ister in the new Hitler government? Neurath did not participate as far as I know. Of course I can only rely on my memory. In the decisive days he was sick with a heart disease, but he remained Foreign Minister again at the special wish of Mr. von Hindenburg.
Q Can you tell us anything about the relationship of Mr. von Neurath with Hitler? immediate observation I can not testify anything on this subject. I was never present at conferences of von Neurath with Hitler. I never had any official conversation with Hitler myself. But, according to Neurath's own description and according to the information which I received from other important personalities in the course of time, I had the impression that, especially in the first years, Hitler treated Mr. von Neurath carefully and politely. To what extent this was due to consideration of the Reichspresident, whose regard for von Neurath was of course known to Hitler, I can not say. In any case, Neurath was never actually in the confidence of Hitler and was not in the close circle around Hitler, the ranks of the Party. After the death of President von Hindenburg, von Neurath remained because he had promised the Reichspresident to do so. In the following time also, Mr. von Neurath repeatedly exerted his moderate and calming influence on the Party, or attempted to do so; but I knew that when disappointments and differences of opinion occurred repeatedly, Mr. von Neurath attempted to separate from Hitler. I can recall two occasions on which he offered his resignation. He showed me one of these resignations which was in writing. It must have been after the beginning of '36. At that time I had already resigned and I visited Mr. von Neurath in a purely private capacity.
Q Can you give us briefly a picture of the attitude of Mr. von Neurath toward the National Socialist Party ?
A Mr. von Neurath was waiting to see what would come of the party at first. I did not know any of these men personally, Mr. von Neurath was convinced that on the basis of his many years of experience as an old diplomat and because of his confidential position with the Reich President, he would be successful in exerting moderate influence on behalf of his policy, which was for understanding. He referred to the experience which he had had in Rome with Facism. He occasionally said that such revolutionary elements should be allowed to develop quietly, that these hotheads would come to their senses if they were given time and opportunity to gather experience themselves in a responsible position. of Reich Chancellor Bruening, and until his death he protected him against repeated attempts of the Party to get rid of him. at the time. When State Secretary Buelow died suddenly, Neurath brought it about that Hitler personally participated in the funeral at the Kaiser Wilhelm Gedaechnis Kirche. The old officials of the Foreign Office saw in that a good sign for the strong position of our minister toward the Party. This event, which is quite beside the point , was exactly ten years ago today. of the first co-workers of Mr. von Neurath, and surely you can say what the basic tendencies of Mr. von Neurath's foreign policy were.
A Neurath's political attitude on the whole was, according to his full character and his years of experience in politics, based on waiting, negotiating. Solutions by violence did not suit von Neurath's temperament. Neurath was not a gambler or fighter by nature. occurred during the period in which you worked under Mr. von Neurath and were head of the political section.
of Nations. Now, I should like to ask you whether this step of Germany's, leaving the conference and the League of Nations, indicated any aggressive or belligerent tendencies for the moment or for the future.
A No. As far as the picture of the events mentioned by defense counsel was clear to us, it was as follows : As to warlike plans or preparations for war, no one of us in the Foreign Office thought of it. It was only done to proclaim as impressively as possible that Germany would no longer allow herself to be considered a nation without the same rights as other people. intention, either for the moment or for the future.
Q In the next few years, in 1935, Germany's defense sovereignty was repealed, and a year later, the demilitarized Rhineland zone was remilitarized. I should like to read you one sentence from the affidavit of the former minister and interpreter Schmidt.
He says, in regard to the eventsin the spring of '35:
"The conclusion of a pact of mutual assistance between France and Russia on the 2nd of May 1935 followed the proclamation of the foundation of the German air force and the introduction of general military service in March 1935." these matters which led to the repeal of the defense sovereignty in 1935 and to the remilitarization of the Rhineland.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Luedinghausen, we have had the historical development of these matters over and over again. Surely we don't want it from this witness.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Only very briefly, only the dates, Mr. President; no explanations. I should like to emphasize once more -
THE PRESIDENT:(Interposing) The Tribunal have the dates in their minds. We really have had these dates in our minds for some months.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Very well. If the Court believes that it is not necessary, I must, of course, dispense with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can put any question you really want to put about it, but you said, "Will you give us the historical developments from the 2nd of May 1935." We have hear that over and over again.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Yes, Mr. President. I was only interested in the following, the affidavit of Mr. Schmidt which I have just quoted.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask the question, whatever you want to ask about this affidavit.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Very well. I shall formulate the question as fellows: BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
Q I have just read this sentence by Mr. Schmidt, that the conclusion of the Russian-French Pact of May 2, 1935 was the result of the restoration of military sovereignty. Is that true, ox what was the case? as they happened, in chronological order. The conclusion of the FrenchRussian Pact was on he 2nd of May 1935. The restoration of military sovereignty was in March 1935. However, the negotiations for this treaty of assistance go much farther back, and I should like to recall the stage in which these negotiations were before the restoration of military sovereignty.
It is shown clearly in the report of the French Military Committee. It speaks of a close entente of the two states. That was on the 23rd of November 1934.
Q. Now I come to another question. Will you please tell us whether you know the opinions of von Neurath in the Austrian question at your time?
A. I know Mr. von Neurath's point of view on the Austrian question. I knew it much longer than from our working together while he was minister. interested in the problem and I recall having a conversation with him even when we were vice-consuls. His attitude and intentions had always been to make the relationship between Germany and Austria a closer one on on economic basis, especially in the interests of Austria and to secure a joint policy politically but not to touch the independence of Austria. From the experience which we in the Foreign Office had several years before he became minister with the Customs Union, which was intended only in an economic sense, and the fact that this attempt was generally evaluated as a political Anschluss warned everyone who should decide to touch this hot iron again. Therefore, Neurath, during his period office, insofar as he discussed it with me and worked on this problem, he thought along the same lines about it. was probably after I left office. However, Hitler originally assured Neurath of a moderate attitude, as was shown in the pact with Mussolini in Venice in the summer of 1934. Especially interesting, however, are the remarks which Hitler made on the Anschluss problem to Sir John Simon at the negotiations in Berlin in March 1935. At that time Hitler told the English statesman about as follows: his assurances that he could not want to increase our economic cares by adding another field of economic care. Germany did not want to interfere in this country. He knew especially that any interference in Austrian affairs, even carrying out a wish of theAustria people themselves for Anschluss, would not be legalized. That was Hitler's opinion at that time. condemned the attempts which was to be seen in Party circles to give direct support to theAustrian National Socialists. During my time Neurath did everything he could to keep the Foreign Office out of the internal political struggle in Austria.
Q. Another question. Up to the time of your resignation at the beginning of 1936, was there ever any mention in the Foreign Office of attacking Czechoslovakia or not observing the treaties with Czechoslovakia?
A. Never, neither the one nor the other. Our economic and political relations with Czechoslovakia were, as long as I was in service, very good. There was no occasion, no reason to change them at all.
Q. And now my last question. Can you tell us anything about Mr. von Neurath's attitude toward the race question?
A. On this question Neurath was absolutely opposed to the party attitude, In that connection I should like to recall an experience about which Neurath told me personally. Minister Guertner -
Q Justice Minister?
A. Yes, excuse me, I meant Reich Justice Minister Guertner -- come to him and was quite excited. He told con Neurath that he, Guertner, had in vain warned Hitler against proclaiming all these laws. He asked Neurath urgently as Foreign Minister to point out the enormous dangers which this madness could bring about in other countries. Neurath told me that he immediately did so; that all his efforts were in vain.
Neurath's personal attitude on the Jewish problem was, according to his whole kind personality and religious attitude, to reach an agreement, and understanding. From many examples I should like to refer only to one that is as follows: at the embassy was one of the closest friends of the Neurath family. When he had to leave London during the World War and was homeless and without employment Neurath immediately took active steps to help his old friend. though that brought him under attack from the Party circles and that was not always easy.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the defendants's counsel want to ask any question?
Do the Prosecution wish to ask any questions?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the Tribunal will, of course, not consider that the Prosecution are accepting every statement of the witness but I do not think that it would be a useful appropriation of time to crossexamine him. Therefore I shall ask no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment Sir David. defendants' counsel to discuss the questions of supplementary applications for witnesses and documents at two o'clock?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Certainly, my Lord, it would be very convenient to me. I do not think there are many serious matters about which there will be serious dispute.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I thought there were not. Very well, we will do that then.
Dr. von Luedinghausen, call your next witness and then we can have him sworn before the adjournment.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: May I ask Dr. Diekhoff, successor of Dr. Koepke, be called to the stand.
HANS HEINRICH DIEKHOFF; a witness, took the stand and testified as follows BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name please?
A. Hans Heinrich Diekhoff.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me? truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
THE TRIBUNAL : Now the Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 26 June 1946)
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please, My Lord, the first application is on behalf of the defendant von Neurath with regard to M. Francois Poncet. That has been dealt with. That is covered.
Then, My Lord, the next is an application from Dr. Marx on behalf of the defendant Streicher to put in an affidavit by the publisher, Herr Gassner of the "Stuermer". My Lord, the published is intended to deal with the question of the rise and the circulation of the "Steurmer" during the years 1933 to 1935. The Prosecution have already submitted to the Tribunal that they do not think that that is relevant when an application was made to call Herr Gassner as a witness. The Prosecution still take the same position. My Lord, it is for an affidavit, and we leave to the Tribunal as to whether they would like the affidavit, but the Prosecution fail to see the relevance of that evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Would Dr. Marx like to say saything about that now?
DR. MARX (Counsel for defendant Streicher): Mr. President, I have discussed this matter with defendant Streicher. He tells me that the witness whom I have proposed to call, Herr Gassner, of whom an affidavit had been proposed, would be in a position only to speak about the period beginning with the year 1941 and with reference to the publication figures of the "Stuermer". Naturally, that is of no interest whatever to the defense. I shall, therefore, refrain from using the affidavit and rely on what the witness Heimer has said in that respect, and therefore it would probably not be at all necessary to adhere to the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the next application is by Dr. Kranzbuehler on behalf of the defendant Doenitz for further consideration and admission of the affidavit of the former fleet judge, Jekyl, by reason of the course of the cross examination. do not object to the application at this time but reserve the right, when Dr. Kranzbuehler makes the use that he desires of the affidavit, that we may consider whether we shall then object.
THE PRESIDENT: This is really evidence in rebuttal, is it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, in rebuttal of the points raised in the cross examination. It is very difficult to decide whether one should make a final objection until one knows what use DR. Drakzbuehler is going to make of it. I suggest that we do not object at this stage.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, these applications and the Tribunal's orders granting the witnesses are always subject to that provision.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please. Then the Prosecution makes no further objection. Neurath, a request for minutes from the interrogatory of the --
THE PRESIDENT: They have both been withdrawn, have they not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, they have? I was not certain.
My Lord, then Dr. Thoma makes application on behalf of the defendant Rosenberg for three matters: the exchange of letters between Dr. Ley and the defendant; the entry of Dr. Strauber, 27 May 1944; and third, a note of the Ministerialrat, Dr. Beil. they leave it to the Tribunal with that suggestion -- that the case is already well covered. I don't know if Dr. Thoma wishes to say anything further.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I should merely like to say briefly that apparently there has been an error in the matter of Dr. Beil, because here we are concerned with an interrogatory I have submitted an interrogatory to him which has not yet been received back. There is nothing else that I know about this affair, but I have made an application which has not been mentioned.yet. I applied for some of Rosenberg' writing to be included in thedocument book -- the questions which were discussed during the meeting of the conferences in the Gau Schools and which refer to questions of the living together of the nations of Europe, and religious tolerance, and his work for a finer humanity, and I should like to have these articles admitted, please. Apart from that, I have no further applications to make, and I leave the decision, of course, to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: If I understand what you said right, Dr. Thoma, you weren't referring to any of the applications which are before us. The applications which are before us are an exchange of letters between Dr. Ley and the defendant in the autumn of 1944; another is an entry which Dr. Strauber made; and the third is a note of Dr. Boil.
DR. THOMA: Yes, that is right. I have to confess that these applications are completely strange to me. In my opinion, Rosenberg must have made applications on his own initiative, because I can't find any trace of them. Or perhaps an error was made in the memorandum to the Tribunal. I don't know the application.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Thoma, the copies of the applications are before us, and they appear to be signed both by the defendant Rosenberg and by yourself.
DR. THOMA: In that case, this must have happened months ago. I can't remember; this is the 3rd of June.
THE PRESIDENT: At any rate, you don't want them?
DR. THOMA: Application number 3 is settled. May I beg the Tribunal to make a decision favorable to the defendant, please?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the next applications are a number of documents on behalf of the defendant von Papen, and the prosecution have no objection to those.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, a good many of them -- certainly numbers 3, 15, and 13, I think -- have either been admitted or rejected.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: That is so, My Lord. I had a note opposite number 13. I really think they have been dealt with, My Lord, they are in the books, and I don't think any further discussion is required.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they all in the books?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I think so, My Lord. Dr. Kubuschok says he agrees with me.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If Your Lordship Pleases, the next is an application on behalf of the defendant Bormann, a request for a decree of Hitler's,and a decree issued by Bormann in 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't quite understand the meaning of the last one. Can you tell me what it means?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I took it myself that it was to the SD, instead of "of" the SD, pertaining to members of the head office of the National Socialist Party to the SD.
DR. BERGOLD (Counsel for defendant Bormann): My Lord, we are here concerned with a decree from Bormann in which he prohibits members of the Party Chancellery from becoming members of the SD. It is an internal decree of Bormann's, therefore, applying to the Chancellory.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the remaining applications are on behalf of the defendant Goering, the admission of an affidavit by Baron von Gersdorff, and a book by Joseph Chepski. My Lord, my Soviet colleague has dealt with that by submission in writing, dated the 20th of June. I did not propose to say anything further about that, My Lord. Colonel Pokrovsky is here if Your Lordship would like to hear him further.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought we had already made an order with reference to this.
SIR DAVID MAXWELLFYFE: Your Lordship has.
THE PRESIDENT: We made the order on the 9th of June, apparently, that, for the defendant Goering, three witnesses could be produced either personally -- Perhaps we had better hear from Dr. Stahmer about this.
DR. STAHMER (Counsel for defendant Goering): Mr. President, we understood that the decision of the Tribunal was this: Having applied for five witnesses, the Tribunal then went on to say that I could produce three out of the five.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
DR. STAHMER: Then, with reference to the affidavits, nothing was said in that particular decision. Therefore I had assumed that I would not be prevented from asking for permission to submit an affidavit in so far as the Tribunal considers that necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, after the Tribunal had made that order about limiting the number of witnesses to three, didn't you receive a communication, to which you have replied, I think, suggesting that possibly you might be able to dispense with actual oral witnesses and do that whole part of the case by affidavits?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President, yes. I received it, and I have already negotiated about the matter with the Russian prosecution. We didn't quite reach an agreement, however, and therefore I made a supplementary application to the Tribunal a few weeks ago.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but wasn't the agreement which you striving to arrive at an agreement that only three affidavits should be produced on either side? Or was it more than three?
DR. STAHMER: No. The question which remains, and which we haven't agreed upon, is whether I can read a few of the affidavits here.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
Dr. Stahmer, I think the position is, then, that unless you are able to arrive at an agreement with the Soviet prosecution, we shall have to abide by our previous order.
DR. STAHMER: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I wonder if Your Lordship will grant me the indulgence of mentioning three exhibits. They all refer to the diary of Admiral Assmann, My Lord, which was introduced during the cases of the defendants Doenitz and Raeder. There are three exhibits concerned.
The first is document D-879. We thought that would be more complete if a connecting page was put into make the continuity of the Exhibit. For that purpose, My Lord, the prosecution asks that Exhibit GB-482 he withdrawn and that there be substituted the two pages which were originally in it, with a connecting page. That is merely adding a connecting page, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Is there any objection to that on the pa of the defense?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I don't think so, My Lord, I haven't heard of any.
THE PRESIDENT: What do the documents relate to, did you say?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The diary of Admiral Assmann, who was on the staff of the defendant Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is only a question of putting the exhibit in proper form. the same diary, on the 23rd of February, 1940. I promised Your Lordship that I should put in an exhibit when I dealt with the diary in cross-examination and, My Lord, the exhibit has been prepared and I want to put it in under the number GB-475. That is, D-881 will become GB-475. D-892. That exhibit has now been prepared and will become GB-476. Copies are available for the defendants and will be given to them after the approval of the Court is given.
THE PRESIDENT: And copies, of course, will be supplied to the Court as well?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Of course, My Lord. They are just awaiting the formal approval of the Court, and they will be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David, that is all right.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, Sir David, we will consider the other matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If yourLordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Yes, Dr. Thoma.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I just wanted to use this opportunity to submit to the Tribunal the affidavit of Robert Scholz. It has been returned, translated into English, French, and I should now like to submit it under Exhibit No. 41 to the Tribunal. I have already shown it to Mr. Dodd, and he has not objected.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KRAUS (Counsel for the defendant Schacht): Mr. President, I wanted to ascertain whether and at what point we could submit affidavits and documents after this situation. The reason is that during recent days I have received two affidavits and a document, the relevance of which has not yet been finally decided upon.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know when the counsel for the prosecution and counsel for defense think would be the best time to deal with these matters which are outstanding, and with any evidence which either the defense or the prosecution may wish to bring in rebuttal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, My Lord. I have not had the chance of discussing it with any of the counsel for the defense, but I should have thought at the end of the evidence. One might reasonably hope that the evidence will finish this week. It might be possible to deal with it on Saturday morning or on Monday, and suit the counsel for the defense, and, of course, as the Tribunal decides.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal, I think, will expect the defense counsel and the prosecution to be ready, directly the end of the evidence comes, to deal with all these additional questions which are outstanding and also with any applications that they may have with reference to rebuttal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship please, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted that to be clearly understood, that it will be expected that it is to be done immediately the evidence closes. That, I think, answers Dr. Kraus's point about the affidavits and documents. That would be the most appropriate time.
Sir David, have you got any ideas as to how long that would take?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I think a very short time. I should have thought that two days or thereabouts would see it through. I have discussed it with Mr. Dodd, and that was the view we took.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. In about two days at the outside?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: At the outside, My Lord. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship please. BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
Q Mr. Witness, since when have you known Mr. von Neurath?
A Since 1913. I met him when I joined the Foreign Office, and he was counsel to the Foreign Office at that time. I then met him again in Constantinople, and there I had contact with him. Then I did not meet him again until 1930. with 1930? London, and I, in the Foreign Office, was head of the department of England and America. that is, yourself -- and von Neurath, who was ambassador to London just then?
Q Do you know anything about Neurath's appointment to the position of Reich Foreign Minister? Service were upset by Bruening's sudden departure, who stood for sound policy at the time. We only agreed with the change because it was von Neurath who took Bruening's place; and because we knew that Neurath was a man whom we considered as an experienced diplomat. Furthermore, we knew that he was representing Bruening's policy in London,and we therefore expected that as Foreign Minister he would continue Bruening's policy. station in Berlin when he arrived in Germany; and the conversation I had with him gave me the impression that he did not like leaving London at all, and that he was not very pleased with having to take over the Foreign Ministry.
He did tell me, however, "I shall comply with the wishes of the old gentleman." That, of course, was Reich President von Hindenburg. under von Neurath in the Foreign Ministry? and America until 1936. Afterwards, in April, 1936, I took over and reestablished the political department, and then Secretary of State von Buelow died in June, and in August, 1936, I was given the post of Secretary of State of the Foreign Office. I remained in that provisional position until March, 1937, and then I became ambassador to Washington. the Foreign Office? the Foreign Office he retained the old officials.
Q Did he, for instance, retain the Secretary of State von Buelow? until his death. Ambassador von Hassel to Rome and Ambassador Kessler to Paris, all of whom were old diplomatic officials. the aims of Neurath's foreign policy were? states, and by this means to reestablish Germany's equal status which we had lost in 1918, gradually. This was the same policy as had been Stresemann's and Bruening's policy.
The difficulties connected with Germany's position were known to von Neurath, and he talked to me about it repeatedly. He was by no means pleased. He saw things realistically. His tendency was to exercise moderation.
Q What do you know about Neurath's entry into Hitler's government, which was being formed on the 30th of January, 1933?
Buelow when I returned from leave at the beginning of February, 1933, to Berlin.
Afterwards, Neurath did not in any way participate in the formation of the new cabinet -- that is, Hitler's cabinet -- and apart from that, he was sick about that time. He heard of the plan of making Hitler Reich Chancellor and forming a new government. He wanted to discuss it with Reich President von Hindenburg, to make certain reservations and to secure them for himself. But he came too late, and could not, therefore, prevent anything. In spite of this, he still retained the Foreign Ministry in the new cabinet because he did not want to disappoint the Reich President, and wanted to fulfil his wish.
Q Do you know anything about Neurath's attitude towards the National Socialist policy in the interior?
A I know that Mr. von Neurath, soon after the 30th of January, 1933, had certain worries regarding the interior policy, because he was feeling particularly that this would be a burden to foreign policy. When, in June 1933, I visited him in London, where, during that period he was visiting the world economic conference and was head of the German delegation, he explained his worries to me. He said, however, that these things wouldprobably die down and that very probably developments would be similar to those in Fascist Italy, where there had been a wild beginning, but where things had settled down afterwards. He was hoping that that plan would be applicable to Germany.
Q I shall now come to the year of 1936. One of the principal questions which dominated that year was the Austrian problem. Can you tell us what Neurath's attitude was toward the repeated intervention of German forces in the Reich in affairs in Austria?
A Yes. Mr. von Neurath considered such German intervention with Austria as an inter ference not merely non-permissible, but damaging. He told me so repeatedly. He was aiming at economic improvement of the relations with Austria, in order to improve political relations in the process. He wished to leave Austria untouched. and Austria, the economic strengthening of affairs and by this means the re establishment of the relations between the two countries.
