At an early age he learned what a small-scale fight means between two nations facing each other in enmity. He was deeply moved to learn that time's storms last year also swept ever his immediate home and that Iglau, which had been German for 800 years, will be so no more. Therefore, in judging the defendant, we should take account of the fact that it was the Germanic Borderlands that have at all times experienced the greatest national distress and felt more strongly and fervently the idea of the great German Fatherland than the nationals of the rest of the Reich, lulled into self-sufficiency born of self-confidence. Thus it is no accident that leading men in the Anschluss movement, whose names stand out in my Document Book, came from the Sudetenland. Doctor Otto Bauer, the late leader of the Socialists, comes from Reichenberg, and State President Dr. Karl Renner likewise comes from Untertannowitz in Moravia, that is from German Sudetenland. until I met him here again in prison, I have asked one of his collaborators in Holland, who also enjoys the respect of the Dutch and who was no NationalSocialist, and as Judge of the High Court, a position he held in former times, can be relied on, for an objective opinion on the personality of Dr. SeyssInquart. He writes: he fully applied his many-sided talents in carrying out his duties struck me at once."
I continue at the bottom of the page:
"It is the great tragedy of his life and work that in the person of Hitler and several persons aamong those who were his closest co-workers, elements crossed his path which were stronger than he. As an intellectual and a mentally cultivated person he became immediately suspect to the main persons in power in the Party bureaucracy surrounding Hitler, Bormann and in the SS administration Himmler, although to were the golden bade of honor of the party and occupied a high honorary rank in the SS, he continued to be the young Party member who came from the ranks of the intellectuals and were always regarded with mustrust. For these elements, however, he was too 'soft'. Altogether, however, it was his hope that he might increasingly prevent independent sections in the Reich from trying to work their way into his sphere of action as he himself gradually won the Fuehrer's confidence to an over greater extent.
His relation to the Fuehrer was to become fateful to him, as I already mentioned.
"However, I am firmly convinced that in such manner he, as well as a great portion of our people, unwillingly, as they were, became a sacrifice, a willing tool of the demoniacal power of Hitler....." endeavor thus to forge a ring around the defendants which is to combine them all in one common responsibility. My learned colleagues have already spoken of the concept conspiracy and its consequences in this trial. To repeat these statements would be to carry coals to Newcastle. But because this is the leading theme for the trial which has ascribed responsibility for the worldshattering events, above all to my client, I should like to submit to the Court a few additional ideas on that subject. speaking of men who combined for the overthrow of a ruler who was disliked, or a system that was hated, and for them to seize power. All these cases were listed under the superficial, collective term "conspiracies". In the book he published in Paris, entitled "The Technique of the State Plot", Malaparte, an Italian, tried to describe the technical methods applied in conspiracies and revolutions, beginning with the time of Catilina down to Hitler and Mussolini. Even this survey of technique will be sufficient to show how unjustified it is to dub all these undertakings conspiracies, if it is intended to embrace within this term a definite concept such as known in penal law. In any case it is certainly not possible to simply classify all these things, in popular terminology briefly termed conspiracy, under the caption of conspiracy, according to the concept of the Prosecution. When Guy Fawkes and his comrades, at the time of James I, tried to blow up the English Parliament in the so-called "Gunpowder Plot", perhaps this was a real conspiracy. Up to now, the English nation on the 5th of November of every year, celebrates with fireworks and and bonfires and the burning of a straw dummy, the anniversary of the day which saw the happy prevention of the plot.
It would be a mistake, however, to simply term any kind of cooperation for political purposes a conspiracy, because and it is particularly important to repeat and stress this, thanks to the vagueness of colloquial usage, it became always possible again to use the word "conspiracy" in political fights in order to justify thereby, because of lack of adequate legal grounds, the process of defaming and destroying political opponents.
For the French prosecutor I should like to cite from the history of his country, France, of an evidently erroneously termed case of conspiracy.
Louis XVI was accused of conspiring against the nation and was found guilty. Citizen Doseze, on 26 December 1792, in the first year of the Republic at the bar of the National Convention, served as his defense counsel. His pleading was probably one of the most moving legal pleadings ever delivered, a discourse in which the defense counsel directed himself at the same time against another foe of criminal justice, a foe for political reasons or because of political passion, namely against a violation of the legal principle nullen crimen et nulla poena sine lege. Undaunted and unafraid he expounded, among other things, the following: "Where there is no law which can serve as directive and where there id no judge to make the pronouncement, one should refrain from accepting the general will as a foundation. The general will cannot as such speak either about a man or about a fact. But if there is no law according to which one can judge them it is also not possible to render judgment, and then one also cannot think of conviction." lege firmly rooted in almost all law books. We find it in the German and in the Austrian penal code; we find it in Article 1 of the Dutch penal law and we also find it in French law in Article 4 of the "code penal" which states: "Nulle contravention, nul delit, nul crime, ne peuvent etre punis de poines qui m'etaientpas proncacesspar la loi avant qu'ils fussent commis." even today while this trial is in process, but on the contrary kept its full meaning, results from that. I want to remind again the French prosecutor that the France constitution which was submitted to the National Assembly on 19 April 1946, establishes specifically as statute of human rights in Article 10:
"The law has no retroactive force. No one can be convicted and punished except according to the law which has been promulgated and publicized before the deed which is to be punished. Every person accused is considered uneer reservation as innocent unless he is declared guilty. No one can be punished twice for the same deed."
What is now human right for the French, must necessarily remain human right for the Germans.
penal law, this innovation also found severe criticism in the circle of jurists outside of Germany. The second international congress for comparative jurisprudence held in the Hague in the year 1937 formulated a resolution., against the analogy in penal law. In this resolution, the congress expresses itself in favor of the principle "nulla poena sine lege". See Voeux et Resolutions du Douxieme Congres International de Dtroit Compare, Le Haye, 4-11 Aout, publie par les soins de M. Elemer Balogh, p. 69. inadmissable to apply principles in this trial which lack a legal basis. Continental law does not know the concept of conspiracy, Austrian law, which could come into question as the national law for my client, does not know this concept either. There are at best very small similarities if we point out that the explosives law of 27 May 1885, Reichsgesetzblatt 134, article 5 already declares the contemplation of the execution of a crime with explosives as punishable. Article 174 Ic of the penal code makes theft a crime if the thief commits thievery as a member of a gang which has banded together for the common commitment of thievery. German law recognizes the responsibilty under the penal code for the act of another only as accomplice, instigator, and helper. Conditions in French law are similar, and articles 59, 60, 89 and article 265 of the "Code Penal" are pointed out briefly. by the respected Russian teacher of international law, Professor A. N. Trainine in his book "La responsibilite penale des Hitleriens" (Publisher: La presse francaise et etrangere, O. Zeluck, Editeur, Paris, 1945). He states in page 13:
"The problems of internation penal law have unfortunately been studied very little. There is a lack of theoritical, clear definition of the fundamental concept 'International Crime' and a well-ordered system of this law remains still to be created." crimes against the peace, against the rules of war, and against humanity.
Professor Jahrreiss has already spoken extensively extensively about the liability for punishment of individuals because of the violation of international peace, and has described and given due recognition to the status of non-German international jurisprudence.
But since jurists of the German language have also concerned themselves with this question, I would like to take the liberty of an additional remark. Verdross, has established in his book, "International law" "According to prevailing opinion, subjects of an international legal crime can only be states as well as other legal corporations immediately subject to international law, but not individual persons ---" the trial, I turn to the Prosecution which accused my client of having participated in the seizureand taking of control in Austria as a conspirator, and of having committed warcrimes and crimes against humanity in poland and in the Netherlands.
Netherlands, and after a short interlude in Poland. Adolf Hitler stands at the window thinking and his gaze glides over the meadows and valleys to the snow-covered mountains which shine a purple red in the light of the evening sun. The country which is protected by these mountains is Austria, his homeland. It is a German land, free and independent and not subject to his will as the Reich, whose absolute Fuehrer he has become. When he wrote his life work in the fortress Landsberg, he wrote rightthere on the first page of his book: "German Austria must return into the great German fatherland." The shadows of night rise slowly from the depth of the valleys and histhoughts glide over the mountains to the old imperial city on the Danube which he loves and hates at the same time. It is the city of his joyless youth, filled with want and misery. In his book, "Mein Kamps" he compares this city with Munich and says about the latter: "Munich, a German city, what a difference from Vienna, I get sick when I think back to this racial Babylon." And still, this city remains the goal of his longing and he calls this same city in the March days of 1938 a pearl to which he will give the setting which its beauty deserves.
And on his table lies a book: "The History of German Austria". Hitler read this book again and again: it is the history of his homeland, and we also want to leaf through it a little, as far as time permits. We read: "Austria was throughout many centuries one of the strongest pillars of German life. Its evolution, its rise, and its descent form a considerable part of German history. Austria was and is a piece of the German glory, and German suffering. Austria has received inestimable strength, from the old Reich, but she herself has performedmuch of greatness and value for the expansion of the entire German culture."
I shall pass on to page 19. "The old Roman Empire of the German nation was destroyed in 1806, in the clash of the two powers. The Reich died, but the Reich concept lived. At Leipzig, in 1813, Prussians and Austrians fought shoulder to shoulder under Schwarzenberg, Scharnhorst Gneisenu, and Bluecher for the liberation from the yoke of the Corsican tyrant. On 11 January 1849, the duputies of all German states assembled at Frankfurt-onMain for the constitutional assembly. The Austrian delegate Bergassessor Karl Wagner from Styria spoke at that time the memorable words: 'Leave an opening for us so that we can enter; we shall come, unfortunately, perhaps not all of us anymore, we, Austria's Germans shall come, how and when, who can tell? Who can read in the book of the future? But we shall come.'" In the year previously, in Paul's Church, where the delegates of all German lands and states had met, thepoet Ludwig Uhland as delegate spoke the memorable words:
"May it be that it will always beAustria's job to be a light for the East; it has a closer, higher job -- to be the artery in the heart of Germany." thousand years between Austria and Germany was destroyed and Austria was forced to leave the German federation. How unsatisfactory the solution of the German question by Bismarck's forced exclusion of Austria from theunion of German states was, was also recognized in the Reich, where Paul de Lagarde wrote in 1875:
"But despite this, 1866 and the German Reich is an episode. Nikolsburg cannot separate what has been decided by geography and history to be together, if this being together will not be a union for a long time yet."
language and origin, the same customs and the same mode of life, demand the closest community. But is it not a symbol of spiritual unity that just as the North-German poet Hebbel, also Beethoven and Brahms made Vienna with its sense for art the permanent city of their work? There is no German music without Austria. But Austria did not only make her proud contribution to the cultural life of the German people in the field of art, but also in the fields of science and technology.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we can acquaint ourselves with the history of Austria without having it read to us as a part of your argument. Up to now there has been nothing in your twenty pages but the history of Austria.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I beg your pardon; I consider it essential to give the reasons and the motives which motivated my client, but I have, however, concluded this point, and I shall pass over to the facts. I shall omittwo pages, and I shall continue on page 23. to take over Austria at the opportune moment, isthekey to the solution of the Anschluss question. for that, one does not require a conspiracy; however also participated were figures on the chess board of the two men, supers in the great theater of the world.
But let us return to Austria. I have already pointed out in the presentation of evidence that according to my opinion, three reasons led to the Anschluss, and I have also attempted to explain this by the documents submitted to which I refer herewith:
1. the economic want, 2. the disunity of the democratic parties resulting from this and 3. the attitude of the great powers towards Austria, especially Dr. Karl Renner, the federal president of the Republic of Austria who enjoys the confidence of the four occupying powers and on whom the entire Austrian people look with respect because he has steppedto thehelm of the ship of state for the second time in a period of serious emergency, has des-cribed the history of the Anschluss very appropriately in a memorandum in 1945:
"The political reason why the Anschluss idea got hold of almost all of Austria at the conclusion of the first World War lay in the repeated proclamations of the victorious powers, that the war was waged for the 'right of self-determination of the nations'."
But this political reason was not decisive for themasses. Austria is a mountainous country with much too little arable land, a country of an entirely one-sided economic structure, its capital itself shelters a third of the population, its industry nourished a large part of the latter only by working for its neighbours, receiving from them raw materials and bread. The sudden separation of the high agrarian parts of the previously uniformtariff territory of the Danube Monarchy, and themeasures of the successor states in 1918 introducing high protective tariffs deprived the country simultaneously of its food sources and its export territories. The fear of not being able to feed themselves and of not being able to find work at hom, the sudden limitation of labor market were the factors which made in 1918 the Anschluss appear as the only possible solution. One cannot talk about a national Chauvinism of the Austrian working class, so much the less so, as this class had its origin to a very high percentage in parents of non-German blood and who had hardly lost their ties with the homeland. The overwhelming competition of the Reich German and Czechoslovakian industry loomed menacingly before the workers of all professions in this small country, cut off from thesea and poor in raw materials, which was afraid not to be able to stand up against this competition. To understand first of all this economic situation means to understand the Anschluss movement and brings the realization how Hitler's boastful announcement that he had eliminated unemployment in the world had made such a deep impression on the Austrian working class that the desire to prevent the Anschluss was so weak within this working class at the beginning."
With the decision of 5 Sept. 1931, the Permanent International Court at the Hague declared the customs union between Germany and Austria incompatible with the Geneva protocol of 4 October 1922 by 8 votes against 7. This w as the last attempt of the governments to achieve a closer mutual state-legal relationship with the express accord of the victorious powers.
It failed. Wasn't the conviction bound to arise in the minds of fanatical Anschluss partisans that this paramount national aim could only be achieved through their own initiative? Million Schillings. Dr. Dollfuss concluded on July 13 1932 a loan agreement in Lausanne under the condition that the Anschluss problem would be put off for another 10 years. The ratification took place during the session ofthe National Council on 30 August 1932 with 82 votes against 80. In the federal council, the Social Democrat Koerner, at present mayor of Vienna, had protested against this law in view of a closer community with Germany.
Hitler came to power the year after. The Social Democrats saw their party dissolved in the Reich, the trade unions crushed; they saw the Reichstag fire the Anschluss idea. The Catholic circles, who wanted to fortify the Catholic element in the Reich by the Anschluss also turned away because of the beginning of the persecutio n of the clergy in the Reich; and only the National Socialists alone, whose membership had increased ten times within a short time, were in favor of the Anschluss. As Dr. Dollfuss had eliminated the parliament and thereby the way to power by means of votes, the National Socialists, under the leadership of land inspector Habicht, aspired with all means to the power in the State. We come to the bloody events of the year1934. Dr. Dollfuss is killed by the hands of assassins and his successor Dr. Schuschnigg attempts to restore the order in the deeply shaken state system. The Socialists, however, remain sulkily aloof because of the February events of the year 1934. Under the foreign political aspect, the situation changes, too, While Italy in the year 1934 still stood on Austria's side and while Mussolini had deployed his divisions on the Brenner menacingly against the Nort the Ethiopian adventure had forced Italy on Hitler's side. Austria is forced to follow the changed course and concludes also the agreement of 11 July 1936, in order to improve the economic situation.
Germany recognizes the independance of Austria in this agreement and ceases the economic war. The price for that, however, is a series of measur which give the National Socialists in Austria a new boost. In order to extend the small platform of his government and in order to bring about a real satisfaction, Chancellor Dr. Schuschnigg declares to invite also the so-called Nationals to cooperate. Among these men is also the defendant, who then becomes Austrian State councillor in May 1937. The idea of the Auschluss constituted his political program as already mentioned above. He never tried to hide this fact. He also comes from the ranks of the National opposition, a factor which must not be overlooked. The Anschluss also brought him nearer to National Socialism and it seems immaterial to engage in long investigations, at what time he actually became a formal member of the Party. Among the documents confiscated at his arrest, there was in any case also his membership card with the number 7 million. It is known, however that in Austria the so-called old fighters were given a membership number below 6,500,000. When the new State Councillor then paid his first visit at his assumption of office to the Fuehrer deputy Hess, the latter is very polite but cool and he regrets that Seyss-Inqua was not an old fighter. The task of Dr. Seyss-Inquart is to supervise the execution of the July agreement and to act as a meditator between the Austrian Government on one hand, the national circles on the other hand, and the Reich. This task has been a thorny and ungratifying one. The patriotic circles, namely could not forget the terror of the National Socialists, during the Dolfuss period. The National Socialists, whose leader was Captain Leopold by that time, were not satisfied with the methods of the national representative Seyss-Inquart with the Government. There are constantly differences of opinion between these two men, which go so far that Seyss-Inquart wants to give up his mission to bring about an agreement. I refer in this connection for the sake of brevity to documents 44(letter of State Secretary Keppler to General Bodenschatz), 45 (Goering's telgram to Keppler) and 46 (USA 704) of my document book. There occur continuous violations of the July agreement, and the Austrian Police find the "coup d'etat plan, known as Tavs plan, which strives for a change of Goverment by violence. Minister Guido Zernatt has declared the defendant had remained aloof of all these endeavoors. (Doc. 47 of my document book). Then came the coference of 12 February 1938 at the Obersalzberg.
The course of this conference is well known. That the defendant discussed things on the evening before this conference not only with Zernatto, the representative and intimate friend of the Chancellor in the government, but also with the national leaders becomes understandable if one considers again and again the at all times openly declared role as mediator by the defendant. The latter had to know also the claim of the opposition, if at the conference of the two statesmen at Berchtesgaden a clarification of the differences of opinion was to be accomplished. The defendant cannot be charged with playing a double game within the framework of a conspiracy because the National Socialist Party tried to exploit the Knowledge of the situation to their profit, and that in sending out Muehlmann was quicker than the unsuspecting Chancellor Schuschnigg. There, too, it must be referred to Zernatto, who died in excile and who declares that he was under the certain impression, that Seyss-Inquart had not yet knowledge of the agreements concluded at the Obersalzberg. On the basis of this agreement Seyss-Inqu was appointed Minister of Interior and Security. He goes in that capacity to Berlin in order to pay a State visit to the Chief of State of the German Reich and in order to present to him on that occasion his political program for the relationship of the two States, which is known from the File Notes(Exhibit no. submitted to the Tribunal. The testimony of the defendant as witness of this conference appears completely believable. Hitler had at that time obviously not yet decided to carry out the Anchluss. It must at this point be referred to the testimony of the defendant Gearing, who testified the following on 14 March, when examined as a witness: "I was not present in Berchtesgaden; I did also not agree with this agreement, because I have always been against every fixation which again extends this state of suspension". Through the agreement of Berchtgaden the activity and propaganda of the Nazis in Austria had been permitted to a certain extent. The 2000 party members, released from prison on the basis of the amnesty and the members at least a part of whom had returned from the Reich, were especially active in the federal states to an increased extent, for a rapid increase of the Party and used Hitler's Reichstag speech of the 20 February particularly as a signal for hostile demonstrations against the State for the purpose of acceeding to governmental power in the shortest time. Not only Schuschnigg but the great mass of the working class now realized the danger ous character of the situation.
The menacing peril cause part differences to be forgotten, and negotiations between Schuschnigg and the Socialist Labor Leaders and the Christian trade unions seemed to provide an insurance for the defeat of the imminent assault of Nazism, by the constitution of a common defensive front of all democratic forces.
Prompt action was necessary and Schusnigg proclaimed his plebiscite. The whole country awake from its lethargy. Workers and peasants were called up to defend their country and the electrical preparations carried out under the leadership of Zernatto, in the short time available, in the factories and in the very remotest mountain valleys. It was clear that this attempt of Chancellor Schuschnigg to swing the helm around and alter the course at the last moment could not fail to elicit the resistance not only of the National Socialists in Austria, but also of those in Germany. Hitler raved and Mussolini had unfortunately only too good a reason in warning Schuschnigg, before the election, with the hint that it would be a bomb which would explode in his own hand.
And now, let us turn back to the defendant. He was not only a Government member, he was the trustee of the national opposition and the guarantor for Berchtesgaden before the Reich. honor with reference to the election and not having kept it, that is not correct* Reference is made, I understand to speech held by Gauleiter Rainer on 11 March 1942 before the Garinthian Party members. On page 12 of this document, it is disclosed that Zernatto's lady secretary member of the NSDAP and betrayed the plebicite plans to her co-members as soon as she learned them. Rainer says we already knew the whole plan at 11.30 p.m. that same evening.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess now.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. STEINBAUER: The protest formulated by Seyss-Inquart in the name of the Nationals to the Chancellor against the plebicite was indeed entirely justified juridically. Beside the fact that there could be no security at such short notice for a proper vote, the vote itself was not constitutionally legitimate Article 65 of the Austrian constitution of 1 May 1934 specifies exactly under what circumstances the nation can be called upon to vote. Dr. Schuschnigg, there fore, supports his proclomation of the election upon Art. 93 of the constitution which Article merely says generally:
The Federal Chancellor sets down the directives of policy." The execution of the election was incumbent upon the National Front, i.e. the political organizations. The subsquent developments are well-known, particularly the events of 11 March 1938. In this respect, the main charge, that of conspiracy is, I take it, that Seyss-Inquart has induced the entry of the German troops by his telegram about alleged unrest. We come across this historical lie, which has brought the defendant the name of "Judas of Austria", in most relations of the Anschluss.
We find it, for instance, in Rephael Lemkin's "Axis Rule in occupied Europe" (page 109). We find it again especially in the opening speech of the American Chief Prosecutor Jackson, although it is incontostably proved by the submittal of Goering's telephone conversations (2949-PS) in relation with Goering's testimony that this telegram was never sent and was dictated, what is more, to a third party, at a time when the German troops had already received the order to cross the frontier. Consequently, these telephone conversations by Goering represent a historical document of the greatest importance.
Rainer's Carinthian speech and his testimony as a witness before the Tribunal also contradict the prosecution as regards Seyss-Inquart's contribution to the seizure of power. According to this document, (4005-PS) it was Globotschnick who made an abusive use of the Federal Chancellory's telephone to alarm the Federal States. Appointed Federal Chancellor by virtue of Schuschnigg's withdrawal under duress, the defendant discusses the constitution of the cabinet, invites the ministers to assume their functions, and takes the retiring government chief home in his own car. Glaise-Horstenau, under what circumstances the law of annexation came into being, then it can indeed be said that Zernatto was right when he wrote that Austria was conquered, in his opinion, even against Seyss-Inquart and his government. I refer to Exhibit No. 63. Whoever, therefore, dispassionately surveys the whole set of events of March 1938 relative to the Anschluss, and examines particularly the part played by the defendant, can only come to the conclusion that one cannot really speak of a carefully elaborated "Conspiracy" of the minutely conccentrated perpetration of a crime. Where Austria is concerned, however, the Englishman Geyde is right when he says the curtain fell on the "Tragedy of Austria" with the invasion by the troops. It was to rise again soon on a new play: "The Martydom of Austria.".
On 15 March 1938, Adolf Hitler came to Vienna. We have seen in this Courtroom the film record of his reception. With emotion, the defendant addressed him as follow: "What centuries of German History have striven for for what untold millions of the best Germans have bled and died, the ultimate aim of ardent struggles, the ultimate solace of bitter hours, has materialized today.
The 'Ostmark' is back with the homeland. The Reich has resuscitated, the German racial Empire is established." With this, SeyssInquart had defined the political aim which was, and remained, the guiding star of his actions. paganda machine into full swing. Rallies were held in close succession. Festivals were celebrated. There was not a house in the whole country which was not beflagged. The leader of the socialist workers said: "Ivote yes" and the Bishops made exhortations for the accomplishment of a national duty: "Render unto God what belongs to God and unto the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor". Both were to be mistaken. For with Goebbels came Himmler and his Gestapo and SS. Already, on the night of 12th March, began & large arrest operation in Vienna. It included the members of the former military associations as well as prominent leaders of the socialist syndicates, Jews who were active in political or public life, Communists and Monarchists, priests and Free-Masons, and even the leaders of the Boy Scouts and of the Austrian Youth organizations. In Vienna alone, 76,000 arrests were made. On 2 April 1938, the first Dachau convey already set out from the West Station with 165 leading officials, including the present Federal Chancellor Figl, Education Minister Hurde and Minister of Justice Dr. (eroe. The second convey followed on 21 May, the third at the end of May, and so it went on. Punctually, every 8 days, conveys went off to Dachau, Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen. On May 10, 1946, the National Tribunal in Vienna sentenced to death Anton Brunner, who caused 49,000 people, mostly Jews, to be sent to the extermination camps in Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Minsk and Rig.
And what of the defendant? He was given the cold shoulder and relegated to a corner. The victor of the Saar electoral contest, Joseph Buerckel, was instated as Reich Commissioner for the Reunion of Austria with the Reich, and armed with dictatorial power. The powers of the defendant scarcely exceeded those of a higher president in the Reich, i.e. those of an administrative authority on the intermediary level.
Indeed, immediately above him was Buerckel who, under the pretext of the annexation, interfered with everything and alid claim to everything, particularly as regards matters concerning the Churches and Youth, as is evidenced by Documents 67, 70, and 91. The defendant himself opposed Buerckel's methods. Indeed, he raised objections to Hitler himself against Buerckel's action in Graz on 8 April 1938. and from the documents submitted by the defense. But Buerckel, whom Churchill described as the "Governor of Vienna" in his book "Stop by Step", remained the stronger and the embarrassing censor. Seyss-Inquart was moved away to South Poland as a Provincial Commissioner. This treatment at the hands of his alleged fellow-conspirators shows only too clearly that Seyss-Inquart was actuated by his enthusiasm for the Anschluss and cannot have been a conspirator. He was not a leader, he was led, or, what in my opinion is more accurate, perversely led. He was even perhaps a docile tool in the hands of the big two. Hitler and Goering, but it was solely for his political ideals, the Anschluss, without any intention of a war of aggression. Anschluss. It was partly a repercussion of the rearmament. But what took place was not the Anschluss as the Anschluss enthusiasts in Austria had visualized it, especially as the war procided a motice and a pretext to level down and repress every dissenting or critical opinion, to the most ruthless extent. There was much distress and many *---*; 6,000 were executed in Austria. In the Vienna judicial district alone, 1200 men died by the guillotine, 800 of them just for their anti-Nazo opinion. In the last days of the war, Vienna's most beautiful edifices fell in ruins and St. Stephan's Cathedral, one of the most august monuments of German Gothic, went up in flames.
So, the promise that Hitler had made on 15 March 1938 wad fulfilled: "The pearl has the setting, which her beauty deserves." The idea of union, that is to say the wish to bring about the national unification of a nation, was not a crime; criminal, however, was the introduction of a system that has presumably blocked its realisation forever.
The defendant certainly did not wish that. briefly proceed, from the point of view of the defendant Seyss-Inquart, to examine the question as to what there is to say against my client from the legal respect. For the clarification of his legal responsibility I will review his behavior in the following short review.
First in his political activity:
1.) After the agreement of 11 July 1936, the Federal Chancellor Dr. Schuschnigg took the defendant Seyss-Inquart as a representative of the national opposition as collaborater, thus not as a political follower as for example the witness Guide Schmidt.
2.) Seyss-Inquart has always declared -- for the first time to Dr. Delfuss in July 1934 -- that the national opposition consisted only of National-Socialists who obey solely Hitler's will, in any case will never act against Hitler's will.
3.) Seyss-Inquart declared he was a National-Socialist; he thus always represented the interests of the Austrian National-Socialists. This is not confirmed alone by the witness Skubl but referred to by the authorities previously quoted by me.
4.) To avoid any military or international conflict Seyss-Inquart pursued the following aim: Participation, for theAustrian National-Socialists independently of the Reich National Socialist Party, with closest collaboration between Austria and Germany.
5.) Seyss-Inquart declared that this aim could only be attained if Hitler agreed to and directed the Austrian National Socialists expressly towards this policy.
6.) The culminating point was Seyss-Inquart's efforts during his interview with Hitler on 17 February 1938, although, so to say, Minister by the grace of Hitler, he represented his Austrian program.
Herein lies Seyss-Inquart's mistake. He thought Hitler and Berlin would establish a policy, i.e. as Bismarck said, exploit the art of possibility.
Berlin, however, did not wish to establish a policy. In the face of this fact Seyss-Inquart's policy fell to pieces on 11 March.
Is this mistake the same lines, and Dr. Schuschnigg, knowing his program, kept him employed?
In view of the defendant's basic attitude until March 1938, de
7.) These is so trace to be found of any Nationa-Socialist influence an the Austrian Executive.
The witness Skubl confirmed this with unsurpassed clearness.
Seyss-Inquart forbade the police to take any political position, (Document 51); he forbade National-Socialist demonstrations, (Document 59);
he avoided such occasions (Document 59); he demanded legality of the Austrian Nazis (Document 52).
8.) On 11 March 1938 Seyss-Inquart fulfilled his duties as liaison officer in virtue of the Berchtesgaden agreement.
With Glaise-Horstenau he gave Dr. Schuschnigg, in the forenoon of 11 March, a quite candid state ment of the facts?
He pointed out particularly threatening National-Socialist demonstrations, and the possibility of a German invasion.
In the afternoon he delivered Goering's demands to Schuschnigg and the latter's answers to Goering.
9.) After Dr. Schuschnigg's offer to resign, Seyss-Inquart retired. He complied in no way with Goering's demand to obtain the transfer of the Federal Chancellorship or to seize power.
The ultimatums, with the throats of inva This appears from President Miklas' statements (3697-PS) and from the witness 10.)
Only after Dr. Schuschnigg's farewell speech did Seyss-Inquart publicly demand the maintainance of order.
He does not designate himself as of Security, as was confirmed by the witness Schmidt.
He took the order not to make any resistance to the German troops from Dr. Schuschnigg's farewell 11.)
Seyss-Inquart tried as long as possible to preserve Austria's independence and that by telephone conversations with Goering, Doc. 58; for the reasons that he requested Guido Schmidt to join his Ministry as Foreign Minister, as confirmed by witness Schmidt: according to the statements of witness Skubl; by refusing the demanded telegram Doc. 58; by the request to Hitler not to invade, as confirmed by Goering; by the request to Hitler also to let Austrian troops march into the Reich.
12.) On 13.3.38 the Anschluss Law was proclaimed in conformity with Article III of the Austrian Constitution of 1.5.1934. The psychological situation of Syess-Inquart was the same as that of all Austrians, who, on April 10th, had by secret ballots voted Yes for the Anschluss, by 4,381,070 votes against some 15,000, No. Among other things Seyss-Inquart is reproached that: promote the seizure, incorporation and control of Austria by Nazi conspirators. ing of the prosecution, he has taken part in the political plans and preparations of the Nazi conspiracots for wars of aggression and wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances. To l. Concerning the first named accusation, I refer to above summary and can limit myself to the following short statements: As a political aim, the annexation of Austria to the German Reich is nowhere punishable, and the defendant had no other aim. The Prosecution oversteps here -- as also on other points -- the limits of the Charter. To 2. Concerning the second accusation that co-defendant Seyss-Inquart has participated in a conspiracy against peace, this is to be gauged by Paragraph 6, Part 2 a of the Charter. It is said there, among other things, that planning in common, preparation or execution of war of aggression or war by the violation of international treaties, is punishable as a breach of peace. Austria really comes under the application of this provision in spite of the fact that therewas no war. Much can be said in favor of the fact that the outbreak of a war is the proviso for culpability for breach of the peace within meaning of the said provision.