The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)
Nuremberg, war crimes, crimes against humanity

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
4th April to 15th April, 1946

One Hundred and Eighth Day: Monday, 15th April, 1946
(Part 7 of 10)

[DR. STEINBAUER continues his direct examination of Hermann Neubacher]

[Page 371]

Q. What form of conditions were proposed for Vienna in the "Anschluss" in the year 1918, particularly with reference to its previous position as capital of the Reich and residence city?

A. There were no exact ideas about the technical form of a union which was so far away, but every Austrian, on the basis of his historically well-founded pride, was agreed that the city of Vienna should be given the position of the second capital of Germany.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm sorry. The Tribunal isn't really concerned with whether or not any Anschluss was desirable or whether it was just or not. The Tribunal is concerned with whether it was obtained by violence and force. Most of this evidence doesn't seem to be relevant at all.

DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, unfortunately I must say that my opinion differs from that of the Tribunal, because I believe - and that applies not only to the defendant Seyss- Inquart, but also to the other defendants who participated in the Anschluss, namely, Goering, Ribbentrop, Papen, Neurath - that it is important to know the economic, political and cultural guidance and the political situation of Austria at the time these men were striving toward an Anschluss, therefore, I am of opinion that it is important to ascertain just what the general attitude was. I have taken the liberty of including in my Document Book a short historical report to clarify the various views.


Q. Witness, then, in 1938, you became Mayor of the city of Vienna?

A. That was after the Anschluss.

Q. At the same time, Seyss-Inquart was Reich Governor for the Gau of Vienna, or rather the State of Austria - is that correct?

A. I became Mayor of Vienna under Seyss-Inquart on the morning of 13th March, 1938, when he was still Austrian Federal Chancellor. At that time Seyss-Inquart was Federal Chancellor of Austria.

Q. Very well. How long did you remain in office as Mayor, of the city of Vienna?

A. According to the Austrian Law, until February, 1939. Then Burckel became Gauleiter and Reich Governor of Vienna, and thereby automatically supreme head of the communal administration. Thus ...

Q. That is enough. Thank you. And what was the relationship between Seyss-Inquart on the one hand and the Commissar for the Reich Union, Burckel, on the other hand?

A. The relationship was notoriously bad. Burckel disregarded the authority of the Reich Governor Seyss-Inquart. He ruled over his head, and he tried with every method of slander, intrigue, and provocation to overthrow Seyss-Inquart and remove him from office. And he succeeded.

DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution wish to question?

[Page 372]


THE PRESIDENT: No questions?


THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann.

DR. KAUFFMANN: There are still six interrogatories outstanding. I hope that I will be permitted to submit them as soon as they are received, and may I also reserve for myself the right, in connection with the application I made two days ago, to apply for one or another witness in writing, that is, witnesses from among those who appear in the affidavits submitted by the prosecution?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean you want to cross-examine somebody whose affidavit has been submitted by the prosecution?


THE PRESIDENT: Are you speaking of affidavits which have already been put in?

DR. KAUFFMANN: I am speaking of the affidavits which were submitted for the first time two days ago.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal thinks you should make up your mind very soon as to whether you want to cross-examine those persons.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Certainly. I intended to put that application to you, but the Tribunal told me to make that application in writing.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see. Very well.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Apart from that, I have finished my case for today.


DR. KAUFFMANN: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, we understood that Dr. Dix wanted to have the question of his documents settled on behalf of the defendant Schacht. Did you anticipate that that would take long?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If I might just consult Mr. Dodd - I don't think it will, but I would just like to verify that, if your Lordship will allow.

THE PRESIDENT: What does Dr. Dix say?

DR. DIX: I don't think it will take long, perhaps a quarter of an hour. However, I shall have to reply to the prosecution, and therefore the length of my reply depends upon the length of the statement made by the prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, it would seem to have some advantages to take it now, because otherwise we have got to stop at some particular time, and we shall not know how long it is going to take. If we take it now, it doesn't much matter and then we could go on with Dr. Thoma afterwards.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, my friend Mr. Dodd thinks it will take about a half-hour.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Thoma, you have no objection to that, have you?



MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have before me an index which is submitted by Dr. Dix on behalf of the defendant Schacht.

First, I assume that I should proceed by taking up the exhibits to which we have objected.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I am not sure that I have that index before me. Have you got a copy of it we could have?

MR. DODD: I have just the one copy, which was supplied to us by Dr. Dix.

THE PRESIDENT: Has it been supplied to the Tribunal?

MR. DODD: I don't think so; I don't know.

(Apparently Dr. Dix is shaking his head and saying "No.")

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could indicate what the documents are without our having them before us.

Would you give the numbers when you indicate the documents?

MR. DODD: Yes, your Honour.

[Page 373]

As to the first four documents, No. 1 is a book by Sir Nevile Henderson, "Failure of a Mission." No. 2 is also an excerpt from that book, so is No. 3. We object to all of those on the ground that they only represent the opinion of Sir Nevile Henderson; they do not recount historical facts. No. 4 is an excerpt from a book written about Dr. Schacht by a man by the name of Karl Bopp. We object to that on the same ground, that it is the opinion of the author and not pertinent here.

Exhibit No. 5 is an excerpt from the book written by Mr. Sumner Welles, "The Time for Decision." Our objection to this excerpt is based on the same grounds; it contains only an opinion of Mr. Welles and, however valuable in some places, it is incompetent here.

Exhibit No. 6 is the book by Viscount Rothermere, which was already considered by the Tribunal with respect to the application of the defendant Goering. We renew the objection that was made at that time, citing again that it is only the opinion of this gentleman and is of no value before this Tribunal.

Exhibit No. 7 is the Messersmith affidavit, which was offered in evidence by the prosecution. We have no objection to that, of course.

Exhibit No. 8 is also a prosecution exhibit; no objection.

No. 9, likewise.

No. 10 is an affidavit or declaration by the late Field Marshal von Blomberg, and we have no objection to that.

Passing on, we have no objection until we reach Exhibit No. 14, Ambassador Dodd's Diary, and it is not really an objection there. We ask that we be given the dates of the entries - they have not been given to us thus far - or the pages from the diary from which it is intended to quote.

We go on to Exhibit No. 18. The intervening exhibits, of course, we have no objection to.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I understand this is really a question of what shall be translated, is it not?

MR. DODD: Yes. We are objecting now, because we want to save the labour of the translation.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then you go on to 18.

MR. DODD: Yes. No. 18 consists of three parts, (a), (b) and (c). They are statements of Paul Boncour, of Briand, and of Lord Cecil. They are statements about Germany's right to re- arm. We object to them because they are not statements made by officials of any of these governments, of these two governments; no source is given in the excerpt which is to be quoted, and it appears that they are nothing more than opinions, given after these men had retired from office.

Passing on, then we come to Exhibit No. 33. That is a speech by Dr. Schacht in 1937. Our only question about it - we are not questioning at all its relevancy, of course, but we would like to know whether or not the original is available; we haven't been able to find out yet.

No. 34 is a speech by Adolf Hitler. It is very brief, and I am rather loath to make too much objection to it, except that I cannot see its relevancy here. It doesn't seem to pertain to any of the issues that have been raised in this place, and unless Dr. Dix has something in mind that we have not been. apprised of, we would object to it.

THE PRESIDENT: What does it deal with, Mr. Dodd?

MR. DODD: It deals with re-armament, generally, but it doesn't say anything about Dr. Schacht or any of the allegations here. It seems to be just a general statement about re-armament.

We have an objection to Exhibit No 37 (31). (REVIEWER'S NOTE: The numbers of the Schacht documents appear to have been changed.) It is a letter from Dr. Schacht to Mr. Leon Fraser. Our objection is that we would like to know whether or not the original is available, and, if it is, we would have no objection.

[Page 374]

No. 38 is a newspaper article from a newspaper in Zurich, Switzerland, about what Dr. Schacht's thoughts were, and we object to that. The author is unknown, to begin with. It is only a newspaper account and seems to be immaterial and unimportant here.

Exhibit No. 39 (33) (REVIEWER'S NOTE: The numbers of the Schacht documents appear to have been changed.) is a letter written by one Richard Merton, addressed to the Solicitor of the Treasury in Great Britain. It was forwarded here to the General Secretary, I believe. In any event, we object to it on the ground that it is not competent.

It purports to tell what Merton thought about Schacht and about some assistance that Merton received from Schacht. We would suggest that if Dr. Schacht's counsellor, Dr. Dix, feels that Merton has really some pertinent and relevant testimony to give here, it could be done by way of an interrogatory; he is in London, and it would be, we submit, a more proper way to proceed, rather than offering this letter, which was written without any direction or basis.

Then we move down to Exhibit No. 43, being correspondence between the publisher of Ambassador Dodd's Diary and Sir Nevile Henderson. It is reprinted in the volume containing Dodd's Diary. It is rather vague to me just what the relevance of that entry is here, or how it could be shown in that fashion.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it long?

MR. DODD: Not very long, no.

Now, I am a little bit confused about the last few exhibits, running from 54 to 61. We are only informed that 54 is the record of Goering's testimony before this Tribunal, and so on, the record of so and so before the Tribunal; three excerpts from Goering's testimony and four from the statements of Lt. Brady Bryson, made in connection with the prosecution's presentation of the case against the defendant Schacht. I, of course, simply say that it is unnecessary to have these translated or do anything more than refer to them. They are already in the record, and I don't know just what Dr. Dix has in mind. I have no objection, of course, to his reference to them or any other such use as he may properly make.

THE PRESIDENT: Are those excerpts long?

MR. DODD: Well, I don't know. It is just a matter of copying them over again from the record. They are already in the record of this Court.


MR. DODD: You see, if your Honour pleases, I don't have them before me.

That amounts to our view on the applications of Dr. Schacht's counsel at this time. If there are any questions, I should be glad to answer them. I haven't gone into much detail here.

THE PRESIDENT: No, that is all right. Dr. Dix can answer now. Yes, Dr. Dix.

DR. DIX: Concerning the objections raised to Nos. 1 to 6, I readily admit to Mr. Dodd that these documents are matters of argument rather than evidence. Schacht will argue the fact that prominent persons abroad represented the same views which were the basis for his entire attitude, including the question of re-armament. He will quote these opinions; and I, too, in my final speech, shall refer to these passages for the purpose of argument. If Mr. Dodd says, therefore, that this is not so much evidence as it is argument, he is right. But in my opinion we are not now arguing the question of what is to be officially submitted as evidence to the Tribunal according to procedure. We are merely arguing - or rather we are discussing - whether these documents should be translated, so that if Schacht quotes them during his examination or if I quote them during my speech, the Tribunal would be able to follow the quotation easily. We have observed that the Tribunal - and this seems fairly obvious - prefers the documents which are being quoted here, to be submitted in translation so that it can follow exactly. Therefore regarding Documents Nos. 1 to 6 - and incidentally, the same applies to all the documents contained in Exhibit No. 18 - I am not attempting to have them admitted in evidence; I am merely recommending that they be translated in the interest of everyone concerned,

[Page 375]

so that in case they are quoted the translation can be given to the Tribunal. It is merely a question of being practical. This applies to 1 to 6 and all documents contained under 18.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, hasn't the Tribunal already ruled that both the Document Books of Viscount Rothermere and the speech or book of M. Paul-Boncour are not to be put in evidence and are not to be referred to?

DR. DIX: I only know of one ruling of the Tribunal to the effect that no arguments regarding the justice or injustice of the Versailles Peace Treaty will be admitted. We shall of course obey that ruling of the Tribunal. But we will not quote these passages in order to discuss the justice or injustice of the Versailles Treaty. That is not Schacht's intention nor mine. To cite an example:

The prosecution considers that a certain attitude of Schacht's proves that by supporting re-armament he supported and wanted aggression. He wants to disprove this by referring to the fact that certain prominent foreigners took the same view and that these men could not possibly mean to further German aggression by adopting that view. That is only one example. But at any rate the purpose is not to give academic lectures on the justice or injustice of the Versailles Treaty, which I had not intended to do in any event, since I feel that such arguments would not fall on fertile ground. It is not my habit to use arguments which I believe will not be favourably received. May I continue?

Concerning No. 18 may I ... I beg to apologise. I have just heard Mr. Dodd's statements and I must reply at once. I must first assemble the material. I have noted down that under No. 18, which I have just mentioned, and in which the situation is the same as in 1 to 6, Mr. Dodd is missing the source. That may be due to the fact that he has only had the index to the document. The sources and documents are given with the actual quotations.

I now turn to No. 37. It is Schacht's letter to a certain Fraser. I understood Mr. Dodd to say that he was raising no objection but that he merely wanted to know where the original document is located. It is a letter from Schacht to Fraser, the late president of the First National Bank. The original of that letter - if it still exists - would be among the papers left by the deceased Mr. Fraser, to which I have no access, nor has any one else.

One moment, Mr. President. Schacht tells me that he has only a copy which bears his signature and therefore is a so- called "auto-copy." This auto-copy was preserved in Switzerland during the war because of its contents. This auto-copy, signed personally by Schacht, is here, and the copy in the Document Book has been taken from it. The fact that it is a true copy has been certified by Professor Kraus and I think that as far as possible it has been adequately identified. So much for No. 37. Then I have made a note regarding No. 34. Just one moment, please. No. 34 is another case where the source was missing. The same applies as above. The source is stated in the Document Book, namely the "Documents of German Politics." This compilation has been used a great deal as a source of evidence. Then objections have been raised -

[ Previous | Index | Next ] [an error occurred while processing this directive]