German Government officially announced the establishment of the German air force. Document TC 44 GB Exhibit 11, already referred to. On the 21st of May 1935, Hitler announced a purported unilateral repudiation of the Naval, Military and Air clauses of the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty for the Restoration of Friendly Relations with the United States, and that will be found in Document 2288PS, U.S. Exhibit 38, which again has already been read. On the same day the Reich Cabinet, of which this defendant was a member, enacted the secret "Reich Defense Law" creating the office of Plenipotentiary General for War Economy," afterwards described by the Wehrmacht armament expert as "the cornerstone of German rearmament." The reference to the law is document 2261-PS, U.S. Exhibit 24, letter of von Blomberg dated the 24th of June, 1935, enclosing this law, which is already before the Tribunal, and the reference to the comment on the importance of the law is document 2353-PS, U.S. Exhibit 35. Some of that has already been read, but if the Tribunal will be good enough to turn to page 52, where that appears, they will find an extract from page 35, and I might just give the Tribunal the last sentence: which was supposed to be published only in case of war, and was already declared valid for carrying out war preparations. As this law fixed the duties of the armed forces and the other Reich authorities in case of war, it was also the fundamental ruling for the development and activity of the war economy organization."
The third point is the introduction of compulsory military service. On the 16th of March 1935, this defendant signed the law for the organization of the armed forces which provided for universal military service and antici pated a vastly expanded German army.