A According to the Austrian constitution, until February 1939.
At that time, Gauleiter Buerckel because Gauleiter and Reich Town Governor of Vienna, and at the same time he became the supreme head of the communal administration.
Q Thank you. That is enough. And what was the situation between Seyss-Inquart on one side and the Commissioner for the Reich Union, Buerckel, on the other side?
A It Was notoriously bad. Buerckel did not take any notice of the confidences of Reichstag Governor Seyss-Inquart. He governed over his head, and he tried every method of slander, intrigue, and provocation to overthrow Seyss-Inquart and dishonor him.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to question?
COLONEL AMEN: No.
THE PRESIDENT: No questions?
COLONEL AMEN: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
Dr. Kauffmann.
DR KAUFFMANN: There are still six interrogatories to be dealt with. I hope that I may have permission to submit them as soon as they are received, and may, perhaps, also reserve for myself the right, in accordance with the application made by me two days ago, to apply for one or the other witness in writing, that is, witnesses from amongst those who appear in the affidavits which the prosecution have submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you want to cross-examine somebody from whom the prosecution have submitted an affidavit?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you speaking of affidavits which have already been put in
DR. KAUFFMANN: I am talking about the affidavits which have been 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: I had 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.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
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 would take very long?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: 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 a long time, 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 to be 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 ashn' know how long it is going to take. If we take it now, it doesn't so much matter and then we could go on with Dr. Thoma afterwards.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: 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
DR. THOMA: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have before me an index which is submitted by DR. Dix on behalf of the Defendant Schacht. have objected.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I am not sure that I have that index before me. Do you have 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 it before us.
Would you give the numbers when you indicate the documents?
DR. DODD: Yes, Your Honor. "Failure of a Mission." Number 2 is an excerpt from that book, and so is number 3. We object to all of those on the ground that they only represent the opinion of Sir Neville Henderson; they do not recount historical fact.
Number 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 ground; 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 passed upon 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. 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 labor of 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 rearm. We object to them because they are not statements made by officials of any 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.
Number 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, 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 rearmament, 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 rearmament.
We have an objection to Exhibit No. 37. 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 why we would have no objection. 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 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 purpots 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. 49, being correspondence between the publisher of Ambassador Dodd's diary and Sir Neville 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. 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 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 unecessary 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. Frick 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 excepts 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.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. DODD: You see, if Your Honor 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: As far as the objections are concerned, raised to Nos. 1 to 6, I agree with Mr. Dodd that these documents are more or less matters of argumentation than evidence.
The fact that prominent persons abroad represented the same views which were the basis for his attitude, even regarding the rearmament, will be referred to by Schacht. He will quote these opinions; and I, too, in my final speech, shall refer to these passages for the purpose of argumentation. If Mr. Dodd says, therefore, that this is not so much evidence as it is argument, then he is right. to the Tribunal as evidence; we are merely arguing--or rather we are talking-about the question whether these documents should be translated, so that if either Schact during his examination quotes them or if I quote then during the presentation of my case,the Tribunal would be in a position to follow the quotation comfortably. We have made the observation that the Tribunal -and this seems fairly obvious--like to see, when documents are being quoted here, that they are put at heir disposal in translation so that they can follow exactly.
Regarding these passages, therefore -- Nos. 1 to 6 -- and, incidentally, the same applies to all the other exhibits contained under No. 18--would it not be possible for me to ask for them to be--correction: I am not asking for then to be admitted in evidence; I an merely recommending that translations should be permitted in everybody's interest, so that in the event of quotation it can be put before the Tribunal. It is merely a question of suitability and comfort. This applies to 1 to 6 and all documents contained under 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Hasn't the Tribunal already ruled that both the document books of Viscount Rothermere and the speech or book of Mr. Paul Boncour are not to be put in evidence and are not to be referred to?
DR. DIX: I only know of an order of the Tribunal concerning those statements regarding the justice or injustice committed through the Versailles Peace Treaty, and that order of the Tribunal we shall of course obey. But the quotation of these passages will not serve the purpose of discussing the justice or injustice connected with the Versailles Treaty. That is neither intended by Schacht nor myself. Only so as to quote an example:
A certain attitude of Schacht's is being used as an indictment by the Prosecution that by supporting rearmament he was wanting and supporting aggression.
That he wants to disprove by referring to the fact that this and the other promiment foreign personality represented the same view and that he couldn't possibly mean to further German aggression by adopting that view. That is only one example. But not at any rate, therefore, so as to give scientific lectures on the justice or the injustice of the Versailles Treaty, which I hadn't intended in any event, since I feel that for such arguments there wouldn't be a favorable reception. I don't propose to make statements which wouldn't be favorably received. May I continue?
I beg to apologize. I have only just heard Mr. Dodd's statements and I have to reply very quickly. I have to get the passages together.
I have noted down that under No. 18, which I have just mentioned, which is the same situation as 1 to 6, that Mr. Dodd is missing the authors. That may be due to the fact that he has only had the index to the document. In the actual documents the sources are quoted.
I now turn to No. 37. It is Schacht's letter to a certain Fraser. The way I understood Mr. Dodd was that he wasn't raising objections but that he wanted to know where the original document is located. Well, it is a letter from Schacht to Fraser, the late president of the First National Bank, so that the original of that letter--if it still exists--would be among Mr. Fraser's things, to which I have no access.
One moment, Mr. President: Schacht--that is to say we--have only a copy, and that copy is signed personally by Schacht. It is a so-called "auto-copy". It is that copy which was deposited in Switzerland during the war, because of its contents. This auto-copy, signed personally by Schacht, is in my possession, and from that originates the copy in the document book. The correction of the wording has been certified by Professor Kraus, so that I think as far as the identification is concerned we have coped with it sufficiently.
Now, so much with No. 37. Then I have made a note regarding No. 34. Just one moment, please. No. 34 is another case where the source is missing. The same applies as before. The source is stated in the document book.
It is the document of German politics which has been used a great deal.
Then there have been objections -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the objection to 34 was not that the original wasn't available but that it was a speech by Hitler which was about rearmament and didn't seem to be relevant.
DR. DIX: Yes, that is correct. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. Dodd, of course, could not recognize the relevancy of the document. Only Schacht could recognize that, since he alone knew the inner developments. This is a speech of Hitler in which there is a passage which confirmed the slowly developing suspicion on Schacht's part that this policy may be directed towards aggression. It didconfirm the suspicion that Hitler may have been wanting it, and this passage of Hitler's speech of the 20th of February, 1938, backed this suspicion. The whole reflection of his inner conceptions of Hitler and his policy, beginning in 1933 and until distrust started, and as far as preparations for a revolt -- all that in connection with the inner developments is very strongly backed in this speech, which isa milestone in that development. For that reason I think it is proved that it is important evidence. That is document 34.
Then there was 38. That is the article from the "Basler Nachrichte --the Balse News. In my opinion it is an article of the greatest importance and relevancy. At any rate, I shall fight for that document to the very last house and the very last man.
Subject: (a) Before the war; the fight against the war; during the war; the fight and the attempts to bring about an early peace and the fight against a spreading of the war.
Now Schacht, in 1941 -- that is to say, before Russia's entry into the war and before the entry into the war of the United States -- had a conversation with a national economist from the United States, which he didn't recollect until just now, when an acquaintance sent him that article which had appeared in the Basle News of the 14th of January 1944. So he said, "Of course, now I remember. Four years ago, in the spring of 1941, I had talked to a national economist from America, and we had this discussion. The name, unfortunately, he had forgotten. Once more, this conversation shows his efforts as late as 1941 to fight particularly against any spreading of the war and to make plans and make contacts which would serve the purpose which he was aiming at -- particularly the coming into contact with the United States and the men near President Roosevelt.
took place, and we cannot call upon this professor because Schacht has forgotten his name. But it is the professor himself who anonymously is speaking in this edition of the 14th of January 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the conversation you say is reported in this newspaper?
DR. DIX: It is a fairly long article. Perhaps I may underline governmental system.
He adds that he pointed out the dangers of maintain intellectual activities.
And he continued to tell the professor that this a victorious Germany and useless for it, seen from a higher level.
He become liberal automatically.
In the end he suggests, therefore, that about help if such contacts were cleverly brought about.
It is the same who had entree to President Roosevelt.
It is the last desperate effort the Tribunal ought to grant me this document as important evidence.
We cannot, after all, assume that this professor is tolling lies.
Technically, his name to be disclosed.
That is a question, and we may have serious difficulties; and since experience seems to prove that something which the professor tells the Basle paper must be true, then why should there be a lie now?
He is a respected man. That is why I think that this piece of evidence would be equivalent to a personal interrogatory sent to the professor. That is why I am asking you to permit me this piece of evidence, not only for translation but also in evidenced. That is document 38. to send the interrogatory to Merton, but I believe that this may be a fruitless effort, a superfluous effort--because the only thing I need this letter for is to prove that Lord Montague Norman returned from a meeting to England in 1939 and that this man Merton was told by him that Schacht was in considerable personal danger because of his political attitude. That is the fact which I was going to use this letter for. This is contained in the letter.
The letter wasn't written to me or Schacht by Merton. It is a letter which the contents of that letter to us.
We didn't think that there was any point in getting Merton as a witness.
We thought that was too complicated and I would have to go to London.
That is document 39.
Regarding No. 49, this is correspondence between Sir Neville Henderson and the editor of the diary of the late Ambassador Dodd.
It is of considerable held against Schacht.
So as to prevent any misunderstanding, I should like of the late Ambassador Dodd.
He was known to both Dr. Schacht and myself with him, in accordance with the diary, were quoted quite wrongly.
No better correspondence between Sir.
Neville Henderson and the editor. As far as the means of these documents.
It is perfectly agreeable to me if they are not of the Tribunal easier.
Schacht will be examined by me and these passages of Goering's statements will be referred to.
If the Tribunal believe that course it won't be necessary to translate these passages at all.
It is there their own purposes.
We have made extracts and if the Tribunal wish, they will be at their disposal.
We are now merely dealing with the affidavits. I don't think we have discussed them but I think the Tribunal is aware of the privilege.
We have prepared ourselves with the affidavits so as to save time
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: I will deal first of all with the documents on behalf of the defendant Schacht.
The following documents will be translated: 34, number 37, number 38, number 39 and number 49. they will not be translated but Dr. Dix is requested to give reference to those documents in his document book. translated, the documents which I have not referred to specifically will be translated.
Now, Dr. Thoma.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, first of all I am passing to the documents which were granted me this morning, allthe works of Rosenberg, "The Myth of the Twentieth Century" being one of them, I am using these documents as proof that the defendant was not conspiring for war and did not participate in a psychological preparation for war. These excerpts are from speeches which the defendant made before diplomats, before students, before Jurists and are meant to prove that on these occasions he spoke for social peace, that he fought for peace, that he did not want world idealogical enmity. Through these speeches he spoke for freedom of conscience and he was interested in attaining a reasonable solution of the Jewish question and he was interested in clarity and Justice in this matter. with the permission of the High Tribunal I wish to call the defendant Rosenberg to the witness stand. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: withhold and add nothing.
(Witness repeated oath.)
BY DR. THOMA:
Q Mr. Rosenberg, will you please -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, you have not given your exhibits any exhibit numbers, have you?
DR. THOMA: That is RO-7a. They are numbered, I believe, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: When you refer to any of the documents you will give them their exhibit number,
DR. THOMA. Yes, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, for the purposes of the record, you see, I think you ought to read out a list of the documents which you are putting in, stating what the exhibit numbers are. Have yougot a list there of the documents you are going to offer in evidence?
DR THOMA: Yes, I do Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you just read it into the record?
DR THOMA: Exhibit RO-7, "The Myth of the Twentieth Century."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR THOMA: RO-7A"G estaltung der Idee"(Formation of the Idea), RO-7B "Blut und Ehre" (Blood end Honor), RO-7C Rosenberg's "Tradition der G egenwart"(Tradition and the Press), RO-7D, Rosenberg's "Schriften und Reden" (Writings and Speeches) and RO-8 "Voelkischer Beobachter", March and September 1933.
THE PRESIDENT: That one was excluded by the Tribunal; 7-E and 8 were excluded.
DR THOMA: I did not cite 7-E, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You cited 8 though.
DR THOMA: I beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR THOMA:
Q Mr. Rosenberg please begin with a biographical statement. After completion of the Oberrealschule there I studied beginning in the autumn of 1910 at technical high school at Riga. When the G erman-Russian front approached in 1915 the technical high school, including the professors end students were transferred and evacuated to Moscow and there I continued my studies, in the capital of Russia. There I finished my studies with a diploma as an architectural engineer in January or February 1918 and returned to my native city. the German Army but as a volunteer to the G erman Army but as a citizen of an occupied country I was not accepted, without special permission. Since in the future I did not want to live between the frontiers of several countries I tried to get to G ermany.
The Baltic loyalty toward Russia and German culture were what I had experienced and lived through in Russia.
This made me come to the conclusion to do everything within my power to work in Germany against the moving of political parties into Bolshevism, and I tried to help prevent that. I believed that this movement in Germany, because of the sensitive structure of the German system, would have been a tremendous catastrophe. to Munich. I wanted really to take up my profession an an architect, but, instead, I met personalities in Munich who felt the way I did, and became a collaborator in a weekly journal, which had been founded at this time in Munich. I worked this weekly paper since January, 1918, and at this time I remained as an author and contributor. Then, here I lived through the development of the political movement in Munich until the Raeter Republic in 1919 and its depression.
Q You mentioned Germany as your spiritual home. Will you tell the High Tribunal through which studies and through which scientists you were influenced in favor of Germany?
A I had artistic interests for architecture andpainting. I had also been interested since childhood in philosophical studies and, of course, it was very easy for me to read Goethe, Habe, and Fichte, and to further my spiritual development along these lines. Simultaneously, I was influenced by the social thoughts of Charles Dickens, Bernard, and Emerson of the American literature. I continued these studies at Riga, and, of course, I studied Kant and Schopenhauer in this connection, and, above all, I studied Indian philosophy and Allied fields. European historians. Least of all, in Munich, I entered a later study of the new theological studies. the formation of theidea. Was Goethe responsible for this influence?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, you see, wants you to confine yourself to his own philosophy and not to the origins of these philosophies, insofar as he is referring to philosophical subjects at all.
BY DR. THOMA:
Q How did you come to the NSDAP and to Hitler inMunich? visited by a man by the name of Antox Drexler, who was thechairman of the New Germany Labor Party, and he introduced himself as such. He stated similar thoughts as the thoughts expressed by this journal, and from that time on my first connection arose with a very small group of German laborers, a group which had been formed in Munich. There in the autumn of 1919 I met Hitler.
Q Then did you become a follower of Hitler?
A Yes, at that time I had a conversation with Hitler. At that time I noticed especially his generous aspect of the European aspect as he saw it. He said that in his ominion Europe at that time was in a social and political crisis, a crisis which had not existed since the fall of Rome; that there was much activity in this sphere; and that he personally would be interested to see how the German attitude could fit in. small groups of forty and fifty people. I was present at these speeches, and I believe thatGoethe was speaking and, above all, a soldier who had been at the front, who had done his duty silently for four and a half years. as it is contended here, but later. I was assigned No. 625 as my membership number in the Party. As far as the setting up of the program is concerned, I did not participate. However, I was present while this program was read publicly by Hitler andestablished by him on the 24th of February, 1920. wanted to deal with the social and political crisis. What was the solution of these problems that you were dealing with? of the program, at the end of the twenty-second I wrote a commentary, which has been submitted and read to the High Tribunal in fragments. My entire position and the position supported by us might be stated briefly as follows: social and spiritual consequences. The so-called rationalism was the basis of this thought and created the state of industry and the world state and showed how it had left nature and history.
their homeland and who wanted to have history brought back for their country turned against this one-sided movement. In the early years there was a reconnection to customs of the past and artistic works of Professor Schulz in Naumburg and some poets, and the result was a protest against this onesided movement of that time, and in this connection National Socialism attempted to find a connecting like in full knowledge, however, but in modern movement, and not to be a modern movement and not only a movement in retrospect. We tried to make a connecting like of the social movement of Stuecker and of the national movement of Schoenerer in Austria without taking everything as a model and as an example.
I would like to add that the name "National Socialism", I believe, had its origin in theSudetenland, and here the smallGerman Labor Party took the name of "National Socialist German Labor Party", and it was founded with that name. thought was just why we called ourselves National Socialists. I believe that in these three months of the Prosecution many terrible things have been mentioned, but nothing was said about National Socialism. Germany; that in both camps millions of decent Germans werefighting. The problem which was facing us all was the problem as far as both these camps were concerned; that is, what was to be affirmed as far as the national unity was concerned and how an agreement was being prevented. At that time, and later, we stated, with a view to theproletarian side, that if theclass struggle was a fact of social and political life, and was existing in the present time, but, as far as a world ideological basis was concerned, it would bring an internal fragmentation or dispersal among nations. A tendency of a social conflict, guided by an international center, was the second problem which would prevent a social coordination. The call and the desire for social justice was present among all labor; it was real and necessary.