adopted on the 16th of November is maintained by me today. on the 15th day of November ?
A The report must not be taken literally. Partly it is based on statements made by reliable people, and I executed it to the best of my knowledge and ability, based again on the situation existing in July 1939, and it has a certain tendency.
Q Well, you told us it was true in November, didn't you ?
Q (Interposing) Your affidavit is attached to that document that you have, and that is your signature, isn't it, and you have sworn to the truth of it ? made a short note about it afterwards. The formulation of the affidavit was discussed at length.
Q Now you answer my question. Is that the affidavit that you executed under oath on the 15th of November here in Nurnberg ? Yes or no ? form the basis of the above mentioned letters and reports are true to the best of my knowledge and belief," And you also say further up that you have read the letters and the report.
Now, is that affidavit true ? Were you telling the truth when you said that to us under oath in November ? gave in connection with it and which were taken down at that time in shorthand, be added to it.
Q Why didn't you ask that there be included in the affidavit anything that you wanted about this report if it wasn't altogether true ? You were swearing to it. Did you ask that something be added to it or that it be changed ? the document which had been submitted to me. The record of my statements contained my attitude towards the contents of these documents, and as a precaution I added a statement that in this case, too, I wished certain reservations to be taken down.
They were subsequently formulated by one of the gentlmen interrogating me, stating that "to his best knowledge and conscience..." and then he went on to say that all these reservations which I had stated had not been included in accordance with the method to which they were accustomed. about this affidavit? Are you really serious about this last statement? you make. I have another one here that you haven't seen. You made a speech in 1942.
MR. DODD: This is Document 4005-PS. It becomes USA 890. BY MR. DODD:
Q You had better have a copy of this in front of you. Do you remember that speech that you made on the 11th of March 1942in Klagenfurt before the leaders Corps and the bearers of honor insignia and blood orders of the Gau Karinthia, in which you told the whole story of the development of the events of March of 1938? Do you remember the day you made that speech?
Q All right. Now, let's look at it. Were you telling the truth the day you made that speech? audience would understand it.
Q Were you telling the truth? That is what I want to know. Were you telling the truth when you made that speech? I didn't ask you if you made it interesting; I asked you if you told the truth. there were certain things which I didn't knew correctly.
Q Now, let's take a look and see what you said in 1942 with reference to this report, PS-812. trying to locate for you the sentence that begins, "Only in cooperating with us -- Jury and a number of co-workers of Leopold..." That is on page 2 of the English text, about the middle of the page, the lower third of the page.
Do you find that?
A No. Did you say page 18 of the German text?
Q Do you find that, "Only in cooperation with us -- Jury and a number of co-workers of Leopold and also with Leopold's consent, it was possible to achieve Seyss-Inquart's appointment to the post of State Council, Staatsrat. More and More Seyss turned out to be the clever negotiator."
Q Do you find that?
Q "We know he was the one who would best represent the interests of the movement in the political forefield. He also unconditionally subordinated himself always to Klausner's leadership. He always conducted himself as Klausner's deputy and conscientiously followed Klausner's instructions. With Seyss' appointment to the post of Staatsrat, we found a new possibility to enter into further negotiations. At that time, there were a number of grotesque situations. We were informed on events in the Schuschnigg camp by the political apparatus; our own connection to Ribbentrop, Goering and Himmler we have via Keppler." and how do you reconcile that now with what you have told the Tribunal about the report to Buerckel?
A It isn't known to me where that record of the speech originates. I should have to have an opportunity -
Q I'll tell you. It is a captured document that was found down there in the files, so you needn't worry about that. What I want to know is whether or not you now admit that you made this speech and you said these things at the time that you made it. have said under oath today about that point was true. This is a broad statement designed for the audience of the times, which can't be taken so carefully as something which I say today, conscious of my responsibility. today, are you?
Q Let's turn a page and see what you said about Papen, and about the conference. You go on to say how you get information, how you met in the Ringstrasse, and so on. If you will follow right along now, we won't lose the place.
"Papen had been exressly told to handle preparations for the conference confidentially. In Austria only Schuschnigg, Schmidt and Zernatto knew about it. They believed that on our side only Papen was informed. Papen, too, thought that only he knew about it, but we too were informed and had had conversations with Seyss about the subject."
That is the Berchtesgaden conference. Now, were you telling the truth when you said this in 1942, or not? Or was that a broad statement for the benefit of the audience? of those days corrector.
Q Well, why not? It was in 1942. Don't you remember? Do you mean that you don't know whether you told the truth or not, or you don't know whether you said this or not?
Q Did you tell them the truth? under oath before this Tribunal, having to make concrete statements about concrete points. It seems impossible to me that I should today be able to read individual points of a speech which was made four years ago.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you have an answer? He is not answering your question
MR. DODD: No, sir,he is not. BY MR. DODD: and if you did so, were they true? Now, you can tell us that very simply and we don't need any long answer. You have read it over and you have heard me read it. Now, please give us an answer.
You don't need to read any more. You have read it once and I have read it to you. Was that true and did you say it?
Q Well, is it true in any respect? Is it true that Papen was informed and that Seyss-Inquart know about that conference long before it took place or sometime before it took place? That is what we want to know.
met -
Q Now, just a minute. You are hot answering my question. That is the next sentence which you are reading. I know that is coming and I am going to ask you about the meeting in Garmisch. I am now asking you if what you said about von Papen and Seyss-Inquart is the truth, and that is all I want to know. about the intention of having a conference.
Now, let's go on a little bit further and find out about this Garmisch meeting. You were invited down there to the Olympic games, you say, and you had a meeting with Papen and Seyss-Inquart, and theywent through some negotiations, and then you went to Berlin.
Now, I want to move down a little bit. There is a lot of interesting material here. We don't have the time to go into it all just now. You go on down quite a bit, and I want to ask you about what you say you had already prepared.
"We had already prepared the following" -- and you are talking about Schuschnigg and the impending conference. It is on the back of page 9 of your text, Mr. Witness, and it is on page 5 of the English text, the last paragraph. You say:
"We had already prepared the following:
"The last result of the conversation Seyss communicated to me in a place in the Kaertnerstrasse. I called the telephone number where Globus was to be reached in Berlin " -- by the way, for the benefit ofthe Tribunal, Globus is Globocnik. He is the same person, isn't he?
Q " -- and told him about the negative result of the conversation. I could speak with Globus entirely freely. We had a secret code for each name, and besides we both spoke a terrible dialect so that not a sould would have understood us. Globus immediately wrote down this report ..." and so on.
"In themeantime, Keppler had gone to Munich by sleeping car."
Then, a sentence or two further down:
"I then forwarded instructions by Party member Muehlmann, who proved to be an excellent liaison men to Party and government offices in the Reich.
He left for Salzburg on the same train as Schuschnigg. While Schuschnigg had his car taken off at Salzburg and spent the night there and continued by auto to the Obersalzburg, Muehlmann continued on and was in Berchtesgaden. Keppler and he went to the Fuehrer before Schuschnigg and could tell him everything. Schuschnigg arrived in the morning, was received, and lived to see the boundless surprise that the Fuehrer took up the negotiations where they had been broken off without results the day before between Seyss and him. The Fuehrer did not conduct the negotiations as Schuschnigg expected. He went the whole hog. Schuschnigg was finished off that time. The Fuehrer got hold of him, assaulted him, and shouted at him and reproached him for all the dirty tricks Schuschnigg had committed during the years past. Schuschnigg had become a heavy smoker. We had connections even into his bedroom. We know about his way of life. Now he was smoking 50, now 60 cigarettes. Now at the Fuehrer he was not allowed to smoke. Schuschnigg could not smoke even.
"Ribbentrop told me he really pitied Schuschnigg. He only stood at attention before the Fuehrer, had his hands against the seams and all he said was 'Yes, sir', 'Jawohl'."
Now, what about that? You said all these things in your speech. Were they true when you said them?
Right up to that point, Mr. Witness, you have read it with me. Did you say this or not, and was it true when you said it?
Individual expression of mine which I am reading here are not mine. In that point, that document has been supplemented by somebody else. Whether the evidence repeats in it or goes into detail, that is something I cannot say for certain because much of it did not happen in my presence.
Q I just wanted to know if you said it, that's all. Very well, we will go on. asked him to give Schuschnigg one cigarette and so they gave him one. Let's go on quite a few pages to a more important matter. It's on page 13.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, will you be able to finish tonight, because we were planning to adjourn at a quarter to.
MR. DODD: Yes, I have only a few more questions and I'll need only two more minutes to finish. BY MR. DODD: Seyss-Inquart came to this meeting and told you that he had been bound by his word of honor not to speak of what he had heard. You will find it on page 13, it's on page 13 of the English text.... Well, you can find it, I am sure you will take my word if I tell you that it is there, and that it is on page 13 of the English text. But you say, "We asked Seyss: 'Is it true?' Seyss said: 'I am bound not to speak by my word of honor, but we want to act as if it is true' (diplomat that he was). The matter was clear for us."
He let you knew, didn't he, that Schuschnigg had told him about the plan. He lot you know, didn't he? Please, can't you answer my question? questions for you.
You also said, "In the night from Thursday, March 10, to Friday, March 11, all Gauleiters were in Vienna waiting for information. National Socialists were attacked, and so on 10 March we issued orders to the SA, and SS, Lukesch and Kaltenbrunner, on our own initiative, to call out beginning Friday, half of our formations for the protection of National Socialists in the streets, whereas the best men were to remain armed in their barracks in the event of a civil war.
We had to be ready to deal not only with the executive authorities, but also with the red mob."
A With arms and under barracks, that cannot be right. That's no question of barracks anyway, and weapons, we didn't have any. speech was included in detail in your report to Buerckel. The truth of the matter is that you, in both instances, passed up the truth, isn't it? That's the truth of the matter. When you made your report to Buerckel, you were reporting what you thought were the facts, and what you know now are stories, and not facts.
MR. DODD: Well, I certainly do not have many more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, 13 June 1946.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has considered the question of the time to be taken by counsel in their concluding speeches. The provisions of Article 18 of the Charter directing the Tribunal to confine the trail strictly to an expeditious hearing must be observed, and counsel clearly could not be permitted to speak at any length they choose. Necessity dictates that there must be some limitation, or this already lengthy trial might be prolonged beyond all reason. concluding speeches to three days in all, and some voluntary limitation should be made by counsel for the defense. The evidence for the defendants has been fully heard in great detail, and what is now needed is not a detailed analysis of the evidence, but a concise review of the main matters. from failure to mention any particular matter in argument. On this view, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the speeches of the counsel for the defense -including the speech to be made on behalf of all the defendants on the submission of law -- should be concluded in fourteen days in all. This will allow the defense double the time taken by the prosecution, both in opening and in summing up. By mutual arrangement between counsel, there fourteen days could be apportioned as they think fit, and the Tribunal would prefer that the; make the apportionment rather than make the apportionment itself. prepare their speeches in accordance with what I have said, and will advise the Tribunal as soon as possible of the apportionment of time that they have made. If they find themselves unable to agree on this apportionment, the Tribunal will give further consideration to the matter.
secution and for the defendants -- that it will materially help the Tribunal if counsel would submit translations of their speeches at the time they make them.
DR. NELTE: (Counsel for defendant Keitel). Mr. President, the decision which you have just announced to us has surprised the defense, since they have not been previously heard with reference to this question. This appears to us to be all the more regrettable since the decision is, in practice, against the most elementary rights of the defense because it impedes the possibilities for us to state in court what, in this most important trial, is of importance to the defendants and the problem with which they are confronted. material. If I were to state, without taking into account the other defendant counsel, the case of the defendant Keitel as an example, then you will probabl understand that the material alone which has appeared after the cross-examination puts me in an extremely difficult position. I am sure that applies to a large number of the other defendants' counsel as well.
In my opinion, these matters cannot be dealt with collectively. Consider ing all attempts to see these things collectively and typically, they must, nevertheless, be adjusted to the case of the individual defendants. to me. In practice, it is almost impossible to achieve it so that an apportioning in a manner just to the indicidual defendants could be carried out. announced -- I am not sure whether it was only a suggestion -- should once again be reviewed, with consultation of the defense. Without wanting to speak before the reasonable statement which the entire defense is trying to make, I wish, nevertheless, now, to formally raise objection to the decision limiting the rights of the defense, a limit which exceeds the measure of what is bearable to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Do counsel either for the prosecution or the defense wish to make any other observations to the Tribunal upon this subject?
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I would like to state that I take exception to Dr. Nelte's argument, that it is a violation of an elementary right of these defendants, because in our country I think I am quite right in saying that it is quite common practice for our courts to restrict counsel in the matter of final argument, even when -
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, Mr. Dodd, but I am afraid there are three voices, English, French and Russian coming on the wire, on the Russian channel.
(The proceedings suspended temporarily).
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, the interpreter thinks it is all right now.
MR. DODD: What I wish to say very briefly is that with respect to Dr. Nelte's argument that a restriction in time with respect to the final argument is a violation of a fundamental right of these defendants, I wanted to call to the Tribunal's attention that in our country it is, I would say, rather common practice for our courts to restrict counsel in time in final argument, even in jury cases where there is much more need for argument, as the Tribunal has pointed out.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other counsel wish to make any other observations?
DR. von LEUDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for the defendant von Neurath): Mr. President, to begin with, I should like to make some remarks regarding the limit imposed upon our time. If we are limited to 14 days, then that means approximately four hours per defendant for our arguments. But, then, in reality, these four hours are not four full hours, since, because of the technical arrangement which has become necessary for this court room, we are forced to speak much more slowly than we would speak during a direct argument or a direct, free discussion. That is to say, of the four hours which remain to us on the average, we must deduct again that time which we lose through having to speak so slowly. speaking, amount to only three hours.
Mr. President, I believe that if you base your considerations on the assumption that in three hours we can deliver our arguments, you are making a miscalculation, and I believe that we are right in saying that during these three hours we cannot possibly produce all the material which is available for every defendant and consider it in such a manner that the case is indeed fulfilling that purpose which it is intended to fulfil.
it seems to be the most important thing to find the truth; but finding the truth not only means the individual's abruptly chosen action. It also means that first of all it must be shown how it happened that that individual's action came about. counsel for the defendant von Neurath, who was the responsible leader of the foreign policy for the Reich until 1938, I want to point out to you that the entire accusations which are alleged against my client are largely and unavoidably due to the circumstances as they developed. In this development of historical matters you will find the explanation for all the actions taken up to the day when my client offered his resignation.
All that I can do is to make that clear to you. I do not subscribe to the individual case of development. Gentlemen, if you take into consideration that in addition to that, I am still dealing with the subject of the activities of my client as a Reich protector, which alone is not altogether as simple as it might appear, you will no doubt grant me that I cannot possibly do that in a period which is tantamount to only three hours. are not before an American court here. I have just attempted to make enquiries about this. There is no information to the effect that in international tribunals, such as, for instance, the Tribunal of the Hague or the courts in Egypt, there has ever been a limitation imposed upon the duration of the speeches of the defense during the presentation of their cases. That is why I beg you to take into consideration that we are not before an American court here, but that this is an international tribunal, and that in this international tribunal, which, after all, goes far beyond the existing arrangements previously made and which goes far beyond the framework of any military tribunal which has up to now dealt with small particles of that tremendous complexity of Germany, never has there been a limitation imposed upon the defense for the stating of their cases.
will allow me to ask you once more to reconsider your decision and not have us give the impression that we are neglecting our duty of presenting our case for our clients by not submitting them in full.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I will only add very little to what my colleague Mr. Dodd has already said. The penal code of our country admits the right of the Tribunal to impose limitations upon both the prosecution and the defense in their final plea. decision of the Tribunal is putting limits on their rights and is unjust, is unfounded. The defense is already submitting evidence now in its case, and has every opportunity to give a complete presentation. I believe that there is no question of justice in limiting this trial.
I therefore uphold the argument of Mr. Dodd, and consider the decision of the Tribunal quite just.
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for defendant von Papen): Mr. President, will you please permit me to make one brief statement? No legal procedure can be anticipated in the beginning without taking time. That cannot be done at any stage of the trial.
You cannot allocate time at the beginning; and at the beginning, therefore, you cannot limit the time which the taking of evidence will require. Furthermore, as far as the following stages and the length of the statements presented by the defense are concerned, they cannot be forecast, either, and therefore not limited. a defense is included in this proceeding at all --- is that one man who has that professional task and who has at his disposal the corresponding qualities must put before the Tribunal the material that he has found worthy of presentation, from long hours of work and in intimate conversations with his client.
That must, indeed, be done through such an intermediary; and just how far he will have to state his case is something that he as an expert must be able to decide. No man who participates in the proceeding, be he of the Tribunal or be he of the defendants' counsel, can approximately forecast the things that might become necessary and might be essential in this connection.
the case for the prosecution, or during the collection of evidence, or during the case for the defense, for the end of the cases. difficulties. However, only the point of view expressed by the President can be the deciding factor for limiting the proceedings; and he, while directing the proceedings during the case for the prosecution, again and again confined the proceedings to the necessary amount of statements. I cannot understand why a similar procedure should not be suitable during our case. counsel would apply to himself, a suitable limitation on the length of our presentations would occur in any case. But I honestly believe that no one with the exception of a participant, and he only at the end of the entire collection of evidence, can anticipate how much time will be required. It is obvious, therefore, that any limitations imposed on the length of time now should be very carefully considered. If the statement made by the participant this morning is to the effect that our cases should be cut down -- and in this connection we are particularly grateful for the hint regarding the statements referring to the evidence -- then we shall most certainly come to a conclusion without this definite limitation, with respect to the suggestion made by the Tribunal, and limit ourselves as much as we possibly can.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't propose to go fully or at all into the argument which led the Tribunal to making the announcement which I made this morning, but I think it would be desirable for Counsel for the defense, before they make any formal objection to that announcement, to study it. I do desire to say on behalf of the Tribunal that that announcement was not made without consultation both with counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defense, and that was done in closed session. We heard both the counsel for the prosecution and counsel whom we understood to be representative counsel for the defense, and they made the suggestion which they thought right to us at that time and we fully considered it. We intimated to them that they should draw the attention of their brethren to what passed at that hearing in closed session. Therefore, it is entirely inaccurate to say, as Dr. Nelte did, that the announcement was made without hearing counsel for the defense. will give further consideration to the matter. The suggestion made in the announcement was that the fourteen days, which the Tribunal thought sufficient for the speeches for the defendants, should be apportioned voluntarily among counsel. Those fourteen days are full days and will not be taken up at all by any argument upon the organizations, and until the defendants' counsel has attempted to make that apportionment, it must be obviously impossible for them to know whether they will be able to make their speeches, which are not speeches that are necessarily detailed examinations of the evidence, but are arguments drawing the attention of the Tribunal to the main points which they desire to draw the attention of the Tribunal to, it will not be possible for them to know whether they can make their speeches satisfactorily within the fourteen days. The counsel for the defense ought, therefore, to go into the matter together, as the Tribunal understood they were doing, and see whether they can satisfactorily present their speeches within that time. All the arguments which have been presented to us this morning were fully presented to us by counsel for the defense who appeared before us at the closed session, one of whom has addressed us this morning.
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Steinbauer, counsel for the defendant Seyss-Inquart BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q Mr. Witness, in answer to the last question put by the American prosecutor, you have stated that your letter had intended to represent a certain tendency, and I now want to ask you, what tendency was that? activity against Dr. Seyss-Inquart and some other people. They came from dissatisfied elements, radicals in Austria and the Reich. They utilized Dr. Seyss-Inquart's hesitant attitude of the 11th of March, his tendency to the revolutionary line, and the maintaining of the principal points of the agreement between the two states, in order to accuse him of being a separatist.
Q Perhaps, Mr. Witness, you can be a little more brief.
A Right. These attacks seemed to be dangerous because Buerckel Heydrich was behind it. I considered the attacks to be unfair and I worded my report, therefore, to produce arguments and to put the evidence on such facts which would make it possible for the service to understand my argument. that the merits of the party on one side protected Seyss-Inquart's person at the time?
A Yes. That is a good way of expressing it.
Q Now, my second question. In that letter you have mentioned that Seyss-Inquart had taken a letter of ultimatum to Schuschnigg. Have you any recollection to the effect that he had compiled that letter in his office, that he had prepared it?
A Dr. Steinbauer, you mean the letter of ultimatum of the 11th of March? participated in writing it.
the prosecutor, that through the collaboration of Dr. Jury amd Leopold, Seyss-Inquart had become a state councillor, and I want to ask you, did you mean that Dr. Jury and Leopold had a chance of having influence on Schuschnigg?
A No, and that can't be the meaning of it. document to you. It was a speech which you hade made in Thuringia. Do you remember that?
Q Is that speech typical for such a speech in the country? I mean, from the point of view of the propaganda of Goebbels? Was it underlining your merits and making propaganda against the opponent?
A I wouldn't say that. It was a social get-together of the Old Guard on the occasion of the 11th of March, during which there was a certain amount of beer and there was music and I described events rather like a story teller. I spoke for a very long time; in fact, it was the longest speech I ever made. It took more than three hours. I was speaking quite freely by memory. I had no written material, and the record which is obviously available now appears to me not to tally with my statements in every point. effect upon the members of the party rather than to write history?
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you very much. That is enough for me and I have no further questions.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Dr. Kubuschok, counsel for von Papen BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: occasion you had met von Papen at Garmisch. What did you talk about to von Papen at the time and how did that conversation come about at all?
A Dr. Seyss-Inquart and I had been invited to Garmisch by the Reich Sports Leader. The German-Austrian-Alpine Club was to be disussed. Together with von Tschammer we were watching the bob-sled races at the lake there. We also met von Papen. Herr von Papen, Seyss-Inquart and I then walked back from there to Garmisch, and on that occasion the political situation was discussed and the -
THE PRESIDENT: You don't need to give the details of it. I suppose the poiht of the question is that the conversation was not political. Is that the point of the question?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The conversation was political, but it is a question of the type of political conversation it was. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q Perhaps, Witness, you can confine yourself to the facts. The reason that I know that, it was an accidental meeting. When you were coming back from the bob-sled race now, what were you talking about?
A We were talking about the situation in Austria. We talked about the state of affairs regarding the pacification and we talked about any individual point which might be exhaustively interesting during that meeting. Austrian public. Were these matters in keeping with the July contract? you have pointed out that you had talked to others, on the evening of the 8th of March, 1939, invon Papen's apartment. I should like to know whether in this case we are concerned with a pre-arranged meeting or whether that was once more a more or less accidental meeting? have arranged it. The conversation dealt, naturally, with matters in regard to Schuschnigg's plan for the plebescite, whichwas entirely new and most surprising, so that we had to think about it from every point of view and clarify it during debate.
Q What was von Papen's position during that conference? that evening, was acting in a reserved way. I think that he would have considered the outcome of the plebescite as perfectly possible.
Q. For which reason did you think that yes was considered a possible and plausible answer by him ? Was it for practical reasons or was it due to the questions which the Asutrian Government had submitted ?
A. It was with reference to the questions which had been submitted.
Q. Once again, my question is : Did the matters which were discussed arise in any way in a subversive conference, or was it a more or less social gathering during which a political conversation cropped up due to the atmosphere fo the time ?
A. It was an accidental meeting; it was altogether improvised.
Q. Were any resolutions passed ?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. STEINBAUER: With the permission of the Tribunal I shall now call the witness Dr. Guido Schmidt.
GUIDO SCHMIDT, a witness, took the stand, and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name.
A. Dr. Guido Schmidt.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me: pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(the Witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q. Witness, what positions did you hold in the Austrian Republic ?
A. I was a diplomat by profession under Dr. Seipel. I was taken into the Austrian Foreign Service and for about six years I was a member of the Austrian Legation in Paris. Then I was assigned, to the head of the Austrian State for negotiations with the diplomatic corps.