QAnd at the start of 1933, who was Austrian Federal Chancellor?
AIn early 1933 it was Dr. Dollfuss who was Austrian Federal Chancellor.
QTo what party did he belong?
ADollfuss was a Christian Socialist.
QAnd at the time under consideration, in 1933, was Austria still a country that governed on a democratic basis?
AYes, Austria was a democracy.
Q and did they subsequently change?
AYes, it did change. You might well say it changed when the National Socialist Party was banned, which took place on 13 June 1933.
QWhat date?
A 13 June 1933. Oh, no, you are right, wait a minute now, - on the 19th of the June 1933.
CourtIV - Case XI
Q.May I submit to you, in connection with your answer, that the International Military Tribunal, in its judgment, ascertained that the National Socialist Party was banned as a result of the socalled Dollfuss Putsch, in connection with which Dollfuss was murdered. You just told us the party was banned on the 19th of June 1933. Is there any possibility that you are confused, or making a mistake.
A.No. If this is actually said in the judgment, as you tell me, then it is doubtlessly a mistake, because it was on 19 June 1933 that the Party was banned. This ban had nothing whatsoever to do with the Dollfuss Putsch of 25 July 1934. I, myself, would even dare to say, based on my knowledge of the affairs, that this putsch would actually never have taken place had the Party not been prohibited.
Q.I will now revert to my previous question. You said that the democratic regime changed at the moment when the National Socialist Party was banned and we have verified the date of the ban as being 19 June 1933. Were there any other parties that were also prohibited, subsequently, in Austria? I am referring to political parties.
A.The course of development which the Heimwehr took, which became ever more conspicuous and which turned most emphatically in favor of an Italian Fascist course, pressed the parties ever farther into the background. The Social Democratic Party which, since 1933 had to yield, on an increasing measure, the functions and powers it held, from 1933 on, proposed to defend itself against such restriction of its power, and prepared for a putsch, (coup d'etat). While they were preparing for this putsch, the police found illicit armament depots and then these discoveries brought about the incidents which are known to us from history - that is, the suppression of the Social Democratic Party on 12 February 1934. Subsequent to this suppression it was prohibited altogether.
Q.Is it right to say that this revolution of 12 February 1934 was a bloody civilian war? You don't have to give us details. Just answer yes, or no.
A.Yes, no doubt the answer is yes; after all, artillery was used.
Q.Now we have the National Socialist Party prohibited the Social Democratic party prohibited and the Communists prohibited. What about the Christian Socialists?
A.The Christian Socialists were still in existence then. They existed up until May 1934 and in May 1934 the Trunk Parliament was called in, thus excluding the Social Democratic deputy. It was this Trunk Parliament which decreed a new constitution; it must be said, however, in violation of the constitution existent, because it would have been a prerequisite that at least half of the deputies would have had to be present to form a quorum and there were not 83, that being one-half of the deputies, but only 76 deputies present. And since this constitution was forced upon the Austrians, which let me say, by the way, President Renner, who today is president of Austria, called a most brutal and stupid coup d'etat, - but since this was forced upon the Austrians, democracy in Austria was finished.
MR. GANTT:I have not objected, so far, to this very interesting historical development of Austria but now, as the witness turns to constitutional interpretation, I do not think we have had any background to show that he is an expert witness, either on the legal or on the historical field. I do not think the witness is qualified to talk about the constitutionality of the Austrian constitution, and what not.
DR. SCHUBERT:Your Honors, I did not call this witness as an expert, but only as a witness concerning facts.
Q. (By Dr. Schubert) Witness, will you perhaps be good enough to tell me what reason was given for the prohibition of the National Socialist Party in Austria?
A.The party was prohibited on account of the anschluss being on its program, and on account of contacts that it maintained with foreign countries.
Q.What did they mean when they said "Ausland" or foreign country?
A.They meant Germany when they used the world "Ausland."
Q.Were relations between Austria and Germany at that time strained in any way?
A.Yes, doubtlessly. Hitler's appointment to the position of Reich Chancellor was accepted in circles of Austrian government and Austrian parties in a disfavorable manner. Later on, in addition, frictions arose, these frictions being insignificant in nature, but still they led to the 1000 mark Ban, that is, the frontiers were closed, and this again caused the Austrian government to introduce a similar measure.
Q.Thank you, that is enough. Did the National Socialists in Austria give the government any special reason for introducing this ban?
A.Well, yes. I mean the proportions in which they increased. You must not forget that in 1932, and particularly, of course, since Hitler came to be appointed to the function of Reich Chancellor, they had increased on a tremendous scale; and there were entire political groups, for instance the "Styrian Heimatschutz", who went over in complete unity to become members of the National Socialist Party; and already the elections that took place in 1932 in various diets of Austrian Laender permitted the conclusion to be drawn that the National Socialist Party would win a substantial part of the electoral masses and would be backed by them. Otherwise there was no reason in existence why the party should be prohibited. I do not think, either, that at the very first they thought of prohibiting the party but what they did have in mind was to suspend elections only.
But later on....are you satisfied.
Q.Thank you, witness, that is satisfactory. Now, what was the result of the ban?
A.The result of the ban was that as a matter of course, large parts of the former party assumed an illegal status and this, of course, brought about, as a result, a pressure exercised by the government that was in force at that time. Please permit me to say at this occasion that already prior to the time when the party was prohibited, measures had been undertaken against the National Socialist movement in Austria. Take, for example, the prohibition for civil servants to be members of the National Socialist Party, precensorship for newspaper, limitation on right of assembly, and so on. These things took place before.
Q.What happened afterwards. That was my question.
A.After the ban went into effect, then, of course, these measures undertaken on the part of the government became even more numerous and more tense. Disciplinary measures were instituted against public servants; labor contracts were rescinded - contracts which were in effect between private citizens; and the supreme court of administration and constitution had its powers rescinded; the newspapers were prohibited from delivery to homes and all they were permitted to do was to use the mails, and thus newspapers died down in force in Austria. (I want to say that this referred to the oppositional press only.) The restrictions increased more and more in number, on the one hand; and on the other hand, on the part of the illegal party, demonostrations were staged, first of all more harmless in nature - the swastika was drawn in public places, and similar things took place - and these demonostrations were answered by the government with imprisonments in detention camps, and reprisals, and similar measures.
I would like to say that it was in particular the Heimwehr and the Ostmaerkische Sturmcharen, (which latter, please let me say, was an institution founded by the "Vaterlaendische Front" (Patriotic Front); these were two militant formations which had been used as auxiliary police forces. The measures of these two groups irritated the National Socialists beyond comprehension because, when some punitive measures were undertaken, most extraordinary brutal measures were used against National Socialists, as well as any people who sympathized with them, and this, in the final run, let to the measures undertaken by the illegal party. We know what happened explosions took place, and similar actions, and in the final run the putsch took place, that is, the putsch of July 1934.
Q.This is the putsch to which Mr. Dollfuss fell a victim he being the Federal Chancellor?
A.Yes.
Q.And who was Dollfuss's successor?
A.Dollfuss's successor was Dr. Schuschnigg, who had been minister of education in Dollfuss's cabinet.
Q.Is it right for me to assume that after the so-called Dollfuss putsch, needless to say the measures against the National Socialists became even more rigorous and severe?
A.Yes, that's a matter of course. At the time involved large number of the national population were confined to detention camps or were locked up in other prisons. Economic measure were undertaken on an incredible scale. Many thousands of people were thrown out of the positions they held in the economic life of the country. I believe that at that time there were several hundred thousands of people affected by these measures.
Q.I think that you already spoke of a number of Austrian National Socialists having immigrated into the Reich, didn't you? Would you be able to specify their number approximately? Would you know it?
A.People who went into emigration at that time in order to escape imprisonment were large in numbers. I myself once heard of a figure of sixty thousand, and I would estimate this figure to be right.
Q.And no one final question while on this chapter. At that time, and we will refer to this later on too, you were a member of this movement yourself and perhaps you have a perspective and view as to the strength of this movement around the time involved. Would you be good enough to specify it?
A.Well, there were no elections, Herr Doctor, as you know, but you might be able to form an approximate picture of the strength of this movement because you mustn't forget that, as already said before, tremendous portions of the other parties went over in streams to the National Socialist movement. Thus practically speaking the larger German Peoples' Party, the Present League, ceased their existence altogether. There were large parties of the Catholic youth Movement who likewise, because they were in favor of the idea of anschluss, stood very close to the National Socialist Party. Furthermore, you mustn't omit, bearing in mind that in the Austrian National Socialist movement, that it was the anschluss thought that played a much more important part than it did among the ranks of the National Socialists in the Reich.
Therefore, if you expect me to estimate the strength of the Party I believe that I can say that the Party at that time was beyond any doubt the strongest party in Germany the one which was backed by most of the electoral masses.
Q.And now, witness, in view of the situation, wasn't the Austrian government able to do anything in order to come to a reasonable working agreement with this large National Socialist opposition.
A.Yes, right after the Party was banned, the government stretched out feelers in order to resume discussions with the Party and actually this continued to be the case right into 1938. I still remember one incident very well. The then Minister of Education, Schuschnigg, in the fall of 1933, acting by order of the Federal Chancellor, undertook a journey to Munich and he went to see Hess in order to discuss with Hess various matters concerning exchange of prisoners and so on, and among other things on the occasion of this conference a meeting was also arranged to take place between Habicht, the then Charge d'affaires of the Party, he living in exile, and the Federal Chancellor Dollfuss. However, I must say that this meeting did not take place subsequently because Starhemberg interposed objection against its taking place. We mustn't forget that at the time involved there was an authoritarian regime in Austria which had two faces. On the one hand there was the patriotic front and on the other side you had the Heimwehr. Furthermore, I think it will also be interesting to you to hear that in July of 1934 the then Minister of Commerce, Stockinger, invited concerning a pacification. He himself told me that he was acting by order of the Chancellor Dollfuss, and those basic and principle outlines were to be discussed with me which were to serve to form a basis of peace between the regime and the National Socialist opposition. This discussion took place on 23 and 24 of July of 1934 and it lasted into the early hours of the morning of the 24th.
Pursuant to the incidents of the 25th of July, the National Socialist putsch in the Deferal Chancellery in which the preponderant part of the National Socialists had no part whatsoever and didn't know anything of whatsoever, pursuant to this incident, of course, these endeavors came to nothing.
Q.Are you able to tellus, witness, why particularly at that time you were approached?
A.The circles of the Government knew me as a moderate National Socialist. I was an opponent of Herr Habicht, who was applying his adventurous methods to politics at that time, and apart from that, since the fall of 1933, I had already maintained contact with Schuschnigg and with Dr. Gleisner who was then regional party chief of Upper Austria, with the result that I wasn't quite an unknown figure to these gentlemen.
Q.Now, you just told us that the endeavors that you deployed at that time came to be nil pusuant to the Dollfuss putch of 25 July 1934. Were your efforts resumed later on?
A.Early August 1934 I went to see Dr. Schuschnigg, the successor of Dollfuss, the new Federal Chancellor, and I reported to him concerning the incidents that I have just described to you. He had already been informed in broad outlines and he was very sympathetic at that time in the manner in which he took up the matter and he caused me to continue my work along the same lines.
Q.And what did you go on doing subsequently?
A.In agreement with him I called in a number of confidential men apportioned all over the Federal area to work in favor of a peaceful solution of the problem.
DR. SCHUBERT:At this point, your Honors, please permit me to point out to you that this witness's testimony is completely corroborated in my document exhibit 53 in my defense document book 2-B.
Q.And now, witness, on the basis of this order that you had been given, it was necessary for you to establish contact with circles of the prohibited and illegal National Socialist Party. Didn't you encounter difficulties with executive bodies in connection with your endeavors.
A.These difficulties were removed from the very start by means of the fact that Dr. Schuschnigg, the Federal Chancellor, addressed communications to the security directors of the individual Laender ordering them not to disturb me in my work. Apart from that, later on I was issued written credentials, which I carried around with me which identified me to any representative of the police forces. Thus actually I can say that I was fully free in carrying on my work.
Q.The organization that you thus called into life is actually a strange construction seen from the political point of view. You have a prohibited party organization on the one hand which on the other hand was officially permitted by the Federal Chancellor; that is, at least what I understood you to say.
A.Yes, well, that's a matter of view. After all, there was no mention of any party as such. It was a circle and an organization of confidential men, but it is right to say that in this circle of confidential men there were National Socialists because that was the purpose of the whole thing, to pick men from the circles of the Nationals Socialist movement and to call upon them abstain from their revolutionary tendencies and to work in favor of a peaceful solution of the problem.
Q.I have to submit to you a prosecution document in connection with this point. I am referring to exhibit 15 in prosecution document book 2 in which Rainer, who has already previously been mentioned, later Gauleiter, says that Reinthaller began to carry out the construction of an illegal political organization and he placed engineer Neubacher at the head of this organization, but I now gather form your testimony that your organization was officially permitted.
How can you explain Rainer to have made such a statement?
A.I was given the document under consideration to read here in Nurnberg. It seems to me that there seems to be a great mixture of fiction and truth contained in this document. Above all, it is one-sided and biased. You gain the impression on reading it that it was Rainer's intention to push himself and certain circles of the Party into the front line whereas other men and above all, Seyss-Inquart, were to be pushed into the background. As far as the matter itself is concern, I want to say that I requested Dr. Neubacher at that time to take the circles of the illegal organization and to solicit understanding there in favor of the work we were carrying on, and above all, to induce them to remain absolutely peaceful in order not to obstruct the work we were carrying on.
Q.Are you able to give us any other names, names of your assistants in connection with this matter, or perhaps people who were in close contact with the work that you were carrying on?
A.Yes, Dr. Seyss-Inquart stood very close to me at that time. Neubacher, whom I already mentioned before, Dr. Glaise-Horstenau was the liaison man who had been appointed by the Federal Chancellor; then you had Langgoth, the former regional governor of Upper Austria, Dr. Vopa, former president of the Larger German People's Party, and many other in addition.
Q.Now, was your work successful subsequently?
A.No, it wasn't. No, it was not successful. very soon after I initiated my work Prince Starhemberg personally interposed objection to my work and apart from that the Italian Embassy too protested against it with the result that Federal Chancellor Schuschnigg found it necessary to ask me to be very careful in going about my work. It is true that upon his specific order I did maintain this organization of confidential men and this organization of men was available for all operations which set in subsequently in favor of a peaceful solution, but the result of my efforts was nil, seen from a political point of view.
Q.Now, if I understand you correctly, witness, this organization of your confidential men was maintained with the approval of Schuschnigg?
A.Yes, correct.
Q.And now was this organization, as well as your own person, to continue to function as intermediary between the government on the one hand and the National Socialists on the other? Is that the idea?
A.Yes.
Q.Now, in what manner did you thing this was going to be carried out or could be carried out?
A.There were various discussions that took place with the Federal Chancellor. We ourselves took the point of view that by the revolutionary methods that were propagated at that time by a small circle in Austria, nothing could be gained. Furthermore, mentally and spiritually we were opposed to these methods and there is no doubt that large portions of the National Socialists in Austria backed us in this tendency. We were willing to take the circumstances as they prevailed and to collaborate and contribute our efforts in the institutions of the authoritarian regime that existed. At that time we also declared that the idea of the anschluss wasn't at least a very acute one then, but on the other hand we did hope that the Federal Chancellor would make true the promise he had given, to the effect that within the framework of the patriotic front, the Vaterlaendische Front, a national section was to be called into life, and let me say that the promise was also to include the erection of a socialist sector and that in due course at the proper time an appeal should be made directly to the people in some form or other, because one thing was clear both to us as well as to the Federal Chancellor, that the consensus populi had to be found once again.
Q.Witness, was this consensus populi that you have just mentioned actually found on basis of the agreement of July, 1936 concluded between the German Reich and Austria?
A.The agreement of July, 1936 was welcomed by us who were in favor of achieving a peaceful agreement because we had anticipated that it would advance our endeavors, but already in view of the dragging course of events you had to be very strong in your belief it you were actually going to maintain any hopes that you entertained.
Q.At the time under consideration did the circles of the Austrian Nationals Socialists not express, at least in part, a not inconsiderable dissatisfaction concerning the relationship that existed between the Reich and Austria?
A.I specifically mentioned before that in the circles of those people who were willing to come to a reasonable agreement among the National Socialists, this agreement was welcomed, whereas in the case of the radical National Socialists, this agreement came to be looked upon most suspiciously, because in this treaty the Reich recognizes a government which is based upon an insignificant minority and which for years past had exerted incredible pressure against the National Socialists. Did I answer your question, counsel?
Q.Thank you, witness, you did. And now, witness, what about the contacts maintained between the Party in Austria and the Party in the Reich? Was there any contact Maintained at all and if so, what kind?
A.After the July putsch of 1934 it is known that all contacts broke down completely because the Party in Germany, as we were told later on, was prohibited from maintaining any contact with Austrian Party agencies in any manner whatsoever. This, I believe, was renewed in the treaty of July, 1936, and this did not only apply to party agencies but also to Reich agencies.
Q.When did you come to know the defendant, Wilhelm Keppler, for the first time?
A.I made Herr Doctor Keppler's acquaintance in the summer, I think the month was July, of 1937.
Q. '37?
A. '37. In a small circle surrounding Seyss-Inquart when, on the occasion of the ratification of the treaty around July 1936, he happened to be in Vienna.
Q.Therefore you say that it wasn't before July '37 that you met him?
A.Correct.
Q.What did Keppler tell you then concerning the intention of the German political leadership in regard to the Austrian National Socialists?
A.It is clear that we asked Herr Doctor Keppler about that, and Keppler confirmed one assumptions that the Reich had absolutely no interest whatsoever in having any disturbances caused in Austria and constantly having putsch plans worked out. He told us that the Reich was desirous to come to an agreement in some form or other with Austria and this was to be done on basis of the treaty, and, of course, this had to entail by necessity an agreement to be reached between the National Socialist opposition and the government. Is this adequate, counsel?
Q.Yes, thank you. Did Keppler also say anything concerning the prohibition of all travel?
A.He confirmed that this prohibition had actually been put into effect and we actually noticed very strongly this prohibition being in effect. For example, just let me point out to you that the then leader of German peasantry, whom I knew personally, refused even to talk to me and I was very much annoyed about this at the time.
Q.Witness, who was then the leader of the National Socialist Party in Austria?
A.There was no National Socialist Party in Austria. You can say who was in charge of the illegal organization if that's what you mean. It was a well known fact, also known to the government, that the leader of the illegal National Socialists was Leopold, Captain Leopold, who in time prior to the prohibition was in charge of the Gau of Austria and who had not emigrated.
Q.Did Leopold belong to your group of moderate men or did he belong to the radical revolutionary group that you described to us before?
A.He definitely did not belong to the circle of moderate men.
Leopold absolutely desired to force the government to accept the old Party democratic system and thus to bring about elections again on party programs whereby he was inclined, if necessary, also to undertake a putsch to bring about his ends and apart from that, he was most suspicious against our work, that is, our work directed to finding a solution to Austria by peaceful means.
Q.Now, to which group was Keppler inclined to belong, your group or that of Leopold?
A.In answer to the questions which we propounded repeatedly to Keppler we had to gather that for his part personally, and as we also had to recognize, on basis of the opinion which prevailed in the Reich at the time, he took the point of view that it was only by evolutionary means that the problem could be solved in Austria. We repeatedly spoke to him at that time and over and over again in connection with these discussions it was said that the Austrian National Socialists had to accept matters as they were because by some means or other after all, the will of the people would once again impose itself on the government and then it would be shown whether the Austrian people continued to be determined to return to its old political program.
Q.Now, what was the relationship between Keppler and Leopold?
A.First of all, there was no relationship at all.
Q.I mean in the course of time?
A.A relationship only came into being when we on our part repeatedly urged Keppler to establish contact with Leopold and to make it clear to him that he wasn't to disturb and obstruct the work that we were carrying on because at that time repeatedly though on a much smaller scale than was the case in 1933, there were still political demonstrations going on and carried out by the illegal movement. I know that then pursuant to the desires that we expressed repeatedly, Keppler on several occasions did speak to Leopold but I also know that before entering into discussions with Leopold he procured for himself a permit, or let me better say, the approval of Schmidt who was then Foreign Minister.
Q.That's Guido Schmidt?
A.Yes, Guido Schmidt.
Q.Did Keppler's influence or his moderate tendency prevail against Leopold or didn't they?
A.No, you can hardly claim that to be the case. I think that his efforts were rather futile, that is, his efforts to bring Leopold to accept our lines of thought because Leopold continued uninterruptedly to disturb our work and also in connection with the operation initiated by Dr. Seyss-Inquart at this time, over and over again the work was obstructed by these disturbances which made themselves most unfavorable felt.
Q.You were speaking of an operation undertaken or initiated by Dr. Seyss-Inquart. What kind of operation was this?
A.I don't know the manner in which this was initiated but I think it must have been early in 1937 that Seyss-Inquart came to be a more prominent figure and mediated between the National Socialist opposition on the one hand and the government on the other. I know that he did so at the explicit request of the then chancellor Schuschnigg.
Q.Now, if I -
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Counsel, I think it is time for recess and we will recess for fifteen minutes.
(Recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:Military Tribunal IV is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Before you start in, Doctor, I'd like to say for the benefit of counsel for Veesenmayer that arrangements have been made to receive the books of Veesenmayer 1:30 before the commissioner in Room 196. It's understood, of course, that the English copies are not ready and that the parties will stipulate before the commissioner the terms under which the exhibits are being received.
DR. SCHUBERT:May I continue, Your Honor?
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:You may continue.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) ANTON REINTHALLER BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q.Witness, you were just talking about the Seyss-Inquardt plan, and if I understood you correctly, that plan and yours ran more or less along the same lines.
A.Yes.
Q.Did you notice anything to indicate that Keppler had powers with reference to the so-called illegal Austrian party -that is the Nazi Party.
A.No, I didn't see that. Nor do I think it's true because otherwise he would have asserted himself against Leopold. But you can't say that he actually did assert himself.
Q.According to what you saw, did Keppler have constant contact with the so-called illegal Austrian Nazi Party?
A.He talked to a number of members of the illegal Nazi party, usually about our wished, but you can't s ay that they were constantly in touch.
Q.Can you, witness, give any examples to show along what lines Keppler, at that time, carried out his task in Austria?
A.I can remember one event very well. At that time it was generally believed that the chanced of agreement between the national opposition and the government were vanishing, and that extensive circles of the national opposition which were reinforced by member of the Social Democrat Party -- Heimwehr, and so on -- were planning a putsch. It was during this time that the men I trusted in my organization told me quite frankly that all efforts were in vain. I asked Keppler at that time to talk to my men and explain to them how things were regarded in the Reich. In the Fall of 1937 I asked men to come to Vienna, and there Keppler, at my request, explained to them what people in Berlin were thinking. And as I have said before, he said quite clearly that the calm development was what was desirable, and that they should try to work in the existing institutions for the evolutionary method.
That was in the fall of 1937. My men obeyed unwillingly, but they did accept them as the basis of their actions. That is a fact I remember.
Q.Prosecution Exhibit 41, in Book 2-A, page 43 in the English book, shows that Leopold intrigued considerably against you, too. Can you give the reasons for that?
A.As I said before, Leopold was against any member of the national opposition negotiating with the Government, because he thought that was a task reserved for him alone. Whenever anybody took any personal liberty he felt great distrust of them, and of me among them.
Q.In August 1937, negotiations took place between Keppler and Leopold. Prosecution Document 42, Exhibit 42, in Book 2-A, on page 28 of the English, shows that these discussions were concerned with the question of your becoming a peasant leader in Austria. Can you comment on that briefly?
A.Repeated conferences took place between Dr. Seyss-Inquart and Chancellor Schuschnigg. I still remember that after one such conference Dr. Seyss-Inquart told me that he and the Chancellor had discussed the possibility of including national men in the government. Among other things, they discussed whether Dr. Fischboeck should be given a place in the economic organization, and I myself and some other peasant leaders were intended to join the official peasant leadership. As I said, I only heard of that subsequently. It was a matter of course that Leopold-whose political views I have already described--could not agree to such a partial solution, and he obstructed it.
Q.Witness, there is a statement in the IMT judgment that after a conference of 5 November 1937, incidents--that is, organized disturbances on the side of the National Socialists-increased rapidly, and that relations between Austria and Germany deteriorated constantly. Did you notice that at this time--that is, from the end of 1937 to the Anschluss--especially many National Socialist incidents took place?
A.That period was undoubtedly comparatively much calmer than, for instance, the year 1933 to 1934. I remember a veterans' meeting in 1937 at Wels, where veterans of the first World War in Hungary and Germany were invited as guests.